Philosophy in Public Forum Debate

There are many things that a debater can do to change the course of a round in their favor. Providing analysis can be the easiest way to do this but unfortunately, debaters have a tendency to rely on arguments with numbers behind them, and will sacrifice solid analytical argumentation for a simple figure. This is an ever-growing problem in the community that limits the quality of argumentation to the black and white world of statistics rather than the colorful world of critical thinking. Some stigmas exist for a reason but in debate, restricting yourself because of a stigma will be the difference between being good and being great. Breaking this stigma is easy; all that debaters need to do is start thinking about why the statistic matters, not just that it exists. I’d like to talk about two different types of argumentation that I believe can be truly compelling in rounds and can bridge this gap between statistics, warrants, and analysis: philosophy and meta-debate.
When Public Forum debaters hear the word 'philosophy,' they tend to get chills down their spine as a reaction to something they are either scared of or don’t believe in utilizing. Philosophy, though, is not as complex as most people think; all that it requires is some critical thinking to connect one thought to another. The full thought-process begs the question 'why' rather that 'what.' For example, think of the Social Contract, the most commonly used and one of the easiest philosophic arguments. This rational idea, pioneered by Thomas Hobbes and fully explained by Jean-Jaques Rousseau, postulates that the reason that people choose to leave a state of chaos and allow their actions to be regulated by a government is for protection of themselves and their property. While this is an abridged version of the theory, the idea is simple and easily applicable to a variety of arguments; it is up to the debater to make a minor logical step to link this thought to an assertion. Why should the United States take action against a country that has nuclear weapons? – Because nuclear weapons threaten the safety of U.S. citizens and it is the government’s responsibility to protect its citizens. Why does the government have an obligation to protect its citizens? – Because the citizens have sacrificed total freedom in exchange for protection. While my example may be overly simplified, it took just two questions to construct and support the assertion that the U.S. government should take action to protect its citizens because of the Social Contract. The difference between a statistics-based argument and this type of argument is analyzing not what the cause and effect are but why the cause led to the effect.
The two main philosophical theories that are applicable to most resolutions are utilitarianism and deontology. These two allow the thinker to modify the cost-benefit comparison, which is vital to proving or disproving most debate topics. Utilitarianism is the idea that an action is just if it maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering; if the ends justify the means, the action is permissible. Deontology, on the other hand, is the idea that actions must follow accepted rules and norms; the means to an end cannot be justified if the means break the law. Utilizing these two theories is the challenge, though it is not a difficult one. In recent years, more debaters have been including 'observations' or 'frameworks' in their cases without even realizing that these modifications almost always boil down to either utilitarianism or deontology. I believe that the addition of these 'observations' has contributed to an improvement in argumentation but they approach the key concepts of philosophy implicitly rather than explicitly. Addressing philosophical modifications explicitly is what will take the aggregate quality of arguments to the next level.
The use of explicit modifications to the round itself is referred to as 'meta-debate.' Meta-debate arguments are those that ask why certain perspectives or arguments should or should not be used to evaluate arguments. Most of these arguments deal with the educational value, fairness, or quality of debate of certain framework mechanisms and why they should be used over others. The only way that the educational goal of the Speech and Debate activity can be upheld is to ensure that the debate environment is optimally fair to all participants; it is when this is not achieved that meta-debate comes into play. Theory in Lincoln-Douglas debate is the prime example of using meta-debate as a tool, but it is not the only way to address these concepts. In Public Forum debate, students are generally hesitant about referring to anything but the resolution itself in their argumentation when they really could address the reasons why argumentation is valid to upholding the goal of the activity. For example, a common argument in Public Forum is that real evidence of a past situation should always take priority over theoretical situations. This, though, is not the best or most efficient way of examining a topic. Therefore, a debater can argue that their opponents’ claim that the tangible trumps the hypothetical is unreasonable because it limits the analysis of possibilities to what has already happened rather than what might happen in the future. These type of arguments are appealing to lay judges, who might have children competing in the tournament, because they want the debate activity to be the most educational experience for all students competing. These types of arguments also appeal to coaches and flow judges because they are strong logical arguments that are treated as regular arguments on the flow but that shape how the rest of the round is evaluated. Meta-debate arguments can be a powerful tool to expand the base of potential arguments and tip the debate in your favor.
Philosophy is severely underutilized in debate, which is why the Champion Briefs staff decided to focus on philosophical perspectives in the October Public Forum Brief. We believe that providing an in-depth analysis of the topic based on different moral and logical approaches will provide readers with a better understanding of not only the topic, but also the debate event itself. Regardless of your interest in our October Brief, I hope that you will take the initiative to learn how to debate on a deeper level. I know that doing so will help you win more rounds and will improve the quality of debate across the board.