By Charis Baker

Resolved: Practical skills should be valued over theoretical knowledge.

This past weekend, I had the blessing of judging 12 LD rounds at one of the first tournaments on the third LD resolution of this season. In the interest of developing the meta and getting the greatest depth of argumentation possible prior to NITOC within a limited timeframe, I'd love to share some thoughts on the resolution and debates so far.

Core Strategies

Across rounds, the interpretation of "value" and what determines human flourishing, morality, dignity, and worth were major points of discussion. In addition to these value frameworks, two main interpretations appeared consistently in rounds.

First, a dominant framing was intrinsic vs. instrumental value. This appeared both on Affirmative and Negative, but I found it generally being most advantageous on side Negative, assuming debaters were able to properly execute and impact the strategy. 

The primary argumentation would be as follows: Negative argues that knowledge has intrinsic value and education framed as the pursuit of truth is valuable, independent of application.

The primary argumentation would be as follows: Negative argues that knowledge has intrinsic value and education framed as the pursuit of truth is valuable, independent of application. However, it is important to note that this is not the only argument for Negative as knowledge can be intrinsically and extrinsically valuable. In turn, side Affirmative would argue that value is tied to application, impact, and outcomes meaning that skills matter because they actually do something and have a tangible impact in the real world. I would expect to see this conflict in nearly every round on this resolution. Being able to execute each strategy here will be key to success on both sides of the resolution.

In comparison to the above strategy being ideal for Negative, the second dominant framing grants more strategy for Affirmative. This conflict appeared between the expression of knowledge (Affirmative) and the foundation of knowledge (Negative). This frequently led to a dissection between practical knowledge and theoretical knowledge. On side Negative, theoretical knowledge is argued to be a foundation for ethical decision making, understanding, and a guide for morality. Alternatively, Affirmative would argue that practical skills focus on execution and actualizing morality (largely relying on Aristotle, although further research into Aristotelian ethics would diminish the significance of this philosophical link), leading to human flourishing. On a ballot, this consistently appears in two ways: if theoretical knowledge is framed as a necessity for morality, Negative gains leverage; if practical skills are framed as what actually produces moral outcomes, especially without significant philosophical refutation from Negative, Affirmative gains leverage.

There are two words that every argument must comeback to: "valued over."

However, you can't just win your interpretation of the resolution. There are two words that every argument must comeback to: "valued over." It is insufficient for a debater to simply prove that their side of the resolution is valuable. They must prove it is more valuable than their opponents. That has a few implications. 1) Debaters must have a clear framework for determining value. Don't just argue that you meet the standard, you have to meet it better than your opponent does. 2) You must respond to your opponent's argumentation. While this is usually a no-brainer in debate, keep in mind that you actually have to respond to their analysis, links, and impacts, not just put a tag on the flow. 3) Impact calculus. Your impacts hardly matter if you can't tell your judge why your impacts are better, more significant, or superior in some other way than your opponents' impacts. You can do this multiple ways. Yes, some are obviously going to be more successful or more relevant than others, but the important thing is that you're comparing and explaining impacts.

Let's address them each.

What best produces human flourishing?

Human flourishing is by far the most common value lens. Even when its not explicitly stated by the debaters, there will usually be some argument pertaining to the overall wellbeing or good of society. Similar to the framework debate, Affirmative has the highest chance of success when they tie practical skills directly back to human flourishing and focus on the tangible impact that skills have on real lives. Skills are necessary for careers, survival, and action. One valuable distinction for Negative to keep in mind here is that while all practical skills may include some type of action, all actions are not automatically characterized as practical skills. The terms are not inherently interchangeable. Returning to human flourishing, side Negative best increases their odds of success when arguing that flourishing depends on moral reasoning and a strong foundation of theoretical knowledge or if they can delink the Affirmatives impact to human flourishing. Often, a "tangible impact" framework will be persuasive, but only if it clearly extended and weighted against opposing argumentation in the round. Judges can't be left to make decisions or impacts for you.

Does theoretical knowledge have value without application?

Unless the Negative gets trapped into the Affirmative framework of practicality (which no strong Negative should allow themselves to do!), this will be the most decisive philosophical clash. Affirmative must argue that that value needs to be realized and expressed or acted upon and that dormant knowledge does not carry meaningful value. They must be prepared to attack the Negative argumentation surrounding intrinsic value. Alternatively, Negative has the most success when defending knowledge for its own sake and education as an intrinsic good because it is the shaping and development of the whole person. In order to sustain this framework, Negative must attach the presupposition that value is determined by usefulness. But if they can do so, they will have unlocked one of the most successful Negative strategies.

What best guides moral decision-making?

Especially with values or criteria like virtue, numerous rounds are likely to come down to this question. Here Negative focuses on the argument that ethical reasoning and moral understanding are a foundation and prerequisite for moral decision-making. Wisdom and ethical decisions cannot happen on accident, one must be aware of the decisions they are making and the moral valence behind them in order to act morally. At the very least Negative needs to argue that ethical reasoning leads to better decisions. On the flip side, Affirmative should focus on the link that practical skills enable individuals to act morally or prevents them from being culpable for immoral inaction. How this plays out in round: If Affirmative proves practical skills are necessary to enact morality, they win the impact. If Negative proves theoretical knowledge is necessary for morality, they win the framework.

Most coaches can tell you how to improve your debating, argumentation, or presentation. But what about what not to do? There are a few recurring strategic mistakes that have been common thus far. My hope is that they disappear by NITOC. But in order for that to happen, you have to be aware of them, how to attack them, and how to prevent them.

#1 Not Capitalizing on Concessions 

Ask strategic cross-ex questions, but don't just leave them in cross-ex, hoping that your judge will understand why it matters what your opponent says. You need to ask the questions and then be prepared to deploy important answers in your next speech. It doesn't do you nearly as much good to trap your opponent in cross-ex if you just let them wiggle out in rebuttals. If you get a concession from Negative like "theoretical knowledge has no value without application," you must be prepared to exploit that in rebuttals. Maybe your judge will catch it, maybe they won't. But if it becomes a voting issue or observation point, the odds of it showing up on your ballot significantly increase. Don't leave round winning material unused.

#2 Weak Voting Issues

Two things here. Don't just repeat your contentions, but don't make every argument a voting issue. Voting issues should be condensed and clearly identified as arguments that win you the round if the judge buys your argumentation, and possibly lose you the round if the judge doesn't. Either way, they should be the biggest issues of the round and you need to explain why you win them. The second every issue becomes a voting issue is the second that you have no voting issues. If every argument is the most important argument, suddenly no argument is the most important. Use subpoints, use impacts, but don't waste 30 seconds on why practical skills are more valuable because they make you better at party tricks (no, no one argued this that I'm aware of, but you get the point. And if you did argue this, respectfully, please stop. For your own good.) Stay focused on your value and the theme of your case, but don't get repetitive.

#3 Underdeveloped Philosophical Grounding

Your case shouldn't be built around your applications and examples. Examples are great for connecting with your judge, but they shouldn't be the root of your argumentation. The best cases, both Affirmative and Negative, will have a strong philosophical foundation that shapes their thesis and argumentation. This will help explain the why behind your argumentation and give you a deeper potential for impact calculus. On Negative, as mentioned previously, it's important to make sure that you don't get caught up in the Affirmative narrative of practicality. Your Negative constructive should not be focused around innovation, development, or even medical advances. (I kid you not, the most popular application so far, really on both sides. I have never heard so much about medical development. At least not since biomedical engineering year.) Go beyond the practical impacts and force your opponent to refute the philosophical value of theoretical knowledge! Of course, refute the practicality arguments, but you'll have much more success if you can create a holistic impact for theoretical knowledge rather than just a tangible one. If Negative lets the debate collapse into an application-centric fact debate about tangible outcomes, they will lose almost every time.

#4 Not Answering Intrinsic Value

This is possibly the biggest danger on Affirmative. When Negative runs "knowledge should be valued for its own sake," side Affirmative runs the potential of either ignoring it, or probably more likely, insufficiently refuting it. If there is one thing that Affirmative has to do (beyond presenting a prima facie case), it's being prepared to deal with intrinsic value. You have to. Unless, of course, the Negative fails to bring it up, which should not be happening. You have strategic ground, don't be afraid to use it! Plus, it is a huge learning opportunity if you haven't argued much about intrinsic value or philosophy before. Where the Affirmative needs to be prepared to answer intrinsic value, the Negative must be prepared to extend their case on intrinsic value clearly.

#5 Lack of Comparison 

This is more of a hazard for Negative than it is for Affirmative, largely because practical impacts are easier to make than theoretical philosophical ones, but Negative needs to do so nonetheless. And once you've discovered how to do so effectively, it'll be a gamechanger for you! Think: Why does intrinsic value outweigh practical outcomes?

So what are the high-level themes across rounds?

Theme 1: Your interpretation of "valued" must be defined and defended.

What counts as value? Intrinsic value? Instrumental? Moral? Practical? Decide, clarify, defend. The side that controls their interpretation will usually win.

Theme 2: Impact calculus matters more than breadth

Having deeper arguments will always be academically superior to spreading a high quantity of low quality arguments. To suffice my personal debate preference, yes, you can run a high quantity of high quality arguments, but do not, I repeat, do not let the quality of your arguments diminish because you chose to run too many of them. Practice advanced time management, but if you're not confident in this area yet, focus on your 3-4 winning arguments. At the end of the day, strategic collapsing demonstrates higher skill than spreading the flow. Don't be afraid to condense into fewer, stronger issues.

Theme 3: Philosophy and application is the winning combo

The best debaters will figure out how to win the philosophical grounding and the real-world application. Just because something is philosophical doesn't mean that it's not real-world. Every idea has impacts and implications. The good ones and the bad ones. Both pure philosophy and pure practicality leave you open to attack. Consider how you can win them both.

Theme 4: Link clarity is critical

In order to vote for you, your judge has to be able to follow your argumentation. Clarity is key. Connect ideas in a way that is accessible and easy to track. Use subpoints. Explain your reasoning. Build clear link chains that support your argumentation. An Affirmative example might be: Practical skills enable action, actions need needs, meeting needs improves human flourishing. On Negative, theoretical knowledge lays a foundation for moral reasoning which produces higher quality decisions which in turn leads to higher degrees of human flourishing. Spell it out clearly. 1, 2, 3. You want your judge to be able to write your link chain as their RFD.

Theme 5: Dropped arguments are decisive

No, I'm not talking about your opponent leaving your definition unresponded to because they agree with it. I'm talking about the big framework concessions or impacts that your opponent capitalized on that you failed to address. There are two sides to this. First, don't drop important arguments. How? Flow clearly, allocate time wisely, and be prepared to respond. If you feel weak in those areas, practice flowing so you don't drop an argument because you didn't write it down. If you consistently run out of time, practice time management. Regive rebuttals with decreased time. Do practice rounds and immerse yourself in the resolution and the process of refutation. But second, be prepared to capitalize on arguments your opponent drops. Have one to two sentences ready to go on any topic that explain why it matters that your opponent failed to respond to your case.

Give your judge a clear structure to value arguments through. The easiest rounds to evaluate are ones that have a clear value structure and philosophical consistency. Then be ready to impact back to that structure. And don't forget impact calculus. The last thing you want is for your judge to have to make their own inference about what arguments are most important back in the judges lounge. They don't enjoy it and you probably won't enjoy it nearly as much as if you had made a clear comparison between your and your opponents' arguments in the round. Consistently explain: which is more valuable? Finally, stay organized, respond clearly, and maintain a strategic focus. Clarity is superior to complexity.

Often, your rounds will come down to one main question: Is value something inherent in knowledge itself, or something realized through action upon practical skills? On Negative be ready to defend the intrinsic value of knowledge and its impact to morality. On Affirmative consistently be prepared to prove that value is realized through impact and skills are what make that impact happen. At the end of the day, the best debates will always have clarity, refutation, and deep impacts.