There is an internal battle going on within the world of Forensics. This battle was less prevalent in the 90’s, but in the year 2009 it is clear that a major bout is being fought between the TOC style of Forensics and the NFL style of Forensics.
The TOC style is modeled after Policy debate. Each debate event utilizes terms like: impacts, overview, topical and harms. First, TOC style fails to acknowledge that Lincoln Douglas debate is about morals and values and not whether an inherent solution to the moral dilemma may exist. The TOC LDer often has a file folder with cards and attempts to out speak his opponent rather than out argue their opponent. Second, TOC style presents a form of Policy debate, which always leads to nuclear war whether you are affirmative or negative. TOC style fails to acknowledge that evidence should have some worth and some reliability. The TOC Policy debater attempts to merely use as many cards as possible with a complete disregard for truth. TOC Public Forum debaters often forget that PuFo was designed for a juror judge. The event was established as a reaction to the speed of the 90’s and the absurdity, which Policy had become. TOC Public Forum debaters treat their rounds as if they are hybrid Policy/LD rounds. Speed is encouraged because the length of speeches is shortened.
I do not inherently dislike the TOC style of debate. I compare it to trampoline gymnastics. It’s interesting to watch, but it’s not the main event, nor something which can be applied to real life. As a practicing attorney and teacher, I can firmly assert that nothing is gained academically from debating TOC style. As a student you may qualify for the TOC tournament and you may win trophies at invitationals, but you will not find the TOC form of communication effective in real life. For this reason I feel TOC debate is a gimmick, which may be fun for coaches and students alike, but has little value beyond the confines of the debate round.
NFL style unfortunately is becoming more like the TOC style, but at NFL Nationals in Las Vegas, the final rounds of all debate events were slower, more articulate and fundamentally more valuable for the student. Policy involved only one spread team, which frankly spoke slower than most TOC LDers. The LD round was a classic, which came down to one judge’s vote. The students’ arguments were about morals and values and not about inherency, topicality or an off case overview. The Public Forum round was the weakest of the three debate events because both teams engaged in a fast paced dialogue, which would go over the head of any layperson, but at least the speakers could be understood. NFL style is classically slower, filled with analysis and less jargon, and typically allows anyone watching the round to formulate an opinion as to who won.
The problem I am having with TOC style vs. NFL style is the elitist nature of the TOC style. I am finding that judges are voting for LDers who make absurd allegations in rounds, but because there was no refutation by the opposition with clear evidence, the judge allows the absurdity to win the day. The judge fails to think for themselves. There is also an emphasis on which school the student is from and what their past record at tournaments has been. I am also seeing 20 and 30 year coaches/judges excluded from rounds in favor of people my age (30 years old) who understand the lingo and are more likely to accept an unacademic form of debate. I also see tab rooms at times keep even people like me out of the round because they assume that I can think for myself and possibly not accept an absurd argument. NFL style often comes down to a good chess match between debaters, while TOC style is most similar to a game of Kirplunk. If you’ve ever played Kirplunk, you will recognize that it is fun, but you have no idea why you win or lose. Whenever I disclose in a TOC round, both kids are utterly shocked with the result, which shows me that they are not even attempting to convince me that their views are substantiated and legitimate. It’s actually funny for me to see the winner smile as if they won the lottery.
Finally, I am discovering that invitationals are becoming inconsistent. If you have a TOC style debater vs. an NFL style debater the round is a complete loss. There is little value for either student or team because they are speaking different languages and the vote will often come down to whether the judge is a TOC judge or not. If they are, the TOC debater will win and if they are not, the NFL debater wins.
I do believe there is a place for TOC debate, but I believe it should be designated at the tournament ahead of time. Merely saying that there are TOC bids available does not delineate that the tournament is a TOC style tournament because tournaments like Harvard and Berkeley have hundreds of debaters, many who have no desire to qualify for the TOC. I propose that the TOC form its own league, just like the CFL has done, so that both styles are allowed to co-exist. I do not look forward to the rounds I have to judge at Berkeley because inevitably I will be watching an NFL debater vs. a TOC debater. I understand both styles, but have no idea why these kids will be debating each other at the same tournament. G-d only knows who will win the round because it’s like watching a Chihuahua fight with a Sphinx cat.
The TOC style is modeled after Policy debate. Each debate event utilizes terms like: impacts, overview, topical and harms. First, TOC style fails to acknowledge that Lincoln Douglas debate is about morals and values and not whether an inherent solution to the moral dilemma may exist. The TOC LDer often has a file folder with cards and attempts to out speak his opponent rather than out argue their opponent. Second, TOC style presents a form of Policy debate, which always leads to nuclear war whether you are affirmative or negative. TOC style fails to acknowledge that evidence should have some worth and some reliability. The TOC Policy debater attempts to merely use as many cards as possible with a complete disregard for truth. TOC Public Forum debaters often forget that PuFo was designed for a juror judge. The event was established as a reaction to the speed of the 90’s and the absurdity, which Policy had become. TOC Public Forum debaters treat their rounds as if they are hybrid Policy/LD rounds. Speed is encouraged because the length of speeches is shortened.
I do not inherently dislike the TOC style of debate. I compare it to trampoline gymnastics. It’s interesting to watch, but it’s not the main event, nor something which can be applied to real life. As a practicing attorney and teacher, I can firmly assert that nothing is gained academically from debating TOC style. As a student you may qualify for the TOC tournament and you may win trophies at invitationals, but you will not find the TOC form of communication effective in real life. For this reason I feel TOC debate is a gimmick, which may be fun for coaches and students alike, but has little value beyond the confines of the debate round.
NFL style unfortunately is becoming more like the TOC style, but at NFL Nationals in Las Vegas, the final rounds of all debate events were slower, more articulate and fundamentally more valuable for the student. Policy involved only one spread team, which frankly spoke slower than most TOC LDers. The LD round was a classic, which came down to one judge’s vote. The students’ arguments were about morals and values and not about inherency, topicality or an off case overview. The Public Forum round was the weakest of the three debate events because both teams engaged in a fast paced dialogue, which would go over the head of any layperson, but at least the speakers could be understood. NFL style is classically slower, filled with analysis and less jargon, and typically allows anyone watching the round to formulate an opinion as to who won.
The problem I am having with TOC style vs. NFL style is the elitist nature of the TOC style. I am finding that judges are voting for LDers who make absurd allegations in rounds, but because there was no refutation by the opposition with clear evidence, the judge allows the absurdity to win the day. The judge fails to think for themselves. There is also an emphasis on which school the student is from and what their past record at tournaments has been. I am also seeing 20 and 30 year coaches/judges excluded from rounds in favor of people my age (30 years old) who understand the lingo and are more likely to accept an unacademic form of debate. I also see tab rooms at times keep even people like me out of the round because they assume that I can think for myself and possibly not accept an absurd argument. NFL style often comes down to a good chess match between debaters, while TOC style is most similar to a game of Kirplunk. If you’ve ever played Kirplunk, you will recognize that it is fun, but you have no idea why you win or lose. Whenever I disclose in a TOC round, both kids are utterly shocked with the result, which shows me that they are not even attempting to convince me that their views are substantiated and legitimate. It’s actually funny for me to see the winner smile as if they won the lottery.
Finally, I am discovering that invitationals are becoming inconsistent. If you have a TOC style debater vs. an NFL style debater the round is a complete loss. There is little value for either student or team because they are speaking different languages and the vote will often come down to whether the judge is a TOC judge or not. If they are, the TOC debater will win and if they are not, the NFL debater wins.
I do believe there is a place for TOC debate, but I believe it should be designated at the tournament ahead of time. Merely saying that there are TOC bids available does not delineate that the tournament is a TOC style tournament because tournaments like Harvard and Berkeley have hundreds of debaters, many who have no desire to qualify for the TOC. I propose that the TOC form its own league, just like the CFL has done, so that both styles are allowed to co-exist. I do not look forward to the rounds I have to judge at Berkeley because inevitably I will be watching an NFL debater vs. a TOC debater. I understand both styles, but have no idea why these kids will be debating each other at the same tournament. G-d only knows who will win the round because it’s like watching a Chihuahua fight with a Sphinx cat.
