Best Justifications?

Can someone explain what the "best justifications" philosophy to LD is? How does it differ from comparing worlds/truth testing? Why should we prefer it over the others?

JohnnyFontane wrote:Can someone explain what the "best justifications" philosophy to LD is? How does it differ from comparing worlds/truth testing? Why should we prefer it over the others?

http://victorybriefsdaily.com/2008/04/15/truth-comparison-and-justification-in-ld-debate/
I'm no expert on it (I haven't read the article in a while), but I think it's more closely related to truth testing than anything.

As far as I know, its an attempt to solve the supposed theoretical problems with truth testing comparatvists have with.

As far as I know, theoretical problems should be solved with theory. There is nothing inherently theoretically illegitimate about the offense/defense model, people just dont apply it correctly. The model proposed by this article is extremely vague and not nearly comprehensive enough. The only way to really address the 'problems' we are seeing in LD debates is by:
1. moving away from the value/criterion to something more like the offense/defense paradigm
2. changing the resolution so it reflects that model

This doesnt mean we have to use tubs. NFA has developed a very successful form of college LD debate, which our community could learn from. If we want more substance, better evidence, less theory, and more aff ballots, drastic changes need to be made.

How exactly has NFA solved these problems with its structure? I am not very familiar with that style of debate, but how are the resolutions drastically different than ours?

NFA LD is extremely simple. It is a persuasive one person-style traditional policy debate (i.e., a debate centered around stock issues). It has the exact same speech times as high school LD with different rules. The resolutions are framed similar to policy, for example last years topic was: "Resolved: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase its constructive engagement with Cuba."

This video was done on a topic a few years ago about the greater horn of Africa, its interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rU974fZQ_h4

The model clearly has its benefits and flaws. One thing that I like about NFA LD is that the rules are very simple and easily accessable to the community. What is problematic, though, is that NFA literally has a rule that says you arent allowed to talk too fast, lest you get voted down, even if you 'technically' win the debate. There are also some biases to certain types of kritik literature- I am not a fan of this. Indeed, Im not saying we should use their precise model of debate, rather that we should develop something similar to it. Or, rather, at least consider it the next time someone tries to come up with the next best way to judge an LD debate.

Here is a link to the rules for NFA LD if anyone is interested, http://cas.bethel.edu/dept/comm/nfa/ldrules.html

The rule stuff is interesting. I mean, even in that video you posted, they are both talking pretty briskly. Not policy debate, but it is faster than a "traditional LD debate," right? How do they interpret rules like "speed is banned"?

You're right they are talking briskly. Compared to most policy rounds at the NDT, however, this is quite slow. But you're right, it seems impossible to really enforce that rule. And as far as I know, the way it works is that all judges are encouraged to drop a debater for spreading; if they dont vote accordingly, they get reported to the tournament director and pulled from the tournament. Once again, though, this is a bad rule. Speed increases critical thinking and education, it is very important for the activity.