Dealing With Incoherent Positions
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Intro
a. We’ve all been there. As you struggle to flow every key point being made, it
suddenly hits you: you have no idea what your opponent is talking about. Or,
worse yet, it seems that nothing your opponent is saying is making sense at all.
What happens next? This module will provide students with a field-tested
“survival guide” to dealing with confusing positions. While there is always room
for innovation in the activity, many “progressive” positions are argumentatively
bankrupt, and this lecture will show how to confront and exploit this bankruptcy
in the round. Foundational logic, psychological command of the round, and a
basic understanding of the flawed ways in which many people run “progressive”
arguments can help one to defeat even the most intimidating-sounding of
positions. This lecture will give you those tools.
Why do people run incoherent positions?
a. Oftentimes, competitors run incoherent positions because they feel it is easier to
win a round by confusing an opponent instead of arguing against substantive
issues
b. It is to demonstrate a “superior” knowledge of abstract or difficult patterns of
thinking or philosophy
c. To gain a reputation as a free thinking or “radical” debater
Why do judges vote for nonsense?
a. Some judges feel pressured to vote for arguments they do not understand because
they do not want to appear ignorant.
b. Some judges feel pressured to vote for nonsensical arguments because they seem
“cool”, “edgy”, or “different”
c. Some judges may not even pay attention to the substantive issues, but may vote
solely on how the debater presents his or herself. If the debater seems to know
what he or she is talking about and keeps a cool head under fire in CX/ rebuttals,
judges may side with their side.
General Psychological Strategy for attacking arguments under fire
a. You have the advantage, the person running the position is the one who has to
communicate her analysis to the judge, so she has the uphill battle. State thing
simply. To further contrast against “nonsense”, couch refutation in simply
analytics and real-world terms and examples. This approach is generally the most
persuasive since it tends to emphasize the absurdity of the position you are
debating.
V.
i. If a round is messy for the debaters, it is messy for the judge too. Cleaning
up the round is the only way to give the judge the ability to make a
coherent decision
ii. Cleaning up puts you in control of the round You appear to have a better
understanding of the flow – perceptual dominance *You get to dictate the
order of operations. If the round is a mess, it's because your opponent
didn't say what matters most – they just gave you the opportunity to do so.
Judges appreciate when debaters clean up the round. It means that they
have less “work” to do.
b. The ideal execution of this would be in cross examination, when your opponent
explains some obtuse and wordy concept, and you say “so you mean x”, where x
is very short and simple. This really makes the nonsense look silly, as if a lack of
sophistication in argument were being dressed up by obtuse rhetoric
i. Also adds a psychological benefit to your side: you are perceived as
someone that can not only understand these arguments but also as
someone who isn’t afraid of them. Judges and fellow debaters can smell
fear and will use this to their advantage when running a confusing
position. Appearing calm and collective will throw their terrorist
strategy off.
c. When you know the judges to be sympathetic, and if there is a crowd, you can
maintain a sort of aloofness and mild irritation at the nonsense, maybe make some
jokes, get the crowd laughing, and psychologically, you’ve got exactly what you
want, nonsense being laughed at. This can really help your judges get over
whatever social pressures convince people to vote for arguments that they don’t
really understand. Remember to be tactful.
i. Always remind your judge that if she doesn’t understand the argument,
she shouldn’t vote for it. Do not hesitate in reminding your judge that
debate is a communicative activity, and if the argument was not coherently
voted upon, it shouldn’t be considered. Filling in gaps or inventing
meaning for arguments may well be the worst form of intervention.
Rethink the flow. With confusing incoherent positions, it is often more
helpful to conceptualize the basic crux of the arguments rather than its
minutia. Thus, it may be more helpful to focus and listen, rather than
trying to get down card-by-card analysis.
General Rebuttal Strategy for Handling Incoherent Positions
a. Keep a very neat and organized flow during their speech The easiest way to make
a messy round messier is to not know – physically or in relation to other things
on the flow – where arguments are. In light of this, make sure that you get every
single part of the case that is flowed. Many rounds are messy because one debater
VI.
doesn't provide enough structure, so make sure that you have the correct ORDER
of the arguments.
i. Flow in three different colors, one for you, one for your opponent, and one
to denote particularly important arguments
b. Start with the standards
i. Hammer the standards debate. Do not forget the standards debate.
Frequently, nonsensical positions have convoluted standards (resisting
discursive hegemony), that are nearly impossible to quantify and often
vastly insufficient to gauge the value or resolution.
ii. Always look for links to the standard? Often times, inexperienced
debaters that make the weirdest arguments may make arguments that don’t
link back to a standard. (Ex: uses a moral impact while their standard is
utilitarianism or using consequentiality impact while their standard is
morality.
c. Contention level or underneath the standard level
i. Outweigh harms. If the position is advocating some kind of ‘mindset shift’
(or a change in the way people think), then, implicitly, it requires
ideological cleansing and brainwashing to solve, which is almost always a
greater harm than what the position itself articulates.
ii. Group their arguments by “theme” – identify arguments across the flow
that seem to have a connection (they all indict the same thing, they all
operate under the same assumption, etc)
iii. Weighing is very important. You may not be able to answer every single
argument if it is a huge mess. If you can win the biggest impact in the
round, it is very easy to make all of their small annoying arguments go
away.
iv. Cleaning up is all about seeing the bigger picture.
v. You need to provide constant “weather updates” – talk to your judge about
the function of the arguments. Explain why the arguments matter in the
context of their decision. This makes you look like you're in control of the
round and tells the judge what is going on.
vi. Evidence comparison is key. If your opponent is making a ton of different
claims, they cannot all be well-warranted. Identify flaws in their evidence
– it is old and no longer applicable, it lacks an internal warrant, etc – and
explain why yours is preferable.
Being a good debater is all about psychologically KNOWING YOU WILL WIN
a. In the face of nonsense, stand tall, knowing that your opponent just made a
huuuuge mistake.