Each season, numerous questions come to the Debate Committee and to tournament Compliance Teams about how to handle “new arguments” and delayed responses to “dropped arguments” in rebuttal speeches. People want to know where to find rules about “rebuttal abuse.”
The recurring answer is that we don’t have rules about when or how often debaters must present certain kinds of arguments and evidence within the prescribed speaking times of a round. Instead, we rely on guidance to our judges, and we ask that competitors, coaches, and parents work on graciously encouraging respectful practices. This article is intended to help with that process.
Constructive vs. Rebuttal Speeches
The key to preventing “rebuttal abuse” begins with a clear understanding of the difference between constructive speeches and rebuttal speeches.
Constructive speeches should introduce, build, and support arguments. During these speeches, competitors should reveal and explain the significance of all arguments that support their own position as well as the arguments they have against their opponent’s position. By design, the constructive speeches are each followed by an opportunity for the opposing team to ask clarifying questions during cross examination. By the end of the constructive speeches, all lines of argumentation should be on the table, so to speak.
Rebuttal speeches give competitors the opportunity to clarify and fortify their own ongoing arguments and respond to any or all of the arguments and questions already raised by their opponents. A vital element in preparing for rebuttal speeches is assessing the complete lineup of ongoing arguments in the round and prioritizing how to handle them; therefore, it is unfair and aggravating to suddenly have something new thrown on the table after the rebuttals have started.
What constitutes a new argument?
New ways of expressing key information regarding existing arguments, and even additional evidence that reiterates an existing point can be perfectly fair and reasonable in a rebuttal, especially when the opposing team has asked for further evidence or explanation, but bringing up an entirely new issue is not appropriate.
For example, if a negative team in policy debate has presented three disadvantages to an affirmative plan in the constructive speeches: 1) harm to the environment, 2) unfair advantage to certain stakeholders, and 3) extended wait times for a vital service—it would be unfair to suddenly bring up a fourth disadvantage, such as damaging relations with a key ally, in a rebuttal speech. This principle would be true for either side of the resolution in either style of debate, and it remains true even if the new argument is made in the first of two rebuttal speeches for a side. The practice is considered unfair because opposing speakers cannot ask questions, they have a very limited time to respond, and most will already have planned their time for wrapping up ongoing arguments. The later a new issue is presented the more inappropriate it is.
How can competitors handle issues about the timing of arguments?
When rebuttals begin, it is acceptable to briefly and respectfully remind a judge that new arguments should no longer be introduced in the round and/or tactfully point out after the fact that a line of argumentation was introduced in an untimely manner.
Speakers who feel there are unaddressed or “dropped arguments” are also welcome to point out that bringing up new refutational arguments during the rebuttals would be inappropriate, but they should keep in mind that there is a difference between a dropped argument and one that has simply not been addressed to the satisfaction of the opposing team. Teams are also free to drop arguments that they deem unimportant.
Competitors who choose to point out issues with the timing of arguments in a round should be very careful about tone and insinuation because most instances of possible rebuttal abuse result from lack of experience, misunderstandings, or poor organization rather than from intent to ambush.
Based on hundreds of rounds of judging, I can attest that misunderstandings between teams are quite common in debate rounds. Judges don’t view harsh accusations about dropped arguments favorably when they can see that the issue is really a lack of understanding on the part of the team making the accusation. (Competitors, you don’t want that to be you!) Therefore, we encourage everyone to maintain accountability with utmost kindness and above all—humility.
Lastly, it is important for competitors to demonstrate honesty and humility with the words they use if they choose to point out a late argument to the judge. Debaters should not make it sound like an opponent is breaking a rule because we do not actually have rules about when arguments can be presented within the prescribed speaking times.
Why not just make some rules?
Given the fact that genuine instances of rebuttal abuse do occasionally happen and sometimes work to achieve a win, competitors often wonder why NCFCA doesn’t just make clear and explicit rules against new arguments in rebuttals.
There are two main reasons that we do not address rebuttal abuse in our debate rules. The first is that we believe the best judge of whether the presentation of an argument is appropriate or abusive is the judge of the round. The second major reason that we refrain from writing rules about rebuttal content is that we could not hope to enforce them in a fair or timely manner.
In most rounds, the judges are the only ones who see the entire round aside from the competitors themselves. We trust judges to select rounds they feel they can judge without bias, and our judge training specifically asks them to disregard new lines of argumentation introduced in rebuttals. Therefore, we feel it is best to leave it up to them to recognize rebuttal abuse when they see it, determine the severity of the issue, and handle it judiciously within the context of the entire round.
What can the compliance team do about rebuttal abuse?
Tournament Compliance Teams are tasked with enforcing rules, and there are no formal rules about rebuttal abuse. Without a specific rule violation to investigate, Compliance Teams will not take further action on a complaint. Therefore, the best approach is for all participants to educate themselves and graciously hold one another accountable. This can be accomplished by planning and practicing tactful ways to address questionable timing of arguments in a round. Competitors can also discuss the issue between teams after the round with gentleness and respect, especially when the opponents may simply lack experience or understanding. Additionally, we ask coaches and judges to remain vigilant and hold competitors appropriately accountable on the ballot for fair conduct toward opponents.
With grace and commitment, we can learn to better honor others in the ways we present and respond to arguments both in the practice arena of academic debate and in the real world.
