This type of debate, called Public Forum, was created as part of a brand synergy exercise by CNN to promote its show Crossfire. In fact, while Public Forum was being trialed by the NFL (National Forensics League, not the other one) it went under the code name name TedTurner Debate and was then called Crossfire for the first official year or two. Its structure is loosely based on the structure of the CNN show.
At that time the majority of debates took place under a style called Policy with about 1/3rd under the Lincoln-Douglas event and very small percentages under some other events like Extemporaneous speaking. The problem with Policy was that it became very enamored with the idea that each and every argument made by each side (Affirmative and Negative sides debating a particular policy resolution) had to be fully addressed and rebutted by the opposition. No matter how inconsequential, if an argument was simply ignored in one round then a judge might consider it a winning argument.
Somewhere along the line someone realized that if they talked faster it would be harder for their opponents to adequately respond to every argument and they would often win. This was called “spreading” because you were basically spreading all your index cards of data and quotations out making it impossible to cover. By the time I came along, one of the principal activities we’d practice at debate practice was speed reading. We would put marbles in our mouths and try to read out loud as fast as possible.
Naturally this took away from time doing research and developing the evidence needed to support our positions. Our coaches would instead order gigantic packets of various arguments, data, and quotations from collegiate debate leagues. A popular one I remember was from the University of Michigan. So, you’d show up to a debate, pull out some index card you’d prepared by cutting out a section from one of these huge debate sets and pasting it to the card, and then speed read as many of these cards as possible for the entire debate. You only needed to know enough about what was on the card to know which argument your were deploying it in response to or which argument chain you were trying to build as the round went on. And again you’re speed reading it in the hopes that the other side doesn’t comprehend or can’t read as fast in response.
As time went on, spreading became both a necessary and hated practice because everyone involved realized that winning in this way removed most of the benefits of debate Arnold mentions here. Winning was about tactics and not about the content or merit of arguments and evidence. When CNN rolls up with Crossfire it seemed like a way out of this mess.
What worries me is the part where Arnold mentions that every single con team took the same position. I worry that this is not because over the year they’ve tested many arguments and picked the most effective. I worry that they are, instead, purchasing content and merely regurgitating it. I don’t know if that is the case here but winning is often seen as more important than learning.
Perhaps an AI judge would be an improvement? If human judges are predictable and all love the wind power argument, then maybe AI offers a way to incentivize a wider variety of arguments.
Lincoln-Douglas is much more rigorous. When I did it in high school, I found that my other teammates were more serious debaters than those doing Public Forum. The biggest downside to LD is that you are always debating alone, which puts much more pressure on you and makes you feel a bit lonely. When I went to high school overseas for my junior and senior years, I did British-style parliamentary debate that is common in international schools, and I found that to be a good compromise between the rigor of LD and the comradery of PF.
I had the understanding that debate had devolved into something like what you state so I was surprised by AK's post. Thanks for the detailed explanation.
This was my experience and it turned me off to debate.
I think inconsistency in debate scoring is necessary to keep teams from min/maxing the game. A judge ought to be able to look at these tactics and decide it’s insane.
Indeed, and it's not limited to debating. But that can't be formalized as a list of rules and requires actual judgment from judges. Then it is too easy to suspect judges of partiality, or to accuse them of it as a tactic. I gather that sports get around the problem by concentrating judgment in top-level decision-making bodies laying down strict rules for lower tier judges to follow. These top-level bodies are representative, and of course subject to all the usual politicking, but they are able to (not that they always do!) solve the paired problem of preserving the possibility of impartiality for lower tier judges who judge individual contests and of keeping the sport from getting too far off the track. Steve Sailer has given multiple examples of insanity-suppressing rule changes in baseball and basketball, but not being a fan of either I forget what they were exactly.
Public Forum was trialed toward the end of my high school debate career. I did Policy first and then spent more time with Congress & Extemp. The smartest people were probably doing Policy or LD at the time. LD was starting to get some spreading behavior, but no comparison to Policy.
Anyway, there has been some criticism recently about high school debate being taken over by woke-ism. That's probably more true for Policy or LD than something like Public Forum, so I doubt Arnold saw much of it. A high level Policy debate is simply incomprehensible to the layperson.
A 2007 documentary contrasting wealthy kids on an elite high school debate team and inner city kids trying to break into the upper echelons. Much of the latter half centers on their development of a hip-hop or solemn word version of debating arguing it’s just as valid as spreading plus a critique, (K) if we’re using policy debate lingo, of spreading. You can see how the “critical turn” is taking place even back then.
The other is a post by one of Matt Yglesias’ interns about the role of critical theory in high school debate.
Did none of the "con" side arguments include "Government getting involved will ruin the process; they shouldn't invest more but should focus on getting out of the way via abolishing regulations." That would have been my tack, mostly because I believe it is true, but also because tactically it accepts almost all of the pro side arguments (nuclear is good, obviously) and instead focuses on why government shouldn't be the one doing it, which, sadly, is probably not what opponents would expect.
Why not try to get our politicians to do this (except the coin flip of pro and con)? Just publicizing the conditions they refused to accept woud be useful.
I’d like to live in a world where politicians debated like this. Perhaps the best way to make that happen is by making rigorous debate among the masses commonplace, starting with children, one class at a time. Actually starting with ourselves one debate at a time.
Several years ago I was recruited as a judge for the local Regeneron science fair (https://www.societyforscience.org/isef/). I myself competed in what was then the Westinghouse science fair, eons ago, when I was in high school. But these kids, and the projects they were doing, were light years ahead of anything I could have done back then.
Worried about the future of the US? Attend a science fair, you’ll be amazed.
If any readers have any experience or skill in debate, look up your state debate circuit. Volunteer judges are desperately needed.
I am currently a volunteer judge for the NH Debate League, where Public Forum style is used. In high school I did the Policy style, and did some volunteer judging of Policy debate when I was in college.
"how you do a generic cost-benefit calculation of investing in nuclear power, which is rather much to expect from a high school student."
Oops. I agree that neither the pro or con side should knw how to "do" cost benefit analysis, but surely that is the point of the question. Is the NPV of investing in nuclear power (including the external benefit of reduces harm from CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere) >0. Does each side understand and is able to articulate all the costs and benefits.
I really enjoyed this post. I liked Arnold’s list of places where debate training would make things better. I also surmised from the list that Arnold must have a great marriage because he didn’t list a requitrement fro suc training for a marriage license. I liked his suggestion for training an AI to judge the debate.
I think an AI could add something to a debaters skill by helping the debater understand the question proposed for the debate. After reading Arnold’s summary of the debates he witnessed and the various comments here, I think the debaters and the commenters addressed the wrong question. All of the commenters and debaters that discussed the benefits and or negatives of nuclear power missed the point. One has to keep in mind that the question “Should the US government invest in Nuclear Power?” causes a debate to arise only if the debater have to persuade the observers of the debate. Arguing the facts of nuclear power does not persuade. It may change some minds because people hear new information but unless the debaters provide all of the facts, no proof occurs. If the facts demonstrate with certainty that nuclear power is “bad” no debate exists because no one let alone the government would invest in nuclear power. If all of the facts demonstrated with certainty that nuclear power was “good” the question of appropriateness of government investment would still exist. So, arguing about nuclear power itself can only provide a conclusive case for the “con” side if no uncertainty remains about the usefulness of nuclear power.
Had I been judging the debate, I would have given a score of 0 to any participant that brought up arguments about ONLY nuclear power itself. This would include the “con” arguments of alternatives such a wind and the arguments about better designs on the “pro” side.
When I'm feeling bad, I think, "Yuck, the debaters just assumed that if something is good, governments should promote it, and if something is bad, governments should stifle it."
When I'm feeling good, I think, "The debaters knew that the people organizing the debate wanted it to be only about whether nuclear power is good or not, so that's what they kept to."
Debates teach valuable skills like public speaking and critical thinking, but they often prioritize winning over discovering truth. Participants focus on crafting better arguments or rationalizing their losses, rather than reflecting on the validity of their ideas. This dynamic risks promoting persuasion for its own sake rather than fostering genuine understanding. By contrast, a Socratic dialogue emphasizes collaborative inquiry, questioning assumptions, and exploring ideas together. It encourages participants to embrace intellectual humility and focus on truth-seeking, offering a deeper, more meaningful learning experience.
While debates expose participants to multiple perspectives, their competitive nature can reduce arguments to tactics and strategy. This creates a risk of training students to become adept at persuasion without a strong connection to substance or ethics. Incorporating elements of Socratic dialogue into debates, such as collaborative reflections after the debate, could shift the focus from winning to understanding. This approach would help balance the development of rhetorical skills with a true commitment to exploring and uncovering deeper truths.
My son just came back from 4 months of nuclear engineering study in S. Korea, which recently completed building a nuke reactor in Dubai. In 5 years of construction. Kenya & Czechia are now both interested in a new nuke; Slovakia gets a lot of power from its one big nuclear reactor, of 4 different blocks. We need more Nukes, which should cost less with govt reg approval reform.
Arnold should write to Elon Musk to get a Grok debate grader aiBot.
It seems like nuke plant designs could be standardized and greatly reduce construction cost, regulatory hurdles, and time from design to completion. I'm curious why nobody has done this.
The IAEA requires extensive documentation for each reactor, which takes years. Tech always improves but incorporating newer tech is a new design.
S. Korea has 28 nukes, mostly standardized with limited changes from the prior. All existing reactors are subject to occasional upgrades.
A big part of the Small Modular Reactors now being promoted is the hope/expectation of far more standardization and faster regulatory approval. The world will be better with more power generation.
I was a member of my high school debate team. My partner and I went on to compete and win at the state level for our high school classification. The experience redirected my life, all for the good, thanks to Ms. Dingwall, the young teacher who suggested I give speech and debate a try after a football injury ended my budding "jock" career.
The idiotic process called "debate" in political elections, as conducted by media, is profoundly absurd. Bravo, Arnold, for writing this article. May it be seen by thousands.
This type of debate, called Public Forum, was created as part of a brand synergy exercise by CNN to promote its show Crossfire. In fact, while Public Forum was being trialed by the NFL (National Forensics League, not the other one) it went under the code name name TedTurner Debate and was then called Crossfire for the first official year or two. Its structure is loosely based on the structure of the CNN show.
At that time the majority of debates took place under a style called Policy with about 1/3rd under the Lincoln-Douglas event and very small percentages under some other events like Extemporaneous speaking. The problem with Policy was that it became very enamored with the idea that each and every argument made by each side (Affirmative and Negative sides debating a particular policy resolution) had to be fully addressed and rebutted by the opposition. No matter how inconsequential, if an argument was simply ignored in one round then a judge might consider it a winning argument.
Somewhere along the line someone realized that if they talked faster it would be harder for their opponents to adequately respond to every argument and they would often win. This was called “spreading” because you were basically spreading all your index cards of data and quotations out making it impossible to cover. By the time I came along, one of the principal activities we’d practice at debate practice was speed reading. We would put marbles in our mouths and try to read out loud as fast as possible.
Naturally this took away from time doing research and developing the evidence needed to support our positions. Our coaches would instead order gigantic packets of various arguments, data, and quotations from collegiate debate leagues. A popular one I remember was from the University of Michigan. So, you’d show up to a debate, pull out some index card you’d prepared by cutting out a section from one of these huge debate sets and pasting it to the card, and then speed read as many of these cards as possible for the entire debate. You only needed to know enough about what was on the card to know which argument your were deploying it in response to or which argument chain you were trying to build as the round went on. And again you’re speed reading it in the hopes that the other side doesn’t comprehend or can’t read as fast in response.
As time went on, spreading became both a necessary and hated practice because everyone involved realized that winning in this way removed most of the benefits of debate Arnold mentions here. Winning was about tactics and not about the content or merit of arguments and evidence. When CNN rolls up with Crossfire it seemed like a way out of this mess.
What worries me is the part where Arnold mentions that every single con team took the same position. I worry that this is not because over the year they’ve tested many arguments and picked the most effective. I worry that they are, instead, purchasing content and merely regurgitating it. I don’t know if that is the case here but winning is often seen as more important than learning.
Perhaps an AI judge would be an improvement? If human judges are predictable and all love the wind power argument, then maybe AI offers a way to incentivize a wider variety of arguments.
Lincoln-Douglas is much more rigorous. When I did it in high school, I found that my other teammates were more serious debaters than those doing Public Forum. The biggest downside to LD is that you are always debating alone, which puts much more pressure on you and makes you feel a bit lonely. When I went to high school overseas for my junior and senior years, I did British-style parliamentary debate that is common in international schools, and I found that to be a good compromise between the rigor of LD and the comradery of PF.
The kids who did LD in my program mostly went to better colleges than the policy kids.
I had the understanding that debate had devolved into something like what you state so I was surprised by AK's post. Thanks for the detailed explanation.
This was my experience and it turned me off to debate.
I think inconsistency in debate scoring is necessary to keep teams from min/maxing the game. A judge ought to be able to look at these tactics and decide it’s insane.
Indeed, and it's not limited to debating. But that can't be formalized as a list of rules and requires actual judgment from judges. Then it is too easy to suspect judges of partiality, or to accuse them of it as a tactic. I gather that sports get around the problem by concentrating judgment in top-level decision-making bodies laying down strict rules for lower tier judges to follow. These top-level bodies are representative, and of course subject to all the usual politicking, but they are able to (not that they always do!) solve the paired problem of preserving the possibility of impartiality for lower tier judges who judge individual contests and of keeping the sport from getting too far off the track. Steve Sailer has given multiple examples of insanity-suppressing rule changes in baseball and basketball, but not being a fan of either I forget what they were exactly.
Public Forum was trialed toward the end of my high school debate career. I did Policy first and then spent more time with Congress & Extemp. The smartest people were probably doing Policy or LD at the time. LD was starting to get some spreading behavior, but no comparison to Policy.
Anyway, there has been some criticism recently about high school debate being taken over by woke-ism. That's probably more true for Policy or LD than something like Public Forum, so I doubt Arnold saw much of it. A high level Policy debate is simply incomprehensible to the layperson.
A pair of relevant links:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolved_(film)
A 2007 documentary contrasting wealthy kids on an elite high school debate team and inner city kids trying to break into the upper echelons. Much of the latter half centers on their development of a hip-hop or solemn word version of debating arguing it’s just as valid as spreading plus a critique, (K) if we’re using policy debate lingo, of spreading. You can see how the “critical turn” is taking place even back then.
The other is a post by one of Matt Yglesias’ interns about the role of critical theory in high school debate.
https://www.slowboring.com/p/how-critical-theory-is-radicalizing
John may be aware of both already but others may find them interesting.
Did none of the "con" side arguments include "Government getting involved will ruin the process; they shouldn't invest more but should focus on getting out of the way via abolishing regulations." That would have been my tack, mostly because I believe it is true, but also because tactically it accepts almost all of the pro side arguments (nuclear is good, obviously) and instead focuses on why government shouldn't be the one doing it, which, sadly, is probably not what opponents would expect.
Why don’t we see debates like this on Substack? Who will start the first Substack dedicated to rigorous and competitive debate?
Why not try to get our politicians to do this (except the coin flip of pro and con)? Just publicizing the conditions they refused to accept woud be useful.
I’d like to live in a world where politicians debated like this. Perhaps the best way to make that happen is by making rigorous debate among the masses commonplace, starting with children, one class at a time. Actually starting with ourselves one debate at a time.
Several years ago I was recruited as a judge for the local Regeneron science fair (https://www.societyforscience.org/isef/). I myself competed in what was then the Westinghouse science fair, eons ago, when I was in high school. But these kids, and the projects they were doing, were light years ahead of anything I could have done back then.
Worried about the future of the US? Attend a science fair, you’ll be amazed.
If any readers have any experience or skill in debate, look up your state debate circuit. Volunteer judges are desperately needed.
I am currently a volunteer judge for the NH Debate League, where Public Forum style is used. In high school I did the Policy style, and did some volunteer judging of Policy debate when I was in college.
"how you do a generic cost-benefit calculation of investing in nuclear power, which is rather much to expect from a high school student."
Oops. I agree that neither the pro or con side should knw how to "do" cost benefit analysis, but surely that is the point of the question. Is the NPV of investing in nuclear power (including the external benefit of reduces harm from CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere) >0. Does each side understand and is able to articulate all the costs and benefits.
I really enjoyed this post. I liked Arnold’s list of places where debate training would make things better. I also surmised from the list that Arnold must have a great marriage because he didn’t list a requitrement fro suc training for a marriage license. I liked his suggestion for training an AI to judge the debate.
I think an AI could add something to a debaters skill by helping the debater understand the question proposed for the debate. After reading Arnold’s summary of the debates he witnessed and the various comments here, I think the debaters and the commenters addressed the wrong question. All of the commenters and debaters that discussed the benefits and or negatives of nuclear power missed the point. One has to keep in mind that the question “Should the US government invest in Nuclear Power?” causes a debate to arise only if the debater have to persuade the observers of the debate. Arguing the facts of nuclear power does not persuade. It may change some minds because people hear new information but unless the debaters provide all of the facts, no proof occurs. If the facts demonstrate with certainty that nuclear power is “bad” no debate exists because no one let alone the government would invest in nuclear power. If all of the facts demonstrated with certainty that nuclear power was “good” the question of appropriateness of government investment would still exist. So, arguing about nuclear power itself can only provide a conclusive case for the “con” side if no uncertainty remains about the usefulness of nuclear power.
Had I been judging the debate, I would have given a score of 0 to any participant that brought up arguments about ONLY nuclear power itself. This would include the “con” arguments of alternatives such a wind and the arguments about better designs on the “pro” side.
When I'm feeling bad, I think, "Yuck, the debaters just assumed that if something is good, governments should promote it, and if something is bad, governments should stifle it."
When I'm feeling good, I think, "The debaters knew that the people organizing the debate wanted it to be only about whether nuclear power is good or not, so that's what they kept to."
One con I have is safeguarding nuclear power sites from sabotage within or enemy attack. The other cons are easier to fix
Debates teach valuable skills like public speaking and critical thinking, but they often prioritize winning over discovering truth. Participants focus on crafting better arguments or rationalizing their losses, rather than reflecting on the validity of their ideas. This dynamic risks promoting persuasion for its own sake rather than fostering genuine understanding. By contrast, a Socratic dialogue emphasizes collaborative inquiry, questioning assumptions, and exploring ideas together. It encourages participants to embrace intellectual humility and focus on truth-seeking, offering a deeper, more meaningful learning experience.
While debates expose participants to multiple perspectives, their competitive nature can reduce arguments to tactics and strategy. This creates a risk of training students to become adept at persuasion without a strong connection to substance or ethics. Incorporating elements of Socratic dialogue into debates, such as collaborative reflections after the debate, could shift the focus from winning to understanding. This approach would help balance the development of rhetorical skills with a true commitment to exploring and uncovering deeper truths.
My son just came back from 4 months of nuclear engineering study in S. Korea, which recently completed building a nuke reactor in Dubai. In 5 years of construction. Kenya & Czechia are now both interested in a new nuke; Slovakia gets a lot of power from its one big nuclear reactor, of 4 different blocks. We need more Nukes, which should cost less with govt reg approval reform.
Arnold should write to Elon Musk to get a Grok debate grader aiBot.
It seems like nuke plant designs could be standardized and greatly reduce construction cost, regulatory hurdles, and time from design to completion. I'm curious why nobody has done this.
The IAEA requires extensive documentation for each reactor, which takes years. Tech always improves but incorporating newer tech is a new design.
S. Korea has 28 nukes, mostly standardized with limited changes from the prior. All existing reactors are subject to occasional upgrades.
A big part of the Small Modular Reactors now being promoted is the hope/expectation of far more standardization and faster regulatory approval. The world will be better with more power generation.
I was a member of my high school debate team. My partner and I went on to compete and win at the state level for our high school classification. The experience redirected my life, all for the good, thanks to Ms. Dingwall, the young teacher who suggested I give speech and debate a try after a football injury ended my budding "jock" career.
The idiotic process called "debate" in political elections, as conducted by media, is profoundly absurd. Bravo, Arnold, for writing this article. May it be seen by thousands.