Rules on the Substance of Debate: A Critique of the Charter of the National Debate Tournament

Abstract

In response to perceived abuses, the National Debate Tournament (NDT) Committee has instituted a series of rules regulating the substance of debate. This essay argues that such “substantive” rules are both ineffective and counterproductive. In particular, it critiques the rule restricting evidence reading at the end of a debate and the rule requiring judges to compare definitions when evaluating topicality arguments. The essay concludes that the NDT Committee should rescind substantive rules.