This was super fun to read, thanks for sharing! Hm… your new student seems like an interesting person to talk to. Mind asking if he’d be interested in a chat with someone else his age? I’m also a public form (debate format) debater in high school, and I’m doing prep work for this particular topic on student loans as well. I’d love to get a chance to talk with him a bit, and I feel like he may enjoy it as well.
On that note, I think I can elaborate a bit on the format a bit in ways others might find helpful.
Public forum is one of many debate formats with it’s own time and argument structure. The general idea goes something like this. You and your partner (this is a 2v2 format) prepare a case about a few weeks to a month in advance for a topic that’s disclosed prior to the debate. Each side gets 4 minutes to make their initial speech. From there, each side gets a rebuttal, a cross examination, a summary, etc etc. About an hour later, each side gives their closing statements (final focus) and the judge drops their vote for the side which was more ‘persuasive’.
Now, I think your student is a bit new to the format, because it seems like he hasn’t gotten the optimal mindset for the format yet. In public forum, being persuasive almost never means being right. Quite the opposite, actually. You typically be persuasive by being completely damn wrong.
Let me illustrate with an example. In one of my last debate tournaments the resolution was: “The US military should substantially increase it’s military presence in the Artic.” Seems pretty clear cut and typically vague, and it could go any direction. A reasonable person might consider future artic trade routes, security obligations to neighbors, defense of strategic chokepoints or resources…
Fortunately, we were debaters, not reasonable people, so me and my partner ran two main arguments. Climate change and nuclear Armageddon. On the affirmative, the argument was fairly straightforward. Climate change bad, renewables good. To stop climate change we thus need rare earth minerals… but… China has 90% of them. We proceeded to find an evidence card saying how the Artic has a massive deposit of rare earth minerals, and how the US military should deploy forces to maintain security against grayzone operations. On the negative, things were much more fun. We found some instances of Russia sending ships/submarines to the US coast, the range of a nuclear hypersonic missile, and a few buildups of military bases in the Artic. We then proceeded to argue that Russia had a credible first strike capability and if we didn’t take the Artic we’d be at risk of nuclear Armageddon (yes, I’m serious, I actually argued that).
We clean swept that entire tournament without losing a single round.
For an outsider, I imagine this might seem pretty ludicrous (to be honest I’d think so too) but in the context of the actual format it makes perfect sense. The debaters aren’t experts, nor are they proficient in Bayes craft. Their readings are limited, and their prep time even more so. On a regular debate most teams would be scurrying to make counterarguments for common objections opponents might raise, often as late as the night before. We have just enough information and confidence to sound like experts, but only to a layperson. In front of an actual expert I’d imagine we look ridiculous. (I’d love to hear Bryan Caplan’s reaction to my argument saying student loan forgiveness boosts the economy). But that’s not a relevant concern. Nobody is an expert.
So what even if they were? You have 4 minutes for the main speech, and 4 minutes for the rebuttal. It takes 5 minutes to make a bullshit claim and a whole debate to prove it wrong. This is part of the reason why scientists typically don’t debate flat earthers. Any tinfoil hat theorist worth their salt can spend a minute spinning some wild story an exasperated expert will have to spend hours to disprove. Thus, most debaters can spare themselves the trouble of even trying.
Case in point: my evidence card for Russian nuclear threats was the range of the Kinzhal hypersonic missile, about 1000 miles. Coincidentally, around the same distance from the Artic to the US mainland. Thus the argument for why control of the Artic is important. You can hit the mainland US with a first strike from the Artic, but not from Moscow. If my opponents spent 2 minutes to read the card they would’ve discovered another missile I neglected to mention, the Avantgarde, which has a range of 3000 miles. Even if they didn’t know this, the argument is obviously bogus. Hypersonics are not a credible first strike capability unless Russia has the ISR to identify and destroy ALL of our nuclear submarines, silos, and aircraft at the same time. But of course, my opponents never read much material on nuclear doctrine, so they repeated the claims about mutually assured destruction which I was able to shoot down with ease. (What mutually assured destruction? We’d be dead before we could react).
Likewise with rare earth minerals. I neglected to mention the US is not fully mining it’s stockpiles. I neglected to mention other mineral reserves. I also neglected to mention that China has no military forces in the Artic, and there’s no credible threat to defend against. Even if there was, I had no evidence of any US mining interests in the Artic. (I actually pointed this out against a team that stole the case and tried to run it against us. ’Why are you sending the military? What are they going to do, mine the minerals with tanks? Bomb the deposits with HIGHMARS?)
Now, all of this is obvious in hindsight, but in an hour long debate a team only has 2 minutes of prep time, so there’s basically no room for anybody except the fastest readers to credibly review all the evidence carefully. (Hell, I read at 1000wpm and I still have trouble). Thus, most of the time you can safely get away with the most egregious bullshit. In a setting where all claims are purportedly from ‘experts’ or ‘reliable sources’, where each word comes with complete confidence even when the speaker is lying through their teeth, it’s rarely an efficent strategy to actually pursue the truth. Rhetorical flourishes, appeals to fear, ridiculously outsized impacts, and weak arguments are the name of the day.
In that sense, I think I’ve illustrated that there isn’t such a thing as a truly ‘indefensible’ argument, only overly scrupulous debaters. With my four years of experience in the format I have reasonable confidence I can beat an novice in a fair public forum debate, even while taking a completely ridiculous stance like flat eartherism. Much the same with student loans, though the problem is less acute. Your student could do the same. Say with a straight face that student loans help the economy, and the power of social cognition will make it so.
To conclude, never argue with a public forum debater. They will drag you down to their level, and beat you with experience.
(Note: This was an argumentative piece by a debater. Realities explained are not necessarily endorsed, and arguments made typically do not reflect my opinion or that of any sane person. I disavow responsibility for anyone who takes my arguments seriously :P)
I’m glad you enjoyed it!
Hm… this is interesting. I’m not too sure I understand what you mean though. Do you mind providing examples of what categories and indicators you use?
Right, so, I think I may have omitted some relevant context here. In public forum debate, one of the primary ways to win is to ‘terminally outweigh on impacts’, or proving that a certain policy action prevents catastrophe. The ‘impact’ of preventing said catastrophe is so big that it negates all of your opponent’s arguments, even if they are completely legitimate. Think of it as an appeal to X-risk. The flip side is that our X-risk arguments tend to be highly unsophisticated and overall quite unlikely.
Consider this part:
The unspoken but implicit argument is that Russia doesn’t need a reason to nuke us. If we give them the Arctic there’s no question, we will get nuked. (or at least, Russia is crazy enough to consider a full on nuclear attack, international fallout and nuclear winter be damned). This was actually what my opponents argued. My point relied on too many ridiculous assumptions. (a common and valid rebuttal of X risk arguments in debate)
Then there’s the factual rebuttal. I did a cursory overview of it, but I never fully elaborated. The idea is that multiple things prevent a successful nuclear first strike. First, and most obviously, would be the U.S nuclear triad. The idea is that we have a land (ICBM silos), sea (nuclear submarines), and air (bomber aircraft from supercarriers) deterrent against nuclear attacks. For a successful nuclear first strike to be performed Russia must locate all of our military assets (plus likely that of our NATO allies as well), take them all out at once, all while the CIA somehow never gets wind of a plan. It requires that Russia essentially be handed coordinates of where every single US nuke is, and for them to have the necessary delivery systems to destroy them. (good luck trying to reach an underwater sub, or an aircraft that’s currently flying) It also requires the biggest intelligence failure in world history.
Could it happen? Maybe? But then the chance is so small I’d rather bet on an asteroid destroying the earth within the next hour. In any case the plan wouldn’t rely on hypersonics. It’d rely on all American civilian and military leaders simultaneously developing Alzheimer’s. It’d also require the same to happen on the Russian side, since Russian nuclear doctrine is staunchly against use of nuclear weapons unless their own nuclear capabilities are threatened or if the Russian state is facing an existential threat (like say, imminent nuclear Armageddon).
For anyone who has studied the subject, this is rather basic knowledge, but then most judges (and debaters as well) don’t enter the room having already studied nuclear doctrine. Reactions like yours are thus part of what I was counting on when making the argument. It works because in general I can count on people not having prior knowledge. (don’t worry, you’re not alone) Thus, I can win by ‘outnerding’ them with my peculiar love for strange subjects.
However, the argument isn’t just ridiculous for anybody with knowledge of US/Russian nuclear doctrine. It also seems rather incongruous with most people’s model of the world (my debate partner stared at me as I made the argument, his expression was priceless). Suppose Russia was prepared to nuke the US, and had a credible first strike capability. Why isn’t Uncle Sam rushing to defend his security interests? Why haven’t pundits and politicians sounded the alarm? Why has there been no diplomatic incidents? A second Cuban missile crisis? A Russian nuclear attack somewhere else?
Overall, you could say that while my line of logic is not necessarily ridiculous (indeed, Kinzhal can reach the US) the conclusions I support (giving Russia the Arctic is an existential threat) definitely are. It’s ridiculous because it somehow postulates massive consequences while resulting in no real world action, independent of any facts. Imagine if I argued that the first AGI was discovered in 1924 before escaping from a secret lab (said AGI has apparently never made waves since). Regardless of history you can likely conclude I’m being a tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist.
I hope that answers your question! Is everything clear now?