The Rules of the PFDL

As the founder of the PFDL, I am somewhat reluctant to create a list of "rules" for competitors to follow and for judges to enforce. Ideally, public debates would require no rules. Debaters would conduct themselves according to unwritten rules of decorum and common sense reasoning. There are several problems with articulating a list of rules. The first is that no list of rules can ever be complete enough or transparent enough to guarantee order and fairness. Second, once rules are articulated, competitors invariably bend them to the point of breaking in an attempt to gain a competitive advantage. The spirit of the PFDL is best summed up in the League Principles. Adherence to the following rules should be in the spirit of the League Principles.

Sincerely,

Andrew Jacobs

The Rules

1. Debate jargon is not permitted in debate rounds.
2. Competitors are expected to speak at a conversational rate of delivery.
3. Debaters should follow the format guidelines for the division in which they are competing. For example, no evidence outside of the assigned readings is allowed in the limited research formats.
4. Competitors should not appeal to "rules" to claim an opponent is doing something untoward. Instead, explain why an opponent's practice is a bad one. If a practice is bad, there should be a reason for it. Hollow appeals to "the rules" is not an argument.
5. Judges are the final arbiters of a debate round. There is no way to appeal a judge's decision.
6. If you have more experience than your opponent, please be generous with regard to the rules.

Decorum

Although I have succumbed to creating a list of rules I will not attempt to articulate "rules" of etiquette. A great philosopher -- I think it was Kant -- was reported to have said that his moral philosophy was an attempt to explain what any well brought up child already knows. I won't attempt to explain what you should already know. I will leave you with one guiding principle (which is similar to the one that Kant's entire moral philosophy was also built around): Treat your opponents as you would want them to treat you.

Generally Accepted Debate Practices

Most debate leagues are communities that have very few rules. Instead they develop a set of accepted practices. For example, it is a generally accepted practice for competitors face the judge during speeches and during cross-examination. Competitors that don't follow this practice aren't violating a rule of the league. Competitors engage in this practice because it is effective, not because it is required. If a debater does something (or fails to do something) that is a generally accepted practice -- such as failing to offer a complete affirmative plan in limited research debate-- you should explain the logical consequence of the omission rather than making an empty appeal to the authority of "the rules."

Authorities on Debate

There are a number of ways to learn about debate: coach's advice, published books, how-to sheets written by coaches and experienced debaters etc. None of these sources of information contain rules for the PFDL. The rules listed above are the only rules for the PFDL. Everything else is advice (and often good advice).

A Word About Fairness

The rules of the League are an attempt to make competition relatively fair. As hard as it is for people to accept, sometimes there is no justice in the world. Juries convict the innocent and free the guilty, Judges hand down inappropriate sentences, and citizens elect terrible leaders. Sometimes the better arguments do not prevail. Every competitor loses rounds s/he ought to have won. You will also win rounds you ought to have lost -- but despite all the unfairness in debate rounds I have yet to meet a debater who claims to have won more rounds due to unjust decisions than s/he lost! It is also true that every competitor is evaluated unjustly from time to time. Debate is like the rest of life; there is no guarantee of fairness. You don't have to like it (I sure didn't when I debated), but you do have to learn to accept it.