ONLINE ARGUMENT ACCESSIBILITY INITIATIVE BY JASON LUO
Progressive Argumentation, also known as LD/CX arguments among other names, is a broad category of nontraditional arguments originating from primarily LD and CX. Many of these arguments discuss debate itself, offer a unique approach to the resolution, or even reject resolutional debate in it's entirety. In PF specifically, Progressive Arguments have oftentimes been associated with confusing jargon and complicated protocols. However, many of these arguments are actually very simple once broken down and explained, which is what this website aims to do.
The easiest way to conceptualize progressive argumentation’s role in debate is like an onion, which has layers. Substance (debate about the pretend world of the resolution) debate or most PF debate about the resolutions effect is commonly seen at the lowest layer, while arguments about the real-life implications of how we debate are seen on a higher layer. However, weighing arguments can and should be made about which layer the judge should prioritize, just like weighing for normal arguments. Public Forum is an event designed to appeal to the citizen judge, and that’s an aspect to PF that's important and should be preserved. However, it’s an inevitability that as judges/coaches/competitors want more objective ways to adjudicate PF rounds, former PFers become more open minded as judges, and CX/LD judges/debaters start to enter PF entry and judging pools, progressive argumentation has and will become increasingly common. The intention of this guide is to help make progressive argumentation accessible, as well as to help PFers respond to progressive arguments in an educational and fair manner. However, this website is not entirely comprehensive. There’s a lot of stuff that we can’t cover that other online materials do.
Credit to Andrew Lee, Neel Kanamangala, and Jay Namdhari for helping creating this website.