|
The key to good debate is analysis. While debaters will often comment
on other debaters who make good arguments, judges reserve their praise
for debaters who exhibit superior analysis. Although almost everyone can
be taught to make an argument, learning to analyze various positions during
the course of a debate requires experince in competitive situations. The
purpose of this essay is to present both a practical and a theoretical
look at different roles in which analysis plays a critical role.
Broad topics have led a growing number of teams to resort largely to generic
positions. By generic, I am referring to that genre of argument which
seeks to link a particular aspect of one position to a disadvantage which
has substantial impact. In its most widely used sense, the one which shall
be used here, a generic is a negative disadvantage which links the affirmative
to a large, well-developed impact, e.g. nuclear war, Malthus, etc. The
risk of generic argumentation has left debaters and judges alike unsure
of how to evaluate many of the debates in which they participate. Instead
of suggesting a particular formula for this decision, such as probability
times impact, this essay will first explore techniques which affirmative
and negative teams alike can utilize and will then investigate a device
open to affirmative teams which may help them to combat generic argumentation.
The evaluation of risk depends, largely, upon the scenario under which
the particular event is assumed to occur. By scenario, I am referring
to the timing, magnitude, and location of a particular situation. Each
of these characteristics plays a critical role in evaluating argumentation.
The timing of a particular occurence often plays the critical role in
determining the positive or negative characteristics of any given impact.
For example, one position sure to be popular this year is the growth argument.
while many debaters and judges find these arguments appealing because
of the tremendous significance they can attain, the large impacts to growth,
pro and con, raise serious questions as to the actual probability of the
particular occurence. Once the liklihood of occurence is established,
the timing of the growth will usually then be critical. For instance,
an affirmative which employed all United States citizens could probably
claim that they will cause economic growth, which would presumably be
beneficial for a variety of reasons. But, a resourceful negative team,
instead of jumping on the "meatball express," might instead
argue that, given the already expanding U.S. economy, increasing growth
now would only increase interest rates, choke-off present growth, and
result in lower long-term growth. Here, the timing of the increased growth
could play an important role. If the growth were modest, the effect may
be to sustain the recovery, but if the growth were large, the effects
could be counterproductive.
The specifics of a particular impact which are critical to useful analysis
include the "location" of the occurence. For example, many teams
will extend the growth debate overseas, arguing that U.S. growth will
affect development in other countries. While many debaters will then dive
straight into their growth good/bad briefs, the resourceful debater will
wonder which countries the growth is most likely to affect. While growth
in Brazil might cause deforestation, growth in Mexico may stabilize world
oil prices. Similarly, while nuclear proliferation may destabilize Northern
Asia or West Germany, proliferation may serve to stabilize Latin America
or Africa. Quite clearly, the specific ramifications of an event frequently
depend upon the placement of the effects.
These suggestions regarding evaluation of particular arguments may seem
simple and straightforward, and they are just that. Unfortunately, these
issues receive little attention in most debate rounds. Finally, while
I seek to emphasize these issues, I do not present them as broad answers
to a team who fails to research. Instead, I believe that an emphasis on
specifics, the effects of growth in particular regions of the United States
or different parts of the world, would serve to enhance the emphasis placed
on quality research and, in addition, place increased emphasis on the
value of analysis.
The rise of generic positions which the affirmative is not prepared to
refute with specific responses has led to increasing reliance on so-called
"generic answers." Most debaters are familiar with the simplest
of these responses, such as uniqueness and threshold answers, but beyond
these tag lines the substance of various arguments is frequently lost.
One argument, in particular, suffering from this lack of development is
the "intrinsicness" position. Because new debate arguments require
explanation and defense in debate rounds, the lack of acceptance of this
argument by many has been simply because they have not heard it defended
extensively as a position. As with any argument, utilizing the intrinsicness
reponse will require the affirmative to be prepared to defend successfully
the theoretical and practical ramifications of their position.
The affirmative, by arguing that a disadvantage is not intrinsic, is saying
that the avoidance of the disadvantage does not require rejection of the
affirmative plan. In this broad sense, the intrinsicness position is a
powerful response to a wide range of potential arguments. This essay will
attempt to interrelate the theoretical and practical ramifications of
this position by first laying forth the assumptions of the argument and
then presenting various issues in light of a particular example. In this
example, the negative argues that by increasing employment, the affirmative
plan will cause a shortfall of recruits into the military and, as a result,
lead to the introduction of the draft (which, they argue, is inequitable
and makes the U.S. more likely to go to war). Two
'intrinsicness' responses which come to mind revolve around both the link
and the impact of this argument. First, higher incentives could be offered
to attract more persons into the military. Second, the use of the draft
in peacetime could be banned. Before addressing the further ramifications
of this example, the theoretical assumptions will be outlined.
The "intrinsicness" position can assume a base from a number
of different theoretical assumptions. First, the debate can be viewed
as a "test of the resolution." If various programs can serve
to eliminate the problems attendant to the resolution, the problems fail
to serve as reasons to reject the resolution. Observers will note that
this position reflects largely a hypothesis testing paradigm. Yet, contrary
to popular assumption, it seems that this view need not be the case. The
debate, in a Policy-making framework, may be viewed as an attempt to establish
United States' employment policy. Quite simply, if one were a Congressman
attempting to establish employment policy, re-election would be doubtful
if one "gave up" every time potential problems arose. Instead,
proponents of programs suggest alternative programs and riders to the
original proposal which would serve to present the optimal policy. Accordingly,
the advantages of the alternative programs would not serve to justify
the employment programs, but merely provide a useful and practical framework
for evaluating its merits.
A number of straightforward criteria provide an outline for effective
utilization of the intrinsicness argument. First, as with any argument,
the position must be clearly labeled and explained. In particular, this
requirement means that the specific "alternative" isolated must
be clearly identified. Second, and most important, the efficacy of the
suggested alternative must be successfully defended. As simple as these
two criteria seem, their neglect is probably the cause of the negative
connotations frequently associated with intrinsicness arguments. Because
the position is often first enunciated in first affirmative rebuttal,
these requirements become more exacting. If a debater is to defend successfully
the intrinsicness position, s/he will find that clear, concise defenses
of the theoretical and practical implications are often necessary at the
time the argument is presented. Failing to do this puts the decision of
legitimacy and ramifications back in the exclusive hands of the judges
instead of the debaters. From this background, I shall now seek to draw
the previously outlined example into the practical applications portion
of this essay.
The questions revolving around intrinsicness arguments frequently include
the necessity for the alternative to be topical, the need to establish
propensity for the alternative, the issue of time constraints, and the
possible usurpation of negative ground. While each of these concerns has
a varying level of impact on the position, I hope that the importance
placed on any of them as a legitmate concern can be erased by the ensuing
discussion.
Frequently, second negative rebuttalists can be heard exclaiming that
a particular alternative isolated by the affirmative is not topical, hence,
for some generally unexplained reason, not legitimate. I believe that
this criticism of the intrinsicness positon confuses the argument with
the attempt by an affirmative to "change the plan." Since the
first intrinsicness argument, providing employment incentives for the
military, is arguably topical, this position is more likely to be heard
with the second, banning the draft. Two different positions would seem
to make intrinsicness viable. First, the affirmative could argue that
the judge, assuming that s/he can "influence" employment policy,
should assume that s/he can also 'influence' similarly situated positions.
For example, a Congressman with powers to approve or disapprove of a particular
employment package would also be able to oversee the passage of legislation
which also controlled the draft. Second, the affirmative could argue that
the judge, given a certain assumed position s/he maintains, should assume
the existence of other policy-makers in a similar position to influence
other policies. A committee member looking to support a particular program
might look elsewhere for the possibility that other programs could be
adopted simultaneously.
Similar in nature, but different in scope, is the negative response that
the proposed "alternative" will not occur. Note that this is
different than the response that the alternative can not work; this position
maintains that present policy-makers will not adopt the program. Assuming
the alternative suggested is not topical, the propensity argument adds
that 'forcing' the adoption of the additional program is beyond the affirmativels
right to "fiat." Once again, this negative argument serves to
focus on the mistaken interpretation upon which debaters answering this
position often rely. In presenting the intrinsicness reponse, much like
the presentation of the plan, the affirmative does not argue that the
option will be adopted, just that it should be adopted. Negatives who
focus their responses upon this position ignore the fact that nothing
provided in the topic requires adoption of the affirmative option in isolation.
Instead, the more realistic assumption in the dynamics of governmentis
that the federal government not only should provide employment, but also
follow through with programs which can co-exist and enhance the employment
scheme which is devised. Since the first assumption of the debate process
is ignorance of the distinction between the actual irrationality of policy-makers
and the theoretical rationality of a given proposal, this particular argument
does not seem to be a particularly devastating one. Of course, for practical
reasons it may be beneficial to argue that a particular course of action
is likely to intervene to prevent the disadvantage. For example, a plausible
position could be built around the argument that if levels of recruiting
fell, the military would successfully pressure Congress to raise the benefits
which servicemen receive. While this position may be useful in turning
the disadvantage (for example, greater shortfall will force Congress to
improve AVF), I want to emphasize that I see the probability of adoption
as a concern independent of the intrinsicness argument and unnecessary
to successful defense of the position.
Critics of intrinsicness arguments also contend that even if they are
theoretically legitimate, they should be rejected for more practical reasons,
such as time limits. These persons suggest that the time alloted for a
given debate makes an adequate evaluation of the affirmative proposal
and other proposals impossible. A number of responses are suggested by
the very nature of this argument. First, the standards previously suggested,
clarity and efficacy, reduce the distortion by increasing the burdens
on the affirmative. If the standards are not met, the affirmative suffers
the time burden necessitated by the presentation of the argument. Since
the second negative constructive speakers frequently find themselves establishing
various responses, such presenting these simple intrinsicness arguments
that if the position is seeks to rely upon, the rebuttalist will be required
to devote substantial time to its successful defense. Second, the increasingly
prominent trend of presenting disadvantages in first negative constructive
to be extended in the second negative constructive suggests that negatives
who are placed in the position of answering numerous affirmative answers
in their last rebuttal have indeed placed themselves in the bind.
Finally, critics suggest that intrinsicness arguments eliminate negative
ground. Frequently, this position is framed in the straw-man argument
that: "This argument would eliminate all disadvantages." Once
again, this broad claim has little basis. In fact, my position is that
debates which resolve around the intrinsicness of a disadvantage can be
among the most educational. First, assuming that disadvantages must be
intrinsic, debates would focus more on the merits of the specific affirmative
advantage. Viable negative positions exist in answering affirmative employment
and growth advantages with claims that employment and growth are bad.
Focus on these positions would be required to reduce the liklihood that
intrinsicness responses could take out the link to an argument, given
that the link is the affirmative advantage. Second, negatives could focus
on the efficacy of the alternatives presented. Not only can all impacts
not be corrected for, but not all attempts at correction would be successful
or desirable. In the draft example, a negative could respond that the
President would circumvent by 'declaring war' (not unlikely given the
present administration) since the alternative was to ban a peacetime draft,
or that a draft is actually good (it reduces the liklihood of war). These
issues are not so far removed from the original disadvantage and, in fact,
form the core of the important issues surrounding the military and the
AVF. Focusing attention on the practical possibilities surrounding possible
adverse reactions to the affirmative proposal serves to enhance the quality
of research and understanding associated with generic arguments. Instead
of wishful links and nuclear war, focus can be maintained on the actual
probability that any particular objection is likely to occur. Third, even
if intrinsicness arguments force the negative to reduce the time committed
to disadvantages, in favor of more case attacks and greater use of counterplans,
perhaps a service will have been performed. The overemphasis placed on
"meatballs' has resulted in a serious distortion of the time allocated
to other arguments in most debates today.
|