Concluding the research series

LD (topic specific research)

LD, which is usually looking for a transcendent justification for action in general rather than at options in a specific situation, requires a different approach from PF. The sheer lack of attempting to achieve a value inherently defines the concerns of PF differently. But don’t take the differences I’m suggesting between PF and LD too seriously. I don’t mean to imply that they always require completely different approaches to research. Much of the approach is the always same, or interchangeable, and a specific topic in one might very much require exactly the sort of research I’ve recommended for the other. But I do feel that the overall approaches will be different, and that the differences are enough for a separation of the two in this essay.

LD asks if certain actions are right or wrong. And usually those actions can be boiled down to applications in a variety of situations. So while PF asks if we should engage Iran militarily, a question to which a variety of political, military or philosophical answers could be provided, LD will ask about preemptive strikes in general. The PF researcher will look specifically at Iran and the US and what is happening between the two, and at whatever else would affect a Commander-in-Chief’s decision to engage. The LD researcher would look both at the concept of preemption and at the possible examples, including Iran. The LDer wants a viable blueprint or action plan for all examples of the given situation; the PFer is looking only at the given situation (but will, of course, compare other meaningful examples). The distinction is thin, but real. And it should guide the thinking of the researcher.

Step one in the LD research process is exactly the same as in PF, which is to learn the broad historical story behind the resolution. As in PF, the more you know, the better off you are. Sticking to the example we’ve been using, the preemptive use of military force when enemy nations are planning to acquire nuclear weapons, at the very least we would need to research preemptive strikes so that we can analyze them and be able to use them as examples, and we would need to research nations’ acquiring nuclear weapons, since there’s a history of nations throughout the world either acquiring them or not, with the US’s resulting reaction to those acquisitions, and we would need to research nuclear weapons, so we know what’s different about them from conventional weapons.

Step two is where things start getting different. In LD, we now have to take a step backwards. Having studied the history, we need to draw lessons from that history, to find the similarities and differences in order to detect patterns of practical behavior. That is, we need to derive from the events a set of circumstances to which we can apply principles of action. In this case, we look at all the preemptive strike examples we can find. Why did they take place? What happened when they took place? Can we detect patterns? Then, with these thoughts, we need to research the concept of preemptive strike removed from practice. Are there theories of preemptive strike? Generally accepted universal practices? Some great philosopher who made his fame and fortune in the preemptive strike business? When we had the “plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust” resolution, we would first try to find some examples of where this actual might have happened (organized crime, Enron, terrorists), and then step back and look at what we could distil from the examples about the process, and then we would look at the distillations removed from the specific examples.

So the second step is to distil the historical, real, examples down to patterns and theories and general practices, and then to research those patterns and theories and general practices. In addition to enlightening us on the specific issue at hand, we will begin to collect a broad understanding of various areas in general. There are plenty of legal/constitutional resolutions, for instance, and as we look at each one, we are putting together pieces of a broader understanding of law for the future. Or with a combination of other topics like Jan-Feb we’re building up a sense of just war versus realpolitik. We go from specifics to generalities, and back again whenever we need it.


Step three: Doing it

The mechanics of research have changed dramatically in the last few years, and have changed even more dramatically since my own short pre-computer debating career, and maybe it’s safe to say that the mechanics of research will continue to change in the future. Access to research may change too. It is not inconceivable that all tournaments will at some future date not only allow computers in rounds but will allow those computers to connect to whatever they want to connect to (short of cheating). Or maybe my handheld device will do what I need to do. Whatever. The point is, some things will change, but some things will remain the same. I’ll try to stick to generalities, allowing you to tailor them to the specifics of your own situation, team size, etc. I also won’t be explaining things like Boolean logic and how to do better Google searches: they should teach you that in school (and they usually do). We’re after bigger game here.

First of all, if possible, research should be a team effort. Obviously much research can be done on one’s own, but if one does have a team, the sharing of research is clearly beneficial to everyone. Just because you work late at night digging on your PC doesn’t mean you can’t pass along what you find to your teammates on the next day. Setting up a process for the interchange of data is important. Create shared online folders, perhaps. Or figure out a way to pass along printed copies of material (which does seem to waste a lot of paper in this day and age, though). Whatever. And note that holding on to the research past the expiration date of a resolution is also a good idea. The same ideas will come back to haunt you in the future. For instance, the explanation of retributive justice someone uncovered for the plea bargaining topic may be just as useful for the hate crimes topic…

Starting out, either alone or as a group, presupposes an elementary understanding of the subject area. That is, we presume that the first thing people will do is individually get their bearings overall: if the topic is Russia as a threat, in other words, you would obviously begin by some general and personal research into recent Russian history. This was the first step outlined for both LD and PF. Before you can do high-level research, you first have to absorb the basics of the subject area. Spend an hour or so on the computer reading through elementary resources like encyclopedias. Click around on various links and go where it takes you. This will provide a starting point.

Next, decide what, exactly, you are going to research in depth. If you’re doing it as a team project, work together to make a list; if it’s just you, a list is still a good idea. With the team, different people could be assigned different areas. This is especially important if you’re planning on physically attacking a library, which is a very good idea especially early in a topic’s life. Everybody bumping into one another in the same place looking for the same things doesn’t make a lot of sense. Let’s say you’re researching the US preemptively striking against pre-nuclear enemies; you might decide to research hegemony/superpower, international law, geopolitical justice (whatever that is), nuclear proliferation, nuclear v. conventional warfare, just war, preemptive strikes, and analysis of the nuclear fraternity nations vis-à-vis the US. That’s a good start. Most topics will have similarly broad areas (as discussed above in the what-to-research section).

Look for two different things in your research: look for facts, and look for meaningful opinions. People are always looking for warrants in evidence. A fact is a pretty good warrant: 82% of the population of a country are starving to death would be a convincing warrant for establishing a program to feed them. Meaningful opinions will be materials where someone else has marshaled some facts/warrants and drawn their own conclusions. Given that, presumably, those opiners are looking roughly at the same facts at which you are looking, you may find good arguments in what they are saying beyond simply cutting a card. That is, if a former Secretary of State outlines a rational approach to dealing with preemptive strikes and, using evidence and historical analysis, makes a good case for or against, what is stopping you from making that same argument in your case? The idea of doing research to find opinions that can be transmuted into one’s own arguments is often overlooked in researching. It’s not just about collecting information for cards or warrants. It’s about studying the arguments people in the field are making. Most likely the arguments people in the field are making are the ones you should be running, if you really want to address a resolution in a meaningful way. If you find that you are leaning toward an argument no one else in a position of rational authority ever seems to be making (e.g., the capitalism is inherently evil therefore all US actions are inherently evil), then you might want to reconsider your position.

When collecting evidence, look to the credentials of the source. Few debaters seem to bother to warrant the authority of their sources. That is, they simply throw out some name, followed by a quote. What is that name’s claim to authority? If I don’t know that (and you don’t know that), I have to wonder how much weight should be given to that quotation. If a former President of the General Assembly of the UN makes a claim, and your Uncle Newt the one-armed barber from Cleveland makes a counterclaim, how do I evaluate those claims if I don’t have a sense of the authority of the claimants? This is something I see all the time, and it always bothers me. A random quote by some random person has virtually no weight, but no one in rounds seems to care. If you can explain to me why your validating your sources’ authority won’t be in your favor if your opponent is not validating his or her sources, go for it! I’ve been waiting for years to hear it.

So what about your actual sources, after you type some germane phrase into your Google search box? I’ll just throw out a bunch of possibilities, and you can choose among them however it makes sense for that particular topic. Some of this is library-based, some if it is internet-based. Other approaches will be invented the minute I finish writing this, which means they’re too new for me to know about. But the drift should be clear.
• General research guides. Encyclopedias, reference texts on law or government or politics or whatever.
• Books on the subject. Short of actually reading a text (which is theoretically your goal with all important sources, but not necessarily always an achievable one), read the introduction and the first and last chapter, which usually will give you an author’s theme/hypothesis. Keep in mind that books are sorted by categories in library card catalogs. Lots of books are available online as well, or at least lots of introductions and beginnings, which may be more useful than you think. Use Amazon’s look-inside-the-book feature. If you’re literally holding a book in your hand, look at the index for specific coverage of the topic you’re researching, and then consult relevant sections within the text.
• Journal articles on the subject. There are some serious (and costly) online journal search tools. If you have access to these tools, the better for you. If you don’t, then consult a list of magazines such as A&L Daily’s, and try the likely candidates there. Most magazines do keep some sort of archive.
• Supreme court cases. Opinions—including dissents—from the justices, after you sweep away the specifics, often have bodies of theory to explain the decisions. Look for them on important cases. In other words, do more than just find out that such and such a court case is relevant: read the opinions. There can be some real meat there.
• Philosophy. If you’re drawing on a particular philosopher, reacquaint yourself with the source material. Don’t just say “social contract,” but go back and read the handful of pages that are relevant in Locke or Rousseau or whoever so that you’re truly familiar with the concepts. Sometimes looking at something afresh that you think you know inside and out will lead to new insights. If you’re drawing on a new philosopher, take your time to understand the work and make sure you’re using it correctly. Read about the philosopher as well as within the philosopher. It might help.

From this point on, it’s mostly a matter of organizing and sorting the material. Create topic folders, either real or virtual, with each piece of evidence (or cutting, or article, or whatever you’re storing) clearly indicated without having to spend a lot of time sorting through it. Quick access is very useful if you’re actually in a round, and need to pull a card of some sort. (LDers claim that their evidence is the typing they did of something in their case; one snickers at the thought.)

And that’s about that. There are certainly other approaches to research, and no doubt other more specific tips and hints, but this is at least a start.