None of what I’m going to say here is going to come as any sort of surprise to coaches, who know this and certainly teach it, or good, experienced PFers, who are already doing it. But the point here is to take a complete, starters’ position, so bear with me. It may not be new, but it’s not useless. And it may help get stuff across to newbies, especially those I’m concentrating on, the previously-trained-in-LD newbie.
Let’s start here. If you want to argue something, you’ve got to follow a fairly basic structure. You have to have the point you’re trying to make—that is, your side of the argument—clearly defined. You’ve got to have reasons in support of your side of the argument, and you’ve got to demonstrate how those reasons do, indeed, support your side. This structure applies to any argument, either within or outside debate.
You can throw all kinds of names and details and definitions of the above, but the structure remains the same. For LDers, we look at it very specifically. First, to clearly define our side of an argument, we go to the underlying value of our side. LD was originally conceived as values debate, differing from the existing two-person policy debate in that while policy obviously was concerned with instituting or challenging specific actions (policies) usually on a practical level (this will work, this won’t work), LD was going to go into the philosophical considerations of actions. Should we do something because it’s the right thing to do, in other words, as compared to its practicality. The right thing to do is often wildly impractical, the wrong this to do is often immediately practical, but that doesn’t warrant the latter or bar the former (although one could make such arguments). Closing one’s eyes at the formation of LD and imagining the difference between it and policy could not have been difficult. Frankly, it still doesn’t seem difficult, even though there is much more overlap than anybody probably ever expected. They are just different animals.
The genius of LD was, in its formative years, the institution of a literal value into the framework of argumentation. If you look at the literature, maintaining a value and criterion were not initially structural necessities; my understanding is that a few coaches brought the concept to light at their institute (O’C can elucidate, I’m sure). A couple of years or so ago, NFL actually upgraded its LD rules and incorporated the literal value into the rounds, along with the criterion for measuring if that value had been successfully incorporated (i.e., the weighing mechanism). When I first started judging, there were plenty of teams that did, by design, not include literal values in their cases or arguments, and often they got away with this (although personally I found it hard to track what they were trying to do). Teams doing that today would, if one were to follow the rules (which I highly recommend) lose on face out of the gate.
PF has not come up with its literal analog to V/C yet, if it ever will. In many ways, it is harder to close your eyes now, so soon after the formation of PF, and imagine the differences separating it from policy or LD than it was to separate LD from policy. The thing is, there are plenty of differences, but they don’t have that much to do with content per se. PF topics tend to be mostly of a policy nature, and there is no specific V/C structural aspect, so those are differences, of course, but the real difference is in the ever-changing topic, which allows just so much depth before the next topic comes along, and the relatively short speaking times, which limit the amount of argumentation (especially as PF debaters continue to face lay judges, which will remain the case for the foreseeable future, just as it was an aspect of LD for a very long time, only recently declining in favor of un-lay judges, whatever they are). You’re going to have to get to the point quickly in a PF round, and you’re going to have to stay on the point, and you’re going to need classical oratory skills. Wackiness will not be rewarded. Misreadings of resolutions will not be rewarded. Lack of research will not be rewarded, but neither will facts without meaning. The nature of PF begins to determine itself through its actions (which is a very philosophical evaluation of a thing’s nature).
Which brings us back to the basic idea of what an argument has to be. You have your side of the argument, clearly defined. You’ve got to have reasons to support your side. You need to show how those reasons do, indeed, support your side. And if you’re talking about PF, and you apply an implicit value construct borrowed from LD to the argument, I think you’ll end up with a really solid case.
The value in an LD case is the thing you are trying to achieve, the underlying big social aspect like justice or morality. It’s the reason you go aff, or neg, to get to justice or wherever. If the resolution is, say, banning nuclear weapons, your argument in LD is not that we ban nuclear weapons because they’re dangerous or something like that, but because it is the moral thing to do. We would cite the dangers as evidence in aid of our argument for morality. Put another way, the value is the underlying reason you support your side of the resolution, and your arguments point sooner or later to that underlying reason. You win or lose because you convinced on the level of the underlying reason.
That is exactly what is needed in a PF case right off the top, an underlying reason to support one side or the other. This reason serves exactly the same role as the value in LD.
Let’s go back to our hypothetical loosey-goosey PF resolution that we’ve been kicking around on health care. Let’s specify that it’s that the US should enact Obama’s healthcare plan. Before proceeding to defend one side or the other, we would need to decide why we want to defend that side. This comes, of course, after having done research (you don’t write a case and then find research to support it, although I’ve known novices who attempt just that, with predictably dim results). And once we decide what that reason is, and it needs to be big and important, that is what our case is about, and what our evidence will support. Let’s call it The Big Idea.
Before showing an example, let’s imagine that we don’t have The Big Idea. We could run a case in favor of BHO’s health plan that goes like this:
1. We stand in support of the rez.
2. If we enact this plan, the following 3 good things will result.
3. Evidence for result A, which is a good thing.
4. Evidence for result B, which is a good thing.
5. Evidence for result C, which is a good thing.
6. Because of these 3 good things, we urge a pro ballot.
Even if this case has great evidence, convincingly delivered, it lacks an underlying idea. It lacks underlying tissue. The resolution alone is not enough. Think of it as the difference between a plot and a theme. The plot of Moby-Dick is, well, there’s this big whale. The theme of Moby-Dick is obsession. Either one without the other is, well, a fish story or a psychological essay. Together they are arguably the Great American Novel. (And, yeah, Melville calls whales fish, so don’t get me started.)
Now let’s throw in The Big Idea. After doing research, the team decides that The Big Idea in favor of healthcare is better healthcare, that the government would do it better than independent providers, and therefore everyone would be healthier as a result. That case goes like this:
1. We stand in support of the rez because of The Big Idea slash better healthcare.
2. If we enact this plan, we will get better healthcare for these 3 reasons.
3. Evidence for result A, which is a good thing.
4. Evidence for result B, which is a good thing.
5. Evidence for result C, which is a good thing.
6. Because these three good things result in better healthcare and healthier people, we urge a pro ballot.
(By the way, I’m simplifying here, of course. Don’t fault me on the technicalities.)
In other words, The Big Idea is the thing that you put at the end of the sentence where you say you support the rez because. The because is The Big Idea. And The Big Idea is, of course, analogous to the value in LD.
Because of the examples I’ve used, I’m hard-pressed to demonstrate a further level of connecting evidence to The Big Idea (to wit, criteria), and as a rule that may not be necessary. The existence of a criterion in LD is to translate contentions of action/fact into transcendent values. In PF the reality might be that, since all the discussion is about actions and facts, no translation is necessary. Then again, occasionally PF rezzes do include words like justice. In that case The Big Idea has to be why a given side is just, and depending on the rez, a translation factor like a criterion might also be required. Probably not, though. I think that TBI will be enough to cover the conceptualization of why one side versus the other side.
In LD, I ask my debaters what they’re running on a given side. If they can’t answer that question in one simple sentence, then they’re not ready to debate yet. The same should be held true for PF. What are you running? If you answered for the pro in our hypothetical example, “BHO’s healthcare plan is good,” you wouldn’t be ready to debate yet. If you answered, “BHO’s healthcare plan leads to this Big Idea and therefore we should support it,” you’re ready to go.
The key to writing a case then, is to build it around The Big Idea. If you don’t have The Big Idea, get one.
No comments:
Post a Comment