[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Policy Uber Alles: Anwering Penders

I earlier argued that we should not carry an attitude of presumptive
superiority for policy topics to the point that it becomes an uniform method
of analysis, supplanting other possibilities.

Tony Penders responds, first arguing that policy topics are simpler:


                              FALSE SIMPLICITY

>I agree--but what do we teach FIRST?  If you have a football
>team, don't you explain things like , its a game with eleven players on
>aside, the object of which is to carry oblong object across three inch
>line more times than your opponents, or do you gather a bunch of eight
>year olds together and say, "Okay, kids T-X 43 on two, break"

Putting aside the problems in the analogy, this simply makes the argument that
instruction should begin simply.  Excellent.  But anyone who believes that
policy debate is inevitably simpler must have missed the most recent listserv
discussions of fiat, competition, and even inherency.  Contrast those
discussions (particularly the "competition" thread - which ended with Korcok
fiddling while our consensus around 'relevant comparison' burned) with earlier
discussions on the debatability of value propositions.  I recall Jamie's
thread on "is it possible to debate values" ending with a decisive and
uncontested "yes, it is, here is how" from Bob Trapp.  I don't mean to
oversimplify non-policy debate, but it is sheer illusion to say that policy
debate is NECESSARILY simpler than non-policy debate.  It ONLY seems simpler
when we replace those drawn out and inconclusive discussions (fiat, inherency,
competition) with simple rules (aff must do X, neg can't do Y).  

My point has been that embracing those simple rules (e.g., embracing the only
thing that makes us believe that policy debates are so clear) is precisely
what a critical educator would NOT want to do.  


                            RULES BASED THINKING

> I think a consistent base can produce dramatic and non-uniform results.

True enough.  It is a question of comparative advantage (I learned that in
policy debate).  The question is not whether or not we get some critical
thinking with pure policy debate or not.  I think we do.  The question is
whether we would promote MORE critical thinking by a.) focusing on only one
policy type, or b.) focusing on a number of possible types.  I think that b
would discourage students from using rules - which are simply analytical short
cuts: Solutions more or less worked out by someone else at some previous time
and then simply handed down.

> I don't think teaching uniform rules dulls the student.

Dulls them at what?  It may not dull their ability to come up with responses
and engage in the game within that framework - they may be quite excellent. 
But it definitely dulls their abilities to investigate, create, advocate, and
critique those very means of operation.  It dulls that by never asking the
student to do that.  The student who KNOWS that "the res is not the focus" in
policy debate is never called upon know why.

The opportunity to ENGAGE in propositional analysis (and not simply follow it)
ONLY exists in the absence of uniform rules (or uniform norms for that matter
- the force is the same).

>I agree- the student initially learns much, but then has to wade through many
>puddles of muck before seeing the way

Yes.  Yes.  Yes.  Some people love puddles of muck (I grew up in the Northwest
- its genetic).  The student gets frustrated perhaps, but there is no reason
to believe that translates into an inferior education.  I think a person
reading literature in education would find a great deal of support for the
opposite -- it is at those points of frustration that educational moments are
born -- particularly when the student has a way out of the muck.  They can
advocate their own criteria, their own test for what the resolution means. 
Or, in a policy framework, they can argue that competition really is
unnecessary.  The problem is that in a policy framework, they don't.  Others
may have more sophisticated objections to sole policy analysis (e.g., Trond
should post on this!), but my argument has simply been that policy debate
(particularly when policy is the ONLY proposition type used) lulls us into the
false sense of thinking that we have a rock-ribbed, fool-proof method of
analysis.  


                                EASY TEACHING

>I think its reasonable, at a subsistence level of theory understanding to
>start reinterpreting the resolution.  But the novice is learning what
>theory IS--and the fact they learn later that theory is, gasp,
>theoretical, and if they can defend it, they can run it means that the
>education you talk about and the basic learning of the rules of the game
>are not mutually exclusive.

Absolutely true.  I think that novices can get easier access to this activity
by learning an ARTIFICIAL formal system of rule-based analysis first.  We both
agree that policy isn't necessary for this, and wouldn't necessarily prevent
this.  My argument is that the effect of a UNIFORM focus on policy doesn't
limit its effects to novices.  Seniors can and do mimic the uniformity of
policy analysis perhaps MORE tenaciously than novices do.  This is supported
thoughout Pender's posts in the sentiment "the seniors are going to do policy,
no matter what the topic type."  

>I don't like fact or value topics, but will live w/ them b/c in the higher
>divisions, in the Northwest, at least, people run plans and counterplans,
>anyway

Thus the only reason that Penders says he can stomach non-policy debates, is
that the senior debaters he knows are too inflexible to engage in it!!

But, obviously, not all debaters on policy topics are inflexible.  E.G.,
Chico: 

>Pat and Matt can run anything they want,

Can they?  In round 5 at nats I watched them attempt to argue that this
resolution did not require a plan.  The judge voted against them based on the
(unextended) argument that "affirmatives have to do something."  That is what
I call PATTERNED THINKING -- and a pretty tough patten at that.  One hour and
a half of sustained argument was not enough to sway a judge from an
unsupported predisposiion that "affs defend action."  I think that these
scenes will become more frequent for the minority that do choose to actually
analyze the topic as policy topics become THE way to debate.

Remain flexible!  I think that Penders and I agree that novices need
shortcuts.  Fine, lets teach that way.  Maybe we should even be more willing
to judge that way in novice rounds.  But none of that requires us as a
community to says that a "resolution" means a "policy resolution."


                                        Ken Broda-Bahm
                                        Towson State University


Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page