[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Policy Uber Alles: Anwering again
Most arguments in this post I am in agreement with, even some of the ones
that make appear to be narrow-minded. I am arguing only that non-policy
resolutions have fuzzier rules for critics to interpret, making the event
less educationally valuable for the student. I think the student's need
to receive feed back based on the arguments made in the round is
paramount. The wider of variety of types of topics, the wider the variety
of ground rules interpretations occur among the critics; and boom it
increases the likelihood that younger students at least are going to be at
utter cross purposes with their adjudicator. I think I can cite
circumstances that are not overly educational (critics who disagree on
whether or not you can have a plan under values topics).-- and debaters
who don't get to find this out untilafter the round--some basic ground
rules are my desire.
I am not morally opposed to values; but do not see how
policy topics forbid it.
On Wed, 19 Apr 1995, Kenneth Broda-Bahm wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Again, I'm only arguing from the perspective of ground rules. I don't
think there is any doubt that theory, being theoretical, can de expanded
upon under scrutiny of intelligence--thats what debate rounds are--my
argument is really more simplistic than you make it out to be, Policy
debate is easier to teach, a point you grant, and its easier for younger
people to debate in front of people who all have a common understanding of
the basic rules.
No question that the concept of 'everything you know being wrong' occurs in
the transition of learning new ways of thinking about the arguments; but
that only proves the elasticity of theopry and is inherently unrelated to
the question of whether policy topics are superior.
Finally you suggest that an educator would not want to adhere to a system
with simple rules. Weird, but I disagree emphatically. The rules are not
what we are teaching as seperate entities, but only insofar as they relate
to our ability to discuss the issues at all. How can you watch someone
argue that everything is fine with China, without knowing s/he was
supporting a uniqueness position on a disad? The rules simplicity does
not restrain; instead I argue that simplicity equals freedom--the freedom
to reinterpret these simple rules from round to round. I don't really
mean to exclude non-policy topics from consideration but there are not
simple agreed upon rules that students AND critics agree on. I think that
inherently forces the debater to rely on persuasion, and prayer rather
than content. (OK< I don't want to be a hypocrite-I prefer policy topics;
I don't think other vcarieties haved no merit.)
> 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.
Lack of understanding of decent math theorems dooms the math student. I
can completely empathize with your desire for your students to think
holistically, but I disagree that rules are shortcuts. Maybe you and I
are disagreeing what rules we are referring to. I think of the rules I'm
referring to as the basic Aristotelian argumentation ceoncepts, and the
related argumentation theory advances made recently.
Critiques started in NDT and evolved TO Ceda--how does pure policy
thinking discourage alternative argumentation.
The problem here is our argumentation is not mutually exclusive--I
think pure policy debate produces uniform critic response (or more
uniform) which increases education. You are arguing that exploring
arguments in a non policy way is educational. Yes. I agree. But the
education is only heightened with the benefit of the act of communication,
which occurs with the critic. How does a non-uniform response help?
Especially the younger students?
>
> > 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.
Of course, thats untrue. If they can't explain themselves, they lose
often and quit.
If all we taught was the rules, you we would be right. But as noted
above, the rules are a means to an end. Lots of action in above
paragraph, but have no idea where you got the idea that a basic set of
understanding is limiting. Just like math, understand some laws, and
concepts, and you'll learn more than if you just do a bunch of math
problems by rote.
>
> 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).
What? Anarchy being advocated? Are you suggesting that ALL uniform rules
are bad? What about time limits?
I think some rules can create more freedom than no rules; while granting
that too many rules are constricting. My limit would be where any rules
start to eliminate freedom of thought.
>
> >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.
If they quit, there's been no 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.
Yes, when they have a light going on over the head of the
critic--communication is a process that is completed--it isn't complete
until everyone is on the same page--it seems to me the frustration itself
would be a barrier to learning in this unique circumstance; unless you can
'fiat solvency'.
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.
>
Sure, and paying attention to the American political system would convince
us that there are only Capitalist solutions to our problems. That would
be a terrible error;I personally disagree.
However, I still must know the basic rules of economics in order to
undermine the oppressive system; and then need to know the basic rules of
economics again to avoid Lenin's errors. So, yes, paying attention to
ONLY policy implications of plicy topics is bad, but policy topics by
themselves are superior by allowing other forms of argumentation.
>
> 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."
>
Not simply b/c senior debaters are mindless and try to kiss butt. I think
that most seniors prefer policy debate. The reasons why the debaters
prefer policy debate is not part of this thread, although I'm sure we
could accomodate it. I'm curious, do you deny this?
> >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!!
Inflexibility is here being defined as 'unwillingness to debate the topic
as intended.' Now, Aside from the fact, that that is the heart of
flexibility, in the Northwest people generally (not uniformly) preferred
the policy topics b/c of the ability to understand decisions critically.
Why do you think this happens? How are the debaters being oppressed to
debate non-policy topics in a policy fashion? Is it all my fault?
>
> 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.
>
Are you arguing that Pat and Matt were the epitome of the topic, or that
they were the embodiment of the resolution? I'm sorry they got hosed
round five at Nats; but I think the stunning predispositions of non-policy
critics are much stronger and in fat policy resolutions decrease those
unpleasant surprises.
> Remain flexible! I think that Penders and I agree that novices need
> shortcuts.
(I'm actually not sure I'm arguing in favor of shortcuts,
rather in favor of uniform ground rules).
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
>
>
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page