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

Theory evidence

Regarding the question of theory argument and theory evidence, I think I should
start by clarifying what I thought we were talking about.  When I think of a
theory argument, I mean a procedural argument as I defined it when Ken and I
were arguing about counterplans.  When I think of theory evidence, I mean
evidence from debate sources.  Evidence from non-debate sources used to support
procedural claims doesn't fit into the arbitrary definition I have/had.  Now,
there's no reason it can't be called theory evidence too, but that's not what I
had in mind when I mentioned theory evidence.

I have no problem with evidence from non-debate sources in support of theory
arguments.  My original response to Ken included the statement "Now, some
"theory" research is educational in this manner, i.e. articles in philosophy
journals or topic specific theoretical articles.  Few if any judges, however,
have a problem with that."  I think the reasons why that kind of theory
evidence doesn't bother me but debate specific evidence does probably lie at
the heart of my dispute with Ken.  Accordinly, I will try to explore why at
length.  Just as an aside, I don't think I discourage theory argument, I just
don't like particular theory arguments.  There are also plenty of theory
arguments I do like.  And I will listen to any - hell, I even voted on a
language argument once or twice.

The two main reasons I would discourage research in debate specific sources
are: 1. it doesn't enhance research education to the degree that other research
does, and 2. it's generally too generic.   Additionally, I think evidence from
debate sources rarely serves the roles we expect evidence to serve.  To assess
these arguments, I propose comparing two scenarios.  I like Ken's point about
articles (such as his) where the author has brought in information from outside
of the debate field.  Under the current scenario (at least as depicted), a
debater who reads that article and wants to make an argument based on it would
feel substantial pressure to go read the primary sources Ken cites, cut them,
and apply them to debate on his own, without quoting the parts of the article
where Ken develops their application to debate.  Under Ken's scenario, that
debater would not be discouraged (perhaps would even be encouraged) to read
directly from Ken.

RESEARCH EDUCATION

I explained this in my first response to Ken.  In brief, I think one of the
main educational benefits of debate is that it teaches research skills.  That
is to say, it teaches students to cope with the vast resources a major library
can offer and find within them the materials they need.  I don't think that
debate specific evidence serves this role.  Mallin does, and points out that he
teaches his students to use ERIC to find theory ev.  I think that supports my
point, though - they know all they need to do is look in the texts, the four
forensic journals, and ERIC.  If they're lucky, you have the big compilations
from the summer argumentation conferences.  But that's it - there is no more. 
Further, they should have already read some of it in the process of learning
how to debate.  The areas in which non-debate research (in my opinion) excels
over debate specific are:

1. Scope: The non-debate literature is larger and hence more challenging to
approach.  You need to use multiple indexes, you always discover new sources,
and you need to really think hard to figure out where your subject may be
covered.

2. Newness: Some if not most of the debate literature should be familiar to
students.  The non-debate literature is not.

Yes, debate sources meet these goals to some degree, but not as well as
non-debate sources.  Right now, there's lots of pressure to go to outside
sources to support theory arguments.  If we encourage the use of debate
specific evidence, that pressure will decrease.  Bahm on Wittgenstein will
always construct the argument in a manner that makes for a better card - i.e.
Ken will use the debate terms, Ken will be more concise, etc.  Wittgenstein
himself, or Joe Philosopher on Wittgenstein won't write cards that are as easy
to use, but finding Joe on Wittgenstein will be more of a challenge for the
debater.

GENERICNESS

Debate specific evidence crosses all topic borders.  If Bile's right about
wholerez, for example, then all topics are more educational if wholisitically
debated.  Topic specific theory evidence isn't.  If, for example, there are
reasons why military policy should be viewed wholisitically, then those reasons
are useful for one semester only.  Other postings treat this issue with more
depth, I just bring it up for the sake of completeness.

ROLES EVIDENCE CAN SERVE

By this, I mean roles evidence can serve in a debate.  I don't pretend this
list is comprehensive, it's just what I was able to come up with at the moment. 
It seems to me evidence can be a simple assertion, it can contain empirical
data, it can report events unobservable by the reader, it can be an assertion
based on special experience or qualification, it can repeat information
presented elsewhere, or it can make an argument on it's own.  I will treat each
situation separately.

Simple assertion

Most people I know don't like this kind of ev anywhere, theory or not. 
However, it's especially irksome on theory arguments because we all have ideas
about the theory issues.  I suspect that this is where the comments like "don't
quote peers" come from.  Though Ken is highly qualified, for example, he's not
so great that one sentence ("intrinsicness=voter") extracted from his article,
is compelling.  This repesents, however, a misuse of theory (and substantive)
evidence, and shouldn't be viewed as an indictment of the whole of theory
evidence.  Again, just for completeness.

Empirical data

I think this is not generally present in most theory articles nor generally
needed by most theory arguments.  At a bare minimum, I have never heard it read
in a round.  Most of the empirical studies done in debate relate, I think, to
issues not subject to theory argument.  Relevant citation of empirical studies
could come from non-debate sources, such as the linguistic studies on the
Sapir/Whorf hypothesis.  If an empirical study was conducted that produced
results relevant to a theory argument, then I'd be surprised if any or many
critics objected to evidence from that argument.  If, for example, Bile did a
study on number of people who intuitively insert a generic modifier into the
resolution, and reported his results in print, that would seem like an
appropriate source to cite.

Report of events unobserved by the reader

This is the role of the foreign correspondent in news.  No major unobserved
events occur in debate, however.  We need reporters to tell us when the Serbs
fire on Sarejevo.  We're all at the debate events, however.  Also, events that
might be reported on are, again, unlikely to be relevant to any theory debate. 
The next three categories are the ones into which I think most theory evidence
falls.

Inference based on experience/qualification

Here's where the equal competence issue comes in.  This seems like a good place
to address the "contempt for forensic scholarship" issue.  My argument is not
that all forensic scholars are morons, nor is it that a first year is as
experienced or qualified as a tenure track DOF.  My argument is that debate
theory, unlike any other issue we debate about, is an issue upon which we can
assume that all participants have baseline competence.  My original message
read

"Debaters are expected to be competent to discuss debate - it's their field,
they've (hopefully) been taught about it, and they have a direct and immediate
personal stake in the issues it discusses.  No similar expectation exists with
subject matter - It's not anyone's (in the round) field of expertise, they
haven't (necessarily) been taught about it and they don't have a direct
personal stake.  Further, even in those situations where field competence does
exist, there is no way to assess competence.  We can presume baseline
competence in debate, but we can't in fields - it might exist and (should
exist) but we can't prove it."

To clarify, I want to compare evidence from a prolif expert to evidence from a
debate expert.  When a prolif expert says third world prolif is uniquely
dangerous because third world countries lack command and control, I can't
challenge that claim on my own.  I don't know if third world countries have C2,
I don't know to what extent that's important in assessing the safety of
proliferation, etc.  I lack, in other words, enough background to begin the
discussion competently.  Now, we can't deny me the right to discuss the issue
at all.  If we did, there wouldn't be much of a debate.  So instead, we require
me to research the issue (and learn in the process) and then use the fruits of
my research to prove the arguments I make about proliferation.

Now for the debate expert.  When a debate expert, like Rowland for example,
says "tabula rasa's bad because a TR judge couldn't intervene to punish fabbed
ev," I can challenge that claim.  I'm competent to introduce arguments like
"evidence fabrication has a status outside of arguments - it's a rule codified
in the constitution" etc. etc.  Now, Robin's experience and competence may be
much greater than mine.  Accordinly, his arguments may be proportionally
better.  It's quite possible that if he took up the TR debate with me, he'd
crush me.  But he's not just "out of my league" completely.  I can be presumed
to have baseline competence in this discussion, because you know I'm a trained
debater.

Anyway, that's what I meant by "relatively as qualified."  I hope that's not as
depressing to Ken.  The point is not that more experienced coaches are no more
qualified, it's that the gap in qualification between debater and author is so
much more vast with respect to anything but debate that evidence is absolutely
necessary.  The gap is small enough (though still substantial) in debate, that
I don't see evidence as mandatory.  Also, this doesn't apply to non-forensic
sources.  I can't match a linguistics expert, for example.

Presenting information found elsewhere

In the case of an article, such as Ken's, that reports the results of a foray
into some field's literature in support of a theory argument, it is true that
Ken is more competent to speak about, for example, meaning as use, than someone
who hasn't read what Ken has.  However, in an atmosphere that discourages
debate specific theory evidence, a student who wants to debate about meaning as
use would feel pressure to go read Wittgenstein and the other authors Ken
cites.  If that same student could get away with reading ev from Ken, the
incentive to struggle through Wittgenstein would be less.  Reading Ken's
article will surely be educational.  However, the student does that under both
scenarios.  Under my scenario, however, the student then goes on and reads
Wittgenstein etc. etc., which I think is likely to be more educational.

Making an argument

This is, of course, the most problematic case.  For clarity, I assume that a
debater has a piece of theory ev that articulates a good argument.  Now, they
can certainly read the ev in a round.  I won't tell them they can't.  Further,
if the other team says "oh, that's just theory ev," they can say "but it gives
good reasons, and here they are..."  The point is that if the evidence is good
and makes a good argument, then they should be able to use it even in the face
of discouragement.

Alternatively, they can also try and master the argument themselves and present
it on their own.  Now, if they do, I think their comprehension may be enhanced. 
As I said previously, it was quite a struggle for me to learn how to make
theory arguments on my own without theory ev.  I learned quite a bit about
argument construction by doing so.

I still don't think they're plagiarizing by doing so.  Paraphrasing is
different from repeating an argument.  I like Webster's definition of
paraphrasing better.  They say "a restatement of a text, passage, or work
giving the meaning in another form."  The key word is "restatement."  If the
debaters just restate the theory card, I don't think they reach comprehension. 
I'm encouraging them to use Bile's arguments to synthesize one of their own,
applied to the specific resolution.

HOW TO IMPROVE

Certainly this is a valid field of inquiry.  I propose the following
suggestions.

1. Teach argument development.  We try to do that at UMKC.  Some of the things
we do include:

                      1 We do theory debates at our pre-season workshop
                      2 We encourage our theory arguments to be developed 
                      3 We discuss them and work through the rationales

The counterplan idea that Ken and I argued about a while ago, for example,
arose through just such a discussion at FSU.  Anyone else can do it too.  When
you see a bad theory argument on your squad, help them improve it.  Point out
the parts that are shallow in analysis and help them increase the depth and
quality of the argument.  Do theory argument drills just as you do substantive
drills.  Etc.

2.  Provide feedback when you judge a poor argument.  Explain why it's poor and
make suggestions for improvement.  You can even reward well developed arguments
with points.  If you make it known that blippy theory arguments cost speaker
points, the depth of development you watch should increase.          

3. If you like theory ev, try making your students debate without it.  I think
I have a point about the merits of having to research the sources cited by the
theory author.  I also think that having to explain the arguments without
recourse to ev promotes growth.  If they can't make the arguments without the
ev, you know they overrely on it.  If they can, then you have the security of
knowing that your students have learned to avoid the reasons judges don't like
theory ev. 

CONCLUSION

I don't now, nor have I ever, advocated prohibiting students from reading
theory ev.  I do think, however, that a climate that discourages debate
specific theory ev encourages students to do things conducive to growth as
debaters.  It forces them into literatures they may not have seen before, and
it teaches them to develop some arguments on their own, without evidence as a
crutch.  Under the present scenario, theory debates fill a void in the debate
system.  We have lots of very good reasons for insisting on evidence in
substantive debates.  Yet there are benefits to be gained from having to debate
without evidence.  Right now, theory debates provide the forum for that.  I
think there is educational benefit to that arrangement.

Matt


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Matthew K. Roskoski   |  "You have the right to free speech.  As long as     |
| UMKC Debate Forum     |  you're not dumb enough to actually try it. Know     |
| Kansas City, MO       |  your rights.  These are your rights!" The Clash '82 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page