THOROUGHBRED THEORY BLOCKS Thoroughbred Theory Blocks by Roger Solt Copyright © 2004 by Paradigm Research, Inc. All rights reserved. First Edition Printed In The United States Of America For information on Paradigm Debate Products: PARADIGM RESEARCH P.O. Box 2095 Denton, Texas 76202 Toll-Free 800-837-9973 Fax 940-380-1129 Web /www.oneparadigm.com/ E-mail [email protected] All rights are reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced by any means - graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or information storage and retrieval systems - without the written permission of the publisher. Making copies of this book, or any portion, is a violation of United States and international copyright laws. THOROUGHBRED THEORY BLOCKS THOROUGHBRED THEORY BLOCKS i INTRODUCING DEBATE THEORY: PARADIGMS AND PRACTICE Issues of theory appear in every debate round and theory arguments are important, and while they can are often decisive to the outcome. Even thirty years stand to some extent in isolation, such arguments ago, debate had its theory controversies. People will make far more sense when seen in the broader argued intensely over "the inherent and compelling" context of debate theory as it has developed over need and even more vehemency over that radical the past several decades. In this introduction, new form of argument, the comparative advantage. therefore, I intend to discuss the nature of debate But thirty years ago, at least, theory disputes were theory in somewhat broader terms than it is limited to a relatively few stock issues and discussed in the particular theory blocks. Following arguments over how they should be evaluated. this more general discussion of the nature of theory, Today the range of theory issues is far broader. The there will be a more specific discussion of the evaluation of the stock issues is still a matter of particular theories which this book addresses. some controversy, especially the questions of topicality standards and the weighing of impacts. THEORY AS A META-ARGUMENT But there is a vast array of new theory issues which have come to the center of controversy: questions of What is debate theory? One answer to this question affirmative and negative fiat, conditionality, is that debate theory is "meta-argument," that is, competitiveness and permutations, etc. At the most argument about argument or the standards for mundane level, there are disputes over whether evaluating arguments. This might seem like an counterplans can be run in the second negative academic and esoteric preoccupation, but in fact it constructive and whether counterplans and is practical and even mundane. For example, in a permutations require a written text. And at the topicality debate, each side will commonly offer a margins of debate theory, there are even claims that definition of a key terms. The question then arises the affirmative need not present a plan, that the of which definition should prevail in the particular negative need not defend a policy alternative, and round. Resolving this requires a theory argument--a even that counterplans need not be competitive. The standard of evaluation which is found on a result of this theory proliferation is a paradox. somewhat higher plane of abstraction than is the Theory argument remains vitally important to initial argument which it is seeking to resolve. successful debating, but most debaters are relatively Thus, one team might argue that its definition is bad at arguing theory. better because it is more limiting and the other might argue that its definition is preferable because Theory argument is both a sword and a shield; that it is more field contextual. But if both teams is, it is both a powerful offensive weapon and an respond with different standards, then once again an essential defensive tool. Good theory debaters impasse seems to have been reached. How do we possess a decisive edge because they can locate resolve the competing standards? The result, often, their substantive arguments within the most is an appeal to "meta-standards" -- that is, standards favorable evaluative framework. Often, therefore, for standards, arguments which are at a still higher arguments which might not seem on face to be level of abstraction. So, for example, one team decisive become voting issues. Weak theory might appeal to the value of debatability as a key to debaters, on the other hand, are continuously evaluating topicality standards and another might vulnerable. Theory argument can work either for appeal to the importance of linguistic precision. In you or against you, but one way or another it will theory, this process of appealing to ever higher be at work in every debate. levels of abstraction could continue indefinitely. In practice, teams usually run out of intellectual The main purpose of this handbook is to increase ammunition (or at least out of speeches) long before the sophistication with which debaters can argue we have arrived at this infinite regress. Sometimes theory. While debaters often make theory one team will be able to go a step beyond its arguments, they frequently fail to make the best opponent, offering a more comprehensive theory arguments pertaining to a particular issue. Or framework within which they evaluate the they may make that argument in a superficial and particular issue. unpersuasive fashion. This is sometimes a function of time pressures, but often it reflects a lack of Sometimes each team will be able to clash at an sound theoretical understanding. equally high level of generality--in that case the judge will simply have to decide which theory The bulk of this volume is made up of almost 150 construct is more compelling. Often, of course, briefs pertaining to over 70 different aspects of issues can be resolved at the lower levels of contemporary debate theory. Though not totally abstraction. For example, the affirmative might be comprehensive, it is at least a relatively thorough able to argue that it meets the negative's definition, treatment of the range of theory issues which arise in which the case the whole debate over standards in contemporary policy debate. But while specific can be shortcircuited. This process of developing THOROUGHBRED THEORY BLOCKS ii standards for arguments occurs in many areas other social science, but it also appealed more broadly to than topicality. If a negative counterplans with a concept of debate as a scholarly activity involving action by a foreign government, the affirmative is social criticism and social philosophy. Debate likely to argue that this is not a legitimate position. paradigms, Zarefsky argued, function as follows. The result is arguments about the limits of negative Participants in the debate activity begin with a set fiat. If the affirmative argues that its advantage of core values concerning what debate should be outweighs because it has a shorter time frame, the like. Based on those core values, they then select an negative may well respond by arguing that the external model, for example, the courtroom, the negative impact is larger or more probable, even if Congress, or social science. Then, from that model, further off. The result is that a theory of risk they derive particular theories, such as topicality analysis needs to be developed. If the affirmative standards, requirements for counterplans, and views runs two plans or the negative two counterplans, a of conditionality. This process of theory generation, theory of conditionality is likely to be called for. it should be noted) is rather different from the The examples could be pretty much indefinitely process that I described earlier. The multiplied. One thing interesting to note about all of paradigm-derived view of theory is basically a these examples is that in each case debate practice deductive process, a process of reasoning from (a specific argument situation or a specific form of general principles to particular practices. The argument) serves to drive debate theory. The theory alternative way in which theory can be seen to emerges in order to deal with recurrent situations of develop is what might be described as inductive, or argument controversy. bottom up. A certain practice inspires controversy. A theory is developed to deal with that controversy. PARADIGMS And eventually so-called "grand theories" or paradigms emerge to systematize the total body of As was noted in the topicality example, theory theory. Actually, these two methods of theory arguments have a way of rising to ever higher and generation are not mutually exclusive. There is, I more abstract levels of generality. At the highest would argue, an ongoing dialectic of debate theory level of generality are those very broad theories and practice. Theories inform practices, but about the nature of debate which are called practices also shape theory. "paradigms." The term "paradigm" was popularized by a 1962 book called THE STRUCTURE OF For example, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS, by philosopher of debate topics became significantly broader. This led science Thomas Kuhn. Kuhn was particularly to the theory that the negative should be able to concerned with how one general scientific theory offer a topical counterplan. The acceptance of replaces another, for example, how Einstein's views topical counterplans led eventually to the of physics replaced Newton's. Paradigms, according widespread use of plan-inclusive counterplans, and to Kuhn, are general frameworks within which this in turn led to a new body of theory relating to questions can be coherently asked and which can whether or not plan-inclusive counterplans are direct further research. In a broad sense, a paradigm legitimate. One result of this dual process of theory is a world view, a general way of looking at things. building is that many judges fail to have totally Paradigms are usually internally consistent, but they consistent theory beliefs.