Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 08:56:42 -0400
Reply-To: Michael Miroslav Korcok <mmk1913@GARNET.ACNS.FSU.EDU>
From: Michael Miroslav Korcok <mmk1913@GARNET.ACNS.FSU.EDU>
Subject: ans Penders
To: EDEBATE@LIST.UVM.EDU
yeah, inherency is just another argument, but one any decent theory
debater should smoosh. an extended argumentative rant and then your
question.
the "problem-solution" framework is, in the end, a bad idea, but the
"stock issues" version of it, for 30+ years the "theoretical framework"
of policy debate, is an atrocious idea. especially to teach "novices":
messes 'em up bad.
problem-solving. i know Dewey and Simon and lots of others are cited
within a tradition that implicitly equivocates rationality with
problem-solving. Robert Merton even defines rationality that way:
finding the best solution to any given problem. in fact, this seems to
be a basic assumption of lots of thinking. once you start paying
attention to it, you'll hear everyone talking about and under the
assumption of problem-solving -- the damn stuff is everywhere.
especially in communication: for both persuasion and diffusion of
innovation research, for example, it is a basic assumption about human
thinking.
and i think it's wrong. rather, i think that rationality consists of
making the right choice for any given decision. perhaps it is wisdom or
understanding that consists of choosing the right decisions, that is, of
deciding which decisions to make. that's for another post and time, but
these are distinct conceptions of rationality and the decisionmaking
view is better than the problem-solution view.
just a teaser that illustrates one practical application and implication
of this argument. John Bonnett, reviewing Gar Alperovitz's 1995 book,
"The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb" on H-DIPLO
(http://h-net2.msu.edu/~diplo/balp.htm) unwittingly notes one of the
chief difficulties with and impacts of a problem-solution organization
of decisionmaking:
"Containing Soviet expansion became the
fundamental frame of reference for the
administration, dictating its stance towards
the engagement and timing of the bomb, and
precluding articulation of the essential
question: _should_ the bomb be used?"
stock-issues. the dominant "theoretical framework" for policy debate
for 30 years, finally challenged in the early seventies by Zarefsky and
others in the move to "comparative advantage" formalisms. whoever came
up with "the stock issues paradigm" must have been very political
because they sure weren't very wise. organizing a policy dispute in
this way is inane.
"there are 5 things that the affirmative has to have or they lose:
significance, harms, inherency, topicality, and solvency." just reading
it should make reasonable folks either laugh or shudder. the notion of
policy disputes determined by a checklist of procedural issues is
silly. and teaching folks to think that way is pedagogical malfeasance.
* if the affirmative doesn't have significance (sillier versions say in
the 1ac - "prima facia") then neg wins - despite the radically
contextualized, situated, and relativized nature of "significance". how
is it even possible NOT to have "significance" in the 1AC, or, more to
the point, how is it POSSIBLE to have significance in the 1AC? 1
million dead? 1 dead? 100 million hurting? 5 deprived of their
freedom for 1 year each? 100 living 3 years longer? 50 divorces or 400
marriages? 20 children being born? 2 million men and women being able
to live the way they choose rather than the way the state chooses?
(what) were they (you) thinking for 30 YEARS?
* if the affirmative doesn't present harms (sillier versions say in the
1ac - "prima facia") then aff loses - despite any "advantages". the 2nd
line is "but the absence of 'advantages' is a harm in the status quo".
yeah, congratulations, the Latin just points out the REALLY goofy ad hoc
twisting attempt to save a crummy theory. suppose there are NO
advantages, just disadvantage turns? is the accrual of disadvantage
turns a harm in the status quo? yeah, i guess it has to be for this
'theory' to have any twisty chances left, but how the hell can it still
stay a "prima facia" issue?
* the REASONS why the plan hasn't been undertaken (sillier versions say
in the 1ac - "prima facia")(or is it that the harm hasn't been solved?
or is it that the non-accrued advantages haven't been accrued by any
means, as yet unspecified?), then they lose.
the reasons for inherency are mindnumbingly bad and manifold. perhaps it
has something to do with causality - "because you know, if you don't
know the CAUSE of the problem, how do you know if your plan REALLY
solves the problem". ("because of solvency... so the REAL causes of the
problem are the REASONS why it has yet to be solved - so cute, so silly,
so twisted: can you give me Aristotle's list of the 43 different kinds
of causes again, just for laughs? i do think it is admirable that you
have memorized them and no, that is neither the proximal nor the distal
cause of your inability to get a date...")
Zarefsky wasted some portion of his mental life trying to explain that
it all had to do with showing a need for systemic change. the cherub in
me remembers Chemerinsky or Dripps or Strange or Zarefsky waxing
eloquent about trying to understand how otherwise good men would suffer
the continued existence of evil. in retrospect, those seem like
important questions which have next to nothing to do with whether or not
the affirmative plan is a good idea. (and whatever the hell happened to
Mark Cotham - my lab leader that year who had just won the NDT with
Dripps?)
and that of course opens that whole can of worms of the 11 KINDS of
inherency. thoughts pissed into the wind. for 30 YEARS ...
* if the affirmative isn't topical then they lose. this is an artifact
of the game which, i think, is a bona fide procedural trump. the proper
way to think about T is as an ARGUMENT rather than as a RULE, but that
is another rant for another time.
* if the affirmative doesn't present solvency (sillier versions say in
the 1ac - "prima facia") - then aff loses. this is, strangely enough,
the most insidious of the stock issues, because it seems the most
reasonable: "can't solve the problem? you lose!"
this stock issue, together with harms, is a clear artifact of the
problem-solution perspective. the reasoning is: the plan has to SOLVE
the problem or we shouldn't do the plan. the trouble is that plans
which DON'T solve the PROBLEM might still accrue more advantages than
disadvantages. or more precisely, might still be preferable to the best
competitive alternative. see? even solvency, the most reasonable stock
issue, is a silly checklist item when evaluating an affirmative plan.
because "doesn't solve the problem but we should nonetheless do the
plan".
finally, oh yeah, your question. that is a matter of TOPICALITY, not
inherency. does (and should) the word "should" or the word "increase"
or the word "strengthen" or any other word in the resolution restrict
the affirmative to enacting plans which have not yet been enacted? if
not, then historical FACTUALS (not counterfactuals - the policies were
enacted) are legitimate. if you don't like that prospect, then wrap the
dislike into warrants for a more limiting interpretation of the
resolution.
thank you, as always, for putting up with me,
michael miroslav korcok
|
