Listen to those who have gone before: Part 2
Listen to Those Who Have Gone Before: Part 2
I never thought that, four years later, I’d enjoy making fun of the arguments I used to run, and do so online in front of the whole world (see my previous post). What about myself will I enjoy making fun of four years from now? But I digress…
Facet #2: Sparking Argument Ideas
Not only is it helpful to research the historical conversation to get valuable context on the resolution, it also is really helpful for finding out the possible arguments you could run. My problem in my first couple years was that I was coming up with everything myself. It was “me reinventing thousands of years of military ethics discussion.” Needless to say, my reinventions didn’t always do the trick.
When I finally learned the value of getting ideas into my head before I started spewing them on paper, argument generation became so much easier—oftentimes, because I would start to do it subconsciously. I would be reading a helpful article, and something the author said would jump out at me: “Hey, that sounds like a really great start for an Affirmative argument.” Or, more often: “Hey, that quote supports this other idea that I came across a little while ago.” Or, probably most often of all: “Hey, that’s really interesting. I don’t see quite how that fits in but I’ll write it down anyway.”
I started keeping a Word document in which I would write down any potentially applicable idea. Maybe it would be a copied-and-pasted section from an article that pretty much gave me my argument. Maybe it would be a supporting quote, idea, or application for a strategy I’d had mulling around in my head for some time. Maybe it would be an interesting stat that I just felt in my heart would be useful somehow. Or (these were the most fun), it would be a self-debate that I would write out word for word.
How do you debate yourself? Let’s say you’ve just written down an intriguing point. But then you suddenly think of an argument that refutes it. Your gut reaction might be to delete the original point, but resist the urge! Now, if your opponent brings up that point, you have a response to it. But wait... now you think of an argument against the argument against your original point. So now your first hunch seems valid after all, and you have an extra defense of it for when you need it. I’d often go back and forth and back and forth, writing it all out on my document so I could go back and reuse those thoughts again and again. It would sometimes get as long as this (real) example:
• (Initial thought) The effects of economic growth are bad. Exploitation, poor quality of life, materialism, and evil products. Look at what the Industrial Revolution did: Pollution, harsh labor conditions, lack of art in workmanship, stress (there's a reason people go to the country to relax).
• (Response) But it saves lives. Cheap medicine to African countries.
• (Response to response) Economic growth doesn't just bring us cheap medicine and better food. It brings us mustard gas, machine guns, and atomic bombs.
• (Response to response to response) But that wasn't economic growth that invented those weapons. Sure, growth made it possible for us to have them because we had our basic needs covered, but you can't actually blame economic growth.
• (Response ^ 4) Well, then growth didn't invent medicine, either! By taking care of lesser needs, all economic growth did was make it possible. You can't take credit for the good but distance yourself from the bad.
At some point my self-conversation would peter out, but I would have gone back and forth several times in the process and have come up with several different ideas. I may never end up using them, but they also could end up being the crux of my case when I rewrite it in February. Just like science (ironically) you may gain a piece of information and never know how to use it until months—or centuries—down the road.
Eventually I’d break up this gigantic Word document into separate documents titled “Affirmative Case,” “Negative Case,” “General Research,” etc. But at the beginning of the season it can be hard to tell what goes where. The more rounds you do, tournaments you compete in, and conversations you have, the more things start to fall into place. But it’s hard to have things falling into place if you don’t have the things to begin with. Have the things!
The important point to notice is that I would often come up with these self-debates after reading something in a book or online that prompted the mental wheels. Reading the historical conversation is not only helpful for understanding the context of your arguments; it also acts as a springboard for your thoughts. You read something someone else has said, and you start to think about it. You realize you don’t agree with it. Oh, wait, maybe you do. Now, because you have a back-and-forth written down, you know what to say if your opponent uses the idea and you also know what to say if you decide to run the idea yourself. So the third facet is just the other side of the coin:
Facet #3: Previewing your opponents’ arguments
Your opponents most likely are saying things that at least someone has said before. If you encounter idea X while you’re researching two weeks before the tournament, you’ve just gained for yourself two weeks of prep time for idea X instead of the three minutes you’ll get in-round. Personally, I developed some of my best responses only after days of thinking about them. The more time you gain, the better.
Now, these last two facets are obviously a bit more applicable right at the beginning of the year and become less practical the deeper you get into the metagame. However, never cease to keep your ears open for new ideas, both for you and against you, and analyze them ruthlessly. You don’t want to listen for a few minutes and then plug your ears while you talk the rest of the time. Listen and talk. That’s what it means to be a part of the Great Conversation.
There’s one more facet to “listening to those who have gone before.” The tuning must be stayed. ~