Listen to those who have gone before: Part 3
Listen to Those Who Have Gone Before: Part 3
Come to think of it, I also never envisioned that a random tangent in my first debate document from last year would end up online for the whole world to see (see my previous post). I guess that’s another perk to writing down your self-conversations—you get to reuse them months or even years later.
Facet #4: Finding applications that help you write your case
There’s a little bit more to the “historical conversation” than just what old dead guys have written in Latin. When I’ve been using the phrase in the last few posts, I’ve meant pretty much anything that anyone has contributed to the topic before you, from 3000 B.C. to November 2021. That would indeed include philosophies, books, articles, and any verbal aspects of the Great Conversation, but it also can include actions. Especially in a field like science, where the conversation is not so much about verbally-expressed abstract ideas as it is about physical objects and technologies, a good part of listening to the Conversation is studying the applications that give the resolution its context.
Let’s zip back to that semi-embarrassing preemptive warfare idea from a couple posts ago. Not only was I avoiding listening to the ideas that came before me, I wasn’t putting much effort into studying the wars and aborted hostilities that came before me, either. I knew the ins and outs of my definition of preemptive warfare, but if you asked me to point to a real-world example of a preemptive strike driven by misunderstanding, I could point to none. (The closest I got was the Sepoy Mutiny, which was sparked in part by a cultural misunderstanding, but I never tried to argue that it was preemptive warfare.)
The problem was that I had developed a 14-year-old conception of how the world worked, but when I tried to find examples of the world fitting into my conception, I consistently came up empty-handed. Now, research skills would have helped me significantly, but I also needed an argument more attune to reality. Starting with the hypothetical and trying to squeeze in the real world didn’t work very well.
Researching applications before you write your argument may seem a little counter-intuitive, but they help you see what can be realistically argued and what cannot. Personally, I would come across a potentially useful application and write it down, along with a short summary of an argument I could pull out of it. Then I’d move on. When I would scroll back through my document trying to form my case ideas, I’d already have potential applications to help me do so:
“Vioxx was a classic example of scientific advancement without restraint that led to harm. But it did have a few benefits, at least initially. I probably wouldn’t be able to use this application to argue that the Negative side is completely worthless and will do nothing but cause absolute death and destruction, but at least I could argue that the Affirmative side is the superior option in the long run.”
Applications inform your arguments and help them stay realistic.
Now, you can go too far the other way. I’ve seen far too many cases—and I mean far too many cases—that have almost no logic in them because the contentions consist of applications with rhetoric mixed in at the end to give the impression that they represent the general rule. For the significant majority of case strategies, single applications are not arguments. Again, single applications are not arguments. They are examples of how the world functions, demonstrating that your logic actually exists in the real world. But they do not prove the general rule—that’s what your logic is for. So don’t think that once you’ve found two great applications, you now have a case. Your logic needs to inform your case as much as your applications do.
However, I also have seen my fair share of cases (many of which were my own) that were written by deciding to postpone the real-world-component until the entire structure (value, criterion, contentions) were established. This leads to a kind of panicky Easter-egg hunt: “Oh, no, I need examples, I need examples! Google, give me examples of ‘Restraint costs us too much money.’” Just as your logic should inform your applications, so your applications should inform your logic. Achieving a healthy balance of philosophy and practicality makes for really great cases, but also for really smooth case-writing.
And—you guessed it—this all comes from doing a bit of research into the Great Conversation of applications. What are the most significant biomedical engineering advances of the last 100 years? What are the most stellar successes? What about the most drastic failures? Have we ever wasted money, time, or even human life because we sacrificed one side of the resolution over the other? You could probably think of 15 other questions to ask that would help you get a feel for what has gone before you. Or just dive right in and take notes as you go.
Again, as the year progresses and you get in the swing of the tournament season, you’ll probably end up doing less general hunting and more specific research. That’s a natural part of the metagame: focusing on the core ideas that everyone is starting to talk about. But don’t shut your ears to new applications as you come across them. The Great Conversation might just be whispering to you from a corner of the room that none of your competitors have explored yet.
In sum,
Facet #1 means understanding the historical conversation so you understand what the topic means.
Facet #2 means sparking argument ideas so you think about what you might say.
Facet #3 means previewing your opponents’ ideas so you think about what they might say.
Facet #4 means understanding the actual development of the topic so you can find out whether what you say and your opponents say actually happens in real life.
Hopefully these tips are in some way helpful as you strive to build a case that doesn’t get stuck reinventing the wheel. It’s a lot more fun to read a wheel-building manual and then design the 2030 Ford Mustang. ~
Let us know if there are any specific topics you’d like to see covered on the blog!