Wisconsin Forensics Daily

Thursday Thing to Read: Analyticals

Today’s Thursday Thing to Read comes from the slightly colder land of Minnesota. Alumnus and Assistant coach of/for Appleton West, David Watson enlightens the Wisconsin Forensics and Debate community at a style of argument where he was very proficient: analytical arguments. Read on to hear how analytical arguments can increase your speaker points and can serve a strategic function in round.

Triple A: Analyzing Analytical Arguments
By: David Watson - Assistant Coach Appleton West

When we talk about the differences between policy debate and the other kinds of debate; Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, Classic, and Parliamentary, there are a number of things that set policy debate apart. Policy debate at the highest levels is fast paced, with large numbers of arguments in play at the same time. There is a heavy emphasis on technical proficiency, and unlike the other kinds of debate there is a much higher value placed on the use and quality of evidence. Evidence has become such a crutch for low caliber teams that as a judge I frequently hear things like, ‘You shouldn’t evaluate this because it is just an analytical argument.’

When we think of analytical arguments, our minds stray immediately towards the traditional junior varsity style case pimp, ‘There is no funding, so you can’t evaluate plan.’ Or something of similar substance. This is a shame, because top tier debaters will be the first to admit that strong analytical arguments are a strategic necessity. Simply speaking, a team that is incapable of making analytical arguments is a team that is incapable of debate at the very top levels. There are three major reasons about why analytical arguments are important.

First, it often happens that you will encounter a team that is just better than you on the technical side of the debate. They have the ability to read more evidence in five minutes than you could read in eight. Even high caliber debaters from time to time find themselves technically outclassed. This is a time when the ability to make cogent analytical arguments becomes particularly important. A good analytical argument takes less time to read than a good card, and often times an analytic will have to be answered with one or even two pieces of evidence (provided that the other team hasn’t mastered the analytic themselves). This can be a lifesaver in a world where you are debating a team that has put all of their eggs in the, ‘let’s flow them out’ basket.

Second, while it isn’t necessarily true of all judges, it can certainly be said that many judges would love to hear a well crafted analytical argument from a smart debater more than they would love to hear a piece of evidence by yet another policy ‘expert’. The best example I can think of is the double bind. Double binds tend to nearly always be analytical arguments (at least in their basic construction), but there isn’t anyone who would deny the power and all around awesomeness of a well constructed double bind. Speaker points come to those who know how to analyze arguments, and there is no surer proof of your analytical ability than an analytical argument. As your ability to make quality card free answers increases so will your speaker points increase. A good grounding in analytics is also the best way to avoid acquiring a reputation as a block monkey, since good analytic debaters either won’t need to carry as many blocks or won’t stick to them as religiously as their less enlightened peers.

Third, a good analytic is usually the best way to weigh a round. The classic, ‘even if they win X, we still win because of Y’ is an excellent example of an argument that is made without evidence that nonetheless is of unsurpassed value in shaping the impact calculus. Now I will grant that there are pieces of evidence that serve the same function, but the analytic is usually better because it is tailored to the debate. Additionally, this kind of round framing argument requires both a deep knowledge of the literature and a sharp impact instinct. It is an art form, and it should be practiced.

If analytical arguments are so important to debate we have to ask ourselves; what makes a good analytic, what things should we be trying to practice?

Since one of the primary values of the analytic is the time tradeoff that they can generate it is important that good analytics be word efficient. Nothing is more painful than watching a debater trying to make analytical arguments who isn’t able to express what s/he means, or lapses into repetition. A good drill to deal with this problem is to redo speeches with reduced time to eliminate repetition and sharpen the arguments. Many debaters are surprised by how much less time it takes to give a speech when the speech is given with maximum efficiency.

It is more important that an analytic argument be well warranted than that a card be warranted. While cards will carry with them the implied approval of an expert (a silly notion, because everything that isn’t a statistic is someone’s analytical) cardless answers have to make sense all on their own. This is something that has to happen during prep time. Instead of spending all of your precious preparation time searching for that piece of no link evidence that you carry for just such an emergency, sit back and think about your position for a second. Think about the way the uniqueness and the link relate to the case. Think about how the impact relates to the case. Think about how the disadvantage links to the counterplan or the alternative to the criticism. What is the status of those arguments? There is probably a way to gain a good deal of ground without reading evidence. There is probably a way to trap your opponents if you take the time to think through the relationships between arguments. In the back of every good analytic mind a little voice should always be whispering, ‘The only thing we need to win this round is for the other side to say something.’ Nine times out of ten that little voice is right.

Posted in Columns, Thursday Thing To Read |