Ah, this isn't actually a student writing an essay, this is a high school policy debater. Their topic this year is space. If you aren't familiar with this activity, it has some pretty outrageous elements--300 wpm speed-reading, often surface-level analysis, and preference for gamesmanship over quality of argumentation. But if you put the right kind of work into it, you do learn alot.
The reason the student needs the source is that 'quals' are used to quickly legitimize a person's argument. In policy debate, unrefuted arguments are considered true. Thus, there's little time for intelligently evaluating what a person is saying, as long as they have 'quals' and you can get to the next piece of evidence ('cards'). The most outrageous argument from a PhD might be preferred in debate over a rational argument from an intelligent person, like Charlie Stross. edit: That's why he can't just say 'as Stross says...' like the commenters suggest. As an example, this past year my debate topic was mental health. I often cited Robert Whitaker, who is a finalist for the Pulitzer prize for psychiatric journalism, was the former director of publications at HMS, and has written two books on psychiatric medications. Yet, because he did not have an MD or PhD, debaters sneered at his qualifications, rather than evaluate his arguments.
I also find it highly likely that Stross's article is being used because of this paragraph "Historically, crossing oceans and setting up farmsteads on new lands conveniently stripped of indigenous inhabitants by disease has been a cost-effective proposition. But the scale factor involved in space travel is strongly counter-intuitive."
This is because debaters often don't respond to the other's policy proposition, but rather kritik their position by indicting the philosophical ideas behind it. For example, an affirmative debater might advocate colonizing a planet, and a negative debater could ignore this and talk about how the affirmative is really based on white-power dominance of other cultures, and thus they should lose.
I debated in High School and College. I don't think you're giving competitive policy debate a fair treatment here.
On the surface it seems stupid to think that an un-refuted argument should be considered true. But arguments are evaluated that way in policy debates for a very specific reason -- the purpose of debate is not to discover the truth, it is to win an argument. That's the whole point of the activity. If you don't like it, you don't have to play.
That's actually the reason I quit during my sophomore year, but it doesn't make debate a worthless activity. Nothing taught me to work harder or think faster.
Debate is like working out. It's not real, so certain considerations go out the window. Under your logic, running on a treadmill is a bad idea because you're not actually going anywhere. But the point of debate isn't to discover the truth, it's to sharpen your understanding and wit.
Where debate goes wrong is when you stay in it too long. After a certain point the skills become harder and harder to transfer to other parts of your life. And a lot of the people in it, as you might be able to imagine, are pretty arrogant know-it-alls.
After I left debate, I had to re-socialize myself back into the world of normal people who don't argue with each other all day for fun. It sounds like I'm exaggerating, but all my friends were debaters and all my time was spent researching, debating, or arguing with them about literally everything. That's just how debaters tend to spend their free time.
1. It's raining
2. It's cold
3. Poor air quality
4. Running surfaces are all paved
5. Lack of water
6. High temperature
7. UV exposure
8. Desire to watch a movie much higher than desire to exercise.
9. Required proximity to person, for example taking care of a sick loved one.
10. Uncertainty about the amount of time available to run
Running outside is the same, at the end of the day you return to the same place you started. The point isn't to get somewhere fast, it's just to run. We do it because we want to be healthy and athletic people. In the same way, you join debate not to get at the truth, but to increase your mental abilities.
You have a good point here - why not just learn to understand and articulate arguments by doing something productive for the world rather than competing against one another in pointless weekend tournaments?
It makes no sense to compare debate to radically different activities (like programming or starting a startup). I'm not arguing that debate was the best thing that anyone can do, rather that it's a worthwhile and not totally bullshit activity. I understand if you don't want to do it (different strokes for different folks) but I gained a lot from it and I think it deserves a certain amount of respect. I would never disparage a tennis player for having wasted his time just because I find it tedious running back and forth. I would respect him and want to learn about tennis from him.
the purpose of debate is not to discover the truth, it is to win an argument. … If you don't like it, you don't have to play.
This isn't a particularly good defense if the opposition to this sort of thing is that it teaches students to favor winning arguments over being right (meaning everyone who didn't participate still has to live in a culture built on that preference).
Everyone in debate knows they're just there to win rounds. People often argue ridiculous things (e.g. "your plan to explore space should be rejected because it reifies western colonialism") just for a kick. If you asked them whether they believe what they say, I predict 90% would say "no, not really".
After a while, it gets boring. That's why I quit. But the activity actually gave me a great appreciation for the limits of my knowledge and the relationship of words to truth. Once you realize that a good argument can be made for almost anything, you start questioning the default rationalizations we all grow up with.
It sounds like high school policy debates teach the opposite of rational thought. Authority is a useful heuristic for finding truth, but a good argument (which can in principle come from anyone) overrides authority. Here's a good post explaining the concept: http://lesswrong.com/lw/lx/argument_screens_off_authority/
It sounds like high school policy debates teach the opposite of rational thought
It's always been so. Socrates' greatest enemy wasn't Aristophanes. They were the Sophists - teachers who would teach debating skills with no regard for truth. This kind of "debate" and the worldview behind it is the most insidious kind of cynicism.
That could just be Socrates' (well, really Plato's) somewhat sophistic portrayal of them. The Sophists were a sort of combination of academics, scientists, philosophers, politicians, and lawyers. So they got a fair share of distain.
I'm guessing that calling someone a "Sophist" was like calling them an "academic". Even people who are academics themselves will do it, to try and drum up a bit of street cred.
Agreed. In my experience, the debaters don't have any conviction at all, just a folio of out-of-context quotes and a strong grasp of technicalities. That said, in an ideal world debate teaches thorough research and rhetorical skills, and I found that learning "flowing," was pretty helpful in other areas of my life.
The problem might be that this is how the real world works, or the minds of most of the people who vote in democracies. While I admire Socrates more, didn't he essentially live like a bum? Maybe to really get enough influence to move something, you have to play the game.
Not that I like it - that is why I am a software developer, not a politician. The real hacker mindset would be to try to figure out how people's minds work and take advantage of it (for a greater good, of course).
I was pointing out that this problem has existed and been recognized for at least 2500 years, as evidenced by extant writings of Plato. How is that an appeal to authority?
"I often cited Robert Whitaker, who is a finalist for the Pulitzer prize for psychiatric journalism, was the former director of publications at HMS, and has written two books on psychiatric medications. Yet, because he did not have an MD or PhD, debaters sneered at his qualifications, rather than evaluate his arguments."
Why didn't you just cite the research he is talking about? All of the authors of the actual studies have PhDs.
Another aspect of playing the game unfortunately. There is some give and take I have to accept with playing-to-win and playing-for-education. First, studies are very hesitant with their results (and justifiably so, because they are just one study). The unifying analysis of one author is thus much more persuasive. Much more importantly in my experience, its really hard for me to read excerpts from a study to someone because the material is far more technical and harder to understand for a listening audience.
This whole argument could have been summed up to some high school debate club member expecting to find someone with qualifications re: the feasibility of space colonization... which, frankly, deserves derision.
What is he really looking for here? A PhD in astronomy? Someone with those credentials is more likely to have studied patterns electromagnetic spectra than the logistics of travelling to and colonizing another world...
What he's really asking is, has this person spent a meaningful amount of time reflecting on this issue (if his works discuss it, one would imagine he would have) and engaged in peer-reviewed exchange of ideas (in the Journal of Space Exploration?) - SciFi author is a better set of credentials than any other formal qualification I can think of.
I'm glad I skipped any sort of debate team experience and instead spent my college years engaging in real debates on scientific usenet groups like sci.astro.tech, it seems to have been a vastly better use of my time.
Thanks a bunch for this comment. I saw policy debate represented in the cool movie Rocket Science, but only just now did I connect that style to the internet trolling style that was (perhaps) pioneered on slashdot and has made its way into many sites, as well as being common in the mass media. Ask where is the evidence for X and one's credentials in the field are questioned.
I feel like there's a lot of room for another kritik at the point when the 'quals' of this card are called suspect: Opp questions 'quals' of famous blogger, thus marginalizing independent authors in favor of institutionalized analysis... which limits free speech... leading to tyranny and nuclear war.
You described several of the strengths of policy debate (an activity I participated in during high school) but, alas, also all of the weaknesses. These defects of policy debate are why I'm glad my son participated in Lincoln-Douglas debate in high school.
Lincoln-Douglas is, in many places, mutating to be just like policy debate (kritiks, spreading, reliance on "cards" rather than actual argument).
To solve this problem, the NFL (National Forensic League) created a new form of debate, called Public Forum, that focuses on clear, persuasive rhetoric at the expense of detailed research. And now it is starting to mutate just like Lincoln-Douglas.
I think that fast-talking and reliance on out-of-context quotes is sort of the dominant strategy for any kind of debate. As long as there is a rule than an unrefuted argument stands as true, quantity will inevitably become more important than quality, and the credentials of a source will be more important than what it actually says.
This process doesn't occur when judges are allowed to make their decision based on persuasive speech and rhetoric as much as on logic, but debate judging is already so subjective that this presents a problem for many people.
You're wrong about one key point - judges in policy debate are allowed to use whatever decision-making framework they want. They don't have to consider a dropped argument valid. But most do, because the point of policy debate is not to wax poetic about your beliefs in a passionate attempt to persuade others, but rather to play a highly technical game against challenging opponents.
I never liked the alternate forms of debate that attempt to re-create some golden era of slow talking persuasion because the decisions made are often arbitrary. I prefer a value-neutral environment where I can be assured a more objective basis for judgement.
I did parlimentary debate in high school, which involves absolutely no research beyond one's general knowledge, and a vast amount of creativity. In college, I tried my hand at policy debate, and found it wearisome. The research was enjoyable, but the motormouth spewing of undigested (and indigestible at that speed) facts seemed pointless. It was also less fun to watch others. So that lasted through two tournaments, then it was back to the computer lab...
Not "incomprehensible," but that was the case for some people, but "indigestible." I feel, you are obviously free to disagree, that policy debates actively discourage mulling over evidence in favor of a firehose of "argument by authority," assertions. Like I said, there are good things about it, too.
Mostly, as other people in the thread pointed out, it eliminates any actual analysis, and just encourages you to basically DDOS your opponents with arguments.
Not that regular-speed CX is a bastion of logical thought, but at least it encourages more creativity and better rhetorical skill. How often are you going to be debating anyone outside the actual "sport" at 300 words a minute?
Out of curiosity, how many points would you get for a successful Gish Gallop?
(A 'Gish Gallop' is the practice, perfected by Creationist Duane Gish in his 'debates' with actual scientists, of asking so many questions the other side has no time to respond to all of them. Unanswered questions are deemed to have 'stumped' the scientist and regarded as a victory among the kinds of people who want Gish to have victories.)
The reason the student needs the source is that 'quals' are used to quickly legitimize a person's argument. In policy debate, unrefuted arguments are considered true. Thus, there's little time for intelligently evaluating what a person is saying, as long as they have 'quals' and you can get to the next piece of evidence ('cards'). The most outrageous argument from a PhD might be preferred in debate over a rational argument from an intelligent person, like Charlie Stross. edit: That's why he can't just say 'as Stross says...' like the commenters suggest. As an example, this past year my debate topic was mental health. I often cited Robert Whitaker, who is a finalist for the Pulitzer prize for psychiatric journalism, was the former director of publications at HMS, and has written two books on psychiatric medications. Yet, because he did not have an MD or PhD, debaters sneered at his qualifications, rather than evaluate his arguments.
I also find it highly likely that Stross's article is being used because of this paragraph "Historically, crossing oceans and setting up farmsteads on new lands conveniently stripped of indigenous inhabitants by disease has been a cost-effective proposition. But the scale factor involved in space travel is strongly counter-intuitive."
This is because debaters often don't respond to the other's policy proposition, but rather kritik their position by indicting the philosophical ideas behind it. For example, an affirmative debater might advocate colonizing a planet, and a negative debater could ignore this and talk about how the affirmative is really based on white-power dominance of other cultures, and thus they should lose.
My quals: debater in a different type of debate