Home
Not to steal thunder away from the epic truth testing/comparative worlds debate, but lets ignore the question of legitimacy of either paradigm and shift to a different issue; more specifically the pros and cons to parametric and hypothetical paradigms. For clarification, parametric advocacies derive impacts/analysis from the status quo. Arguments are only legitimate if they relate to what is currently happening ie impacts to more bailouts would only be applicable if they relate to the circumstances currently. Hypothetical advocacies are concerned with variables that may or may not happen. For example, government bailouts COULD have a complication that isn't happening now, thus we can't justify whether its good or not without respect to that variable. Consider these things for discussion: which paradigm should we default to/use, what are the merits and demerits of both interps, and how could they function in either the truth testing paradigm or the comparative worlds paradigm. I will be advocating hypothetics.
So my concern with parametrics is primarily theoretical. For one, I feel parametrics is a less predictable interpretation of the resolution. For example, if we are concerned with the resolve as a general principle, then the resolve is interpreted via the words within it. When we add the status of the present, we add "invisible additions" to the resolution, for example, if I where to make the current UIL topic parametricized I would have to add the words "in the status quo" before "federal gov bailouts of major corporations just". The problem is that addition is largely invisible, in that we don't know the exact wording of the conditional addition. It could be phrased "in the squo" or "in the present day" or "currently," etc. The problem with that is that it destroys definitional debate ground and makes debates more murky as opposed to just debating the literal interpretation of the resolve. I see two potential concerns by the parametricists about this argument. First is that by defining words and clarifying terms in the hypothetical I "add" terms to the resolution and secondly, as per the third sentence in this paragraph, I advocate an invisible addition of my own through the interpretation of the resolve as a general statement. On the first objection, I have two arguments. 1, interpretation debate is different from an invisible addition insofar as it is just a clarification of the meaning of the terms, not the addition of terms that where not present. If you define a term as having a conditional status that would entail the status quo, then you have legit grounds for using it, however interpreting the rez as parametric via additions of words is illegit and unpredictable. Contained within every word is its meaning which is unpacked, not added, through definitional debate. 2, its nonunique. On the second objection, though the "in general" addition is assumed in the hypothetical (for the most part, categorical shit is going out of vogue), it is also assumed in the parametric world as well, as when one wins a debate they don't do so by categorically proving the resolve true (that expectation is unmeetable) but rather by technically winning the validity of the resolve. Thus, though there are some unpredictable elements to the hypothetical, it is more predictable than a parametric advocacy.
Additionally, it seems like LD topic lit is generally not empiric/parametricized in nature, given that we challenge a lot of the assumptions that kind of evidence brings.
Also, it seems more educational to be hypothetical in our reasoning. For example, if I argued that gov bailouts are good because of populist reactions (some kinda cap or statism impact to that) and you retorted with "what about diversions of tax payer money that is unknown? How can populist reactions occur?" and my reaction is "that isn't happening now" then lets say I "won" the argument and my thesis "Gov bailouts are good" is true (in the general sense). Say a week later the political climate cools down and bailouts are now done behind closed doors and no one is angry because they don't know. Say we somehow acquire this info and have another discussion. The original thesis, Gov bailouts good, is no longer true and we are forced to reevaluate the entire discussion. It seems less educational to only focus on the staquo as politics, philosophy, and law all have to be adaptable, be able to predict the variables to an extent. A law that can't predict for every complication isn't a good one. Why ignore potential complications even if they aren't happening now?
Anyone wish to defend parametrics?
So my concern with parametrics is primarily theoretical. For one, I feel parametrics is a less predictable interpretation of the resolution. For example, if we are concerned with the resolve as a general principle, then the resolve is interpreted via the words within it. When we add the status of the present, we add "invisible additions" to the resolution, for example, if I where to make the current UIL topic parametricized I would have to add the words "in the status quo" before "federal gov bailouts of major corporations just". The problem is that addition is largely invisible, in that we don't know the exact wording of the conditional addition. It could be phrased "in the squo" or "in the present day" or "currently," etc. The problem with that is that it destroys definitional debate ground and makes debates more murky as opposed to just debating the literal interpretation of the resolve. I see two potential concerns by the parametricists about this argument. First is that by defining words and clarifying terms in the hypothetical I "add" terms to the resolution and secondly, as per the third sentence in this paragraph, I advocate an invisible addition of my own through the interpretation of the resolve as a general statement. On the first objection, I have two arguments. 1, interpretation debate is different from an invisible addition insofar as it is just a clarification of the meaning of the terms, not the addition of terms that where not present. If you define a term as having a conditional status that would entail the status quo, then you have legit grounds for using it, however interpreting the rez as parametric via additions of words is illegit and unpredictable. Contained within every word is its meaning which is unpacked, not added, through definitional debate. 2, its nonunique. On the second objection, though the "in general" addition is assumed in the hypothetical (for the most part, categorical shit is going out of vogue), it is also assumed in the parametric world as well, as when one wins a debate they don't do so by categorically proving the resolve true (that expectation is unmeetable) but rather by technically winning the validity of the resolve. Thus, though there are some unpredictable elements to the hypothetical, it is more predictable than a parametric advocacy.
Additionally, it seems like LD topic lit is generally not empiric/parametricized in nature, given that we challenge a lot of the assumptions that kind of evidence brings.
Also, it seems more educational to be hypothetical in our reasoning. For example, if I argued that gov bailouts are good because of populist reactions (some kinda cap or statism impact to that) and you retorted with "what about diversions of tax payer money that is unknown? How can populist reactions occur?" and my reaction is "that isn't happening now" then lets say I "won" the argument and my thesis "Gov bailouts are good" is true (in the general sense). Say a week later the political climate cools down and bailouts are now done behind closed doors and no one is angry because they don't know. Say we somehow acquire this info and have another discussion. The original thesis, Gov bailouts good, is no longer true and we are forced to reevaluate the entire discussion. It seems less educational to only focus on the staquo as politics, philosophy, and law all have to be adaptable, be able to predict the variables to an extent. A law that can't predict for every complication isn't a good one. Why ignore potential complications even if they aren't happening now?
Anyone wish to defend parametrics?