As a debater I found that understanding uniqueness was a difficult challenge. The phrase "the uniqueness controls the direction of the link" went over my head for a long time. Part of the problems is that unlike the other elements of a disadvantage - the link, internal link, and impact, uniqueness is not a particularly descriptive term. It's sort of intuitive what a link is - a connection between the plan and the disadvantage. An impact is, well, an impact. But uniqueness? Like, what makes the disad special?
Right. A lot of people get taught that uniqueness arguments are just arguments about the status quo. Of course, that's partially correct, but when novice debaters hear this, they generally take it to mean that their job is to list off a bunch of random facts about the status quo, some of which have exactly zero bearing on the arguments at hand.
To really grasp uniqueness, we have to take a step back, and think about our intuitive understanding of debate in general. For most people, it's not difficult to understand link-through-impact debate: when we talk about policies in our daily lives with our friends, we are used to arguing about what would happen if a certain policy was passed.
What we aren't used to debating about is "what is the world like right now?" This is because, intuitively, we don't consider reality as something to be debated about. Reality is…real…out there…an actual thing, that exists, and is something we "ought" to have a shared understanding of. The idea of debating about whether or not it is raining outside or sunny outside is asinine. This intuitive assumption that reality is not something that is up for debate is what makes uniqueness so difficult for many novice debaters to get a handle on.
So, to take the obvious next step, the uniqueness debate is indeed a debate about the status quo, and further, your arguments have the ability to shape what the world looks like for the purposes of the debate round. In debate, "reality" is a lot more like the Matrix, and if you want, you can be Neo, shaping the world in such a way that it is favorable to your side of the debate round.
How do we do this? Well, it depends on which side you are on. Let's think intuitively. If you are the negative, you want reality to be awesome. The world should be an amazing place, with bunny rabbits and rolling green hills. Why? Well, if the world is an awesome place, the rationale for action is obviously not that strong. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it, etc."
Further, as the negative, in addition to wanting the world to be awesome, we also want it to be fragile. If the world is robust to various changes, then it's unlikely that the affirmative's policy will be particularly destructive to the way things are. On the other hand, if the world is like a beautiful Ming vase perched on a very thin pedestal, well then we wouldn't want to do anything at all, would we? Don't touch the vase!
Conversely, if we are on the affirmative, we want the world to be a terrible place. If it's ok at the moment, that needs to be a temporary illusion, with Voldemort lurking around the corner, his arrival inevitable. If the world sucks, then even if the plan might not work, or might have some unintended consequences, the rationale for doing something, anything at all, is extremely probable.
We also want the world to be fixable (which is actually similar to fragile.) We want our plan to be able to change the status quo in a positive way, and we can't do that if the world is robust to the type of change we want to make.
If you internalize these concepts, you will understand how to construct uniqueness scenarios. You aren't just listing off random facts about the world. You are trying to paint a picture of reality that serves your interests. If you are negative, you want to paint a picture of a world that is awesome and fragile. If you are affirmative, the world needs to be terrible, but fixable.
No comments:
Post a Comment