stannard67
12-12-02, 09:37 AM
Whatever "canned cases" signifies, that signified phenomena is inherently unstable. There is no fountain of objectivity where the label points.There is no constitutional definition of unacceptably prepared research, no community consensus regarding (1) how much pre-tournament preparation is acceptable or (2) how many times a particular set of arguments can be
applied to multiple resolutions over the course of one or more debate seasons.
Because of the instability of the definition, "canned cases" becomes a devil term available for invocation against teams that, in some people's minds, "overuse" their favorite sets of arguments. Although a better check on such overuse would be topicality or other procedural arguments in the particular debates themselves, such in-round checks are unsatisfactory to those in the community who seek to impose extra-constitutional norms. It's not even something that can be legislated against within particular sub-bodies (such as PSCFA's ban on pre-round coaching), since, again, the signified "canned cases" is absolutely impossible to define in any verifiable or enforcable way. The lack of objective standards creates an opportunity for (and in some people's minds, a necessity of) subjective slander, innuendo.
In the meantime, proactive coaches and directors will continue to push their teams to research, since there is a strong correlation between research/case-writing/argument preparation and competitive success. Given that this correlation might itself be the unconscious target of those who periodically invoke the unstable term "canned cases," I am reminded of Kurt Vonnegut's short story "Harrison Bergeron." Isn't this a rather undesirable form of egalitarianism?
stannard
applied to multiple resolutions over the course of one or more debate seasons.
Because of the instability of the definition, "canned cases" becomes a devil term available for invocation against teams that, in some people's minds, "overuse" their favorite sets of arguments. Although a better check on such overuse would be topicality or other procedural arguments in the particular debates themselves, such in-round checks are unsatisfactory to those in the community who seek to impose extra-constitutional norms. It's not even something that can be legislated against within particular sub-bodies (such as PSCFA's ban on pre-round coaching), since, again, the signified "canned cases" is absolutely impossible to define in any verifiable or enforcable way. The lack of objective standards creates an opportunity for (and in some people's minds, a necessity of) subjective slander, innuendo.
In the meantime, proactive coaches and directors will continue to push their teams to research, since there is a strong correlation between research/case-writing/argument preparation and competitive success. Given that this correlation might itself be the unconscious target of those who periodically invoke the unstable term "canned cases," I am reminded of Kurt Vonnegut's short story "Harrison Bergeron." Isn't this a rather undesirable form of egalitarianism?
stannard