Factual Errors

I am curious to see what people think of them in Parli. I have noticed an increase in the number this year and am quite concerned. How should we as a community deal with them? Thoughts, comments, reactions?

I just finished reading the Timaeus, and found a cool little line in it. Timaeus talks about the "<em>eikos muthos</em>", or "likely myth" (or, perhaps better, "likely story"). That's all a person has to work with in the debate round. "If we can come up with accounts no less likely than any, we ought to be content, keeping in mind that both I, the speaker, and you, the judges, are only human. So we should accept the likely tale on these matters. It behooves us not to look for anything beyond this."

For example, I was told about a round in which it was argued by the government team that the USFG gave no healthcare benefits to transgendered individuals. Now, I'm not sure if the person flowing or the persons speaking are in error, but the USFG obviously gives healthcare benefits to transgenered individuals. They do not, however, provide for so-called "cosmetic" changes for transgendered individuals. But this wasn't (apparently) what the government team argued. Had I been there, I'd have simply said, "status quo" and sat down, pointing out that it's against the law for the USFG to discriminate on a number of bases, including sexuality. I think I'd present the more <em>eikos muthos</em>.

There is nothing wrong with questioning someone's facts, as long as it is done in a mature manner.

August 26, 2002, Monday
EDITORIAL DESK
Of Turks and Kurds
By WILLIAM SAFIRE ( Op-Ed ) 712 words

WASHINGTON -- Faced with a charge by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld last week that Al Qaeda elements were in Iraq; And in light of detailed reports in this space and elsewhere naming names of ''Afghan Arab'' terrorists sent to assassinate Kurdish leaders who were captured by anti-Saddam Kurds in northern Iraq; And aware that many of the terrorist captives were revealing to interrogators their infiltration through Iraq, their Qaeda training and their current production of poisons in mountain hideaways -- Saddam Hussein came up with an answer: It's all an Iranian plot. Saddam's son Uday claims that those killers have nothing to do with either Al Qaeda or Iraq. The dauphin sought to divert the blame to a different end of the axis of evil.

That's a lie, of course, as the prisoners' interviews, papers and family backgrounds make plain. Tehran's murderous mullahs do not treat the Kurds as enemies because they are a thorn in the side of Iran's longtime enemy, Iraq -- a fact underscored by Saddam's eagerness to shift the blame to Tehran. But the ''Qaeda connection'' will not be the central reason we liberate Iraq. No evidence of Saddam's support of terror will convince the amalgam of today's McGovernites and yesterday's Bushies of the need to overthrow a dictator racing to acquire nukes. Final proof of close terror coordination will surface after the war, just as proof of Saddam's nuclear development stunned the complacent after the battle a decade ago.

More to the point is our ability to assemble regional power to back up our own. The Kurds and Turks have long been at loggerheads; only recently has Turkey granted members of its own Kurdish minority the rights to use their language and preserve their unique culture. The key diplo-military question: How do we enlist and equip 70,000 pesh merga Kurdish fighters -- and at the same time induce the powerful Turkish Army with its modern Israeli technology to join the liberation?
If, after air strikes, an allied force of American, British, Turkish, Kurdish and Iraqi Arab Shia came at Baghdad from all sides, Iraq's Sunni plurality would force Saddam to get on the cellphone to his Russian creditors to arrange asylum in short order.

But many Turks, having just defeated their own Kurdish terrorists headquartered in Damascus, are still transfixed by the chimera of Kurdish separatism. They worry that when Saddam is overthrown, Iraqi Kurds will split off into an independent Kurdistan, its traditional capital in oil-rich Kirkuk, which might encourage Turkish Kurds also to break away. But that defies all logic: would the Kurdish people, free inside a federated Iraq and with their culture respected in Turkey, start a war against the regional superpower?

Turks also worry about the million Turkomen in northern Iraq. It should not be beyond the wit of nation-builders to ensure that minority's rights and economic improvement. Turkey has a claim on oil royalties from nearby fields dating back to when Iraq was set up. As a key military ally in the liberation and reformation of that nation, and with judicious U.S.-guaranteed oil investments, Turkey should begin to get its debt paid.
America's primary purpose in assembling this alliance of peoples inside and outside Iraq is, plainly put, to stop a homicidal maniac and serial aggressor from gaining the power to threaten our cities with annihilation. A secondary purpose is to forcefully discourage any other nation from secretly supporting terror groups.

The third purpose is driven not by any lust for global domination, but by out-and-out Wilsonian idealism: we want to make the Middle East safe for democracy. And not just for Israelis, who have shown how self-determination feeds both body and soul, or just for Kurds, who have made their ''no-fly zone'' into an example of free enterprise and self-government for all Iraqis (and all Palestinians).

Old World-weary apostles of appeasement don't get it. Deride it or not, America's self-protective action will also benefit Arabs and Persians long repressed by monarchs and dictators and misled by militant mullahs. Terrorists and their state sponsors are forcing us to bring democracy to people who will discover that political freedom is a force that empowers every human being.

I've noticed that most factual errors are just disagreement on what is the fact. In rounds concerning the Kyoto protocol, for example, one team may honestly belief that global warming is a fact and another may honestly believe that it is a hoax. This is usually not impactful on the round as anything mor ethan clash, but it does unfortunately leave a lot of the ballot up to the judges personal interpretation of evidence in the real world. As for outright untruths, I've seen very few of them that aren't just mistakes that can't be cleared up in a point of clarification, and those that are serious I think should be handled respectfully and assertively. As for preventing such slips, I don't know that we ever can as a community, since we all get our news from different biased sources that get spun by our personal biases as well. I'll just be optimistic and believe: argue it out and the truth should prevail.

A fact is a statement that can be proven true or false
True Fact:
1)France trades a lot with Cuba (like 4 B.), despite a US embargo.
2) UN GA voted that sanctions on Cuba are not advisable.
3) Welfare roles have declined since 96 and much of that decline is a result of stricter requirements.

I won't go over the false facts...

I could go on and on... these are all true facts that judges voted against because they didn't believe them or they said they were specific knowledge. There is a serious problem. I never know for sure which team is more accurate and neither do most judges.
When will fact verification be let into the debate?

On Phil's point,

I agree insofaras I present facts (france and cuba for example)
this fact i believe meets the criteria of "what a well read college student would know") and I need to have faith that my judge is good/smart/fair enough to allow these truths to take hold in the debate. This is of course too much to ask of some judges. I get furious when I get ballots that say things like "how do i know that X is really true opp. says it's not you don't prove it so opp. gets the argument" So yes some measure of ability for me to use sources or other means to prove arguments would be beneficial. Phil how do we do this w/o becoming something we are not.

Hmmm... I am not who properwinston is or what the article copied is in reference to... but I am not speaking of "facts" that can be questioned, such as global warming, rather, more of claims of events in a factual manner of which have not occurred. For example, if I were to say... the United States returned all of the Southwestern territories taken during the Mexican-American War... beside answering the obvious, NO... what and how should we respond to such claims?

Hmmm... I am not sure who properwinston is or what the article copied is in reference to... but I am not speaking of "facts" that can be questioned, such as global warming, rather, more of claims of events in a factual manner of which have not occurred. For example, if I were to say... the United States returned all of the Southwestern territories taken during the Mexican-American War... beside answering the obvious, NO... what and how should we respond to such claims?

Reminiscent of the 8th prelim round we had at Berkeley where NOBODY in the room had clue #1 about how the economy worked, I think that arguing about the truth facts just get in the way of a good debate.

One round long ago a partner and I were witness to a PMC where the plan was to repeal the Monroe Doctrine.

Now, we could have spent all kinds of time arguing that "there's nothing to repeal," or "this isn't a law" or "nothing you are talking about has anything to do with reality," but we just shrugged our shoulders and ran with it. We shouldn't repeal the Monroe Doctrine, we argued, and here's why.

If you want to assert random crazy things, that's fine with me. But then there's the pesky rules about reasonably educated people, etc.

But my rule of thumb is this: if they're manufacturing new policies or things that happened out of whole cloth, just let it go. More often that not they're shooting themselves in the foot. If they do know, and they're warping the truth, they're putting themselves on shaky ground. Ask them to clarify. And if they don't know, then they don't know, and, really, "I'm not an economist so I don't know all the facts" isn't IMHO the strongest advocacy for accepting an economics-based plan.

Thanks to Phil for giving the definition of "fact" as thing that is either true or false.

The problem with some categories of things is that they both ARE true or false and the kind of thing that we cannot easily know whether they are true or false. For example, when I say "the number of hairs on my head is even" -- that is a fact but since I have lots of hair, knowing whether the statement is true or not is next to impossible.

The problem with debating about the facts is that a) someone actually is right, so whomever happens to have reality on their side should win... and b) they are impossible to prove without printed/cut evidence, and even then any wack-job with a PhD can write cards to say anything....

Patty

Yeah, cards don't help because you can read cards that don't give the right "facts". It still comes down to the likely story.

--Joey

And, in some programs writing your own cards is the dirty little (non) secret.... It was great to watch the 'too good to be true' card go down as it created an internal contradiction on case...

I think logic and persuasion are more difficult than finding printed evidence to support your claims.

Patty

Hey All:

There's still no consensus about what the word fact means. Here's a quick cheat sheet pulled from www.dictionary.com, with plenty more different interpretations where that came from. As a point of utterly tangential weirdness, FACT is also an acronym for Fully Automated Compiling Technique in computer science, which would make *Syntax Error* an acceptable response...

fact Pronunciation Key (fkt)
n.
Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.

A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.

Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
*Sounds plenty debatable to me...*

A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.

Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.

Idiom:
in (point of) fact
In reality or in truth; actually.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Latin factum, deed, from neuter past participle of facere, to do. See dh- in Indo-European Roots.]
Usage Note: Fact has a long history of usage in the sense “allegation of fact,” as in “This tract was distributed to thousands of American teachers, but the facts and the reasoning are wrong” (Albert Shanker). This practice has led to the introduction of the phrases true facts and real facts, as in The true facts of the case may never be known. These usages may occasion qualms among critics who insist that facts can only be true, but the usages are often useful for emphasis.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Ducking for cover,
Brandan

If you want to make all of this interesting to debate, you need to bring in some philosophy of language to discuss theories of truth -- because a fact is something that is 'true' ... correct...

or, at least an event which has already happened....

Frankly, I've never seen an actual res of fact round that was interesting -- they are mostly assertion of fact A, vs counter-assertion of fact B... not much interesting or challenging in that.

Patty

while I think this post was developed to question the use of "facts" within rounds which might be inaccurate it seems to have morphed to another important area of discussion: Res 'o Fact debate. I've had the chance to talk to a few of y'all about this, and I think it's certainly an issue that bears further discussion, and perhaps a separate thread. And Patty, while I have a number of theoretical objections to fact debate I have to admit I have had some good ones. They're very few and far between, and most of them were interesting because of the critique argumentation they ended up devolving down to, but they do still exist.

Keith

Keith,

Notice, you say they were interesting due to the critique argumentation... which probably would have happened had they not been res-o-fact.

Patty

Brandan always did like 8 minutes of T.

I always say, a bad argument on the flow is still a bad argument. I tell teams that claims with no backing/warrant/analysis/evidence/internals are not convincing...

Problem is, I am probably just a hack that doesn't know anything. What happens when the judge decides you are wrong, even though you saw it on a graph (colorized) on the front of the USA Today, that morning? I can be persuasive and charismatic as a speaker, but if the judge doesn't like my info, I am screwed... how do you deal with that?

How do we protect debaters from judges like me?

Phil,

There is no way in parli to correct for judges being unaware of the facts you quote, and beign unwilling to accept the logic behind response to the challenge of the facts.

Patty

Phil, I'd say a judge is justified in rejecting a government claim only if the opposition presents a more likely story. Pretend I claimed that high school sex has increased by 30% over the last ten years, according to polls (the number is close enough for the illustration). Pretend also that a judge disagreed with me. "Preposterous," she thinks to herself, "I can't imagine <em>my</em> son doing that!"

It's my job to use what the judge does accept to illustrate why this might be the case. First, sex on television is increasing, and middle school students watch a lot of television. This decreases their apprehension of sex. Second, more and more both parents work outside the home, giving little time to such issues as sexual experience. Third, the school sexual education system teaches safety, not abstinence, decreasing the aversion once again. Now, none of those supporting claims are analyzed on the normative level, but on the existential level as warrants to accept the claim above.

Your post also leads me into a discussion I've had before about burdens in Parli debate. The judge should only be able to decide a claim is wrong based on the reasons given in round. The opposition has the burden of refutation; the government does not have the burden of proof.

--Joey

Hey All but specifically Patty:

I've been forced at degree-point to do some reading on the whole L.P. thing, and while I get most of it I find the boundary conditions to be a bit ill defined for my taste, at least for a belief system obsessed with categories and clean breakdowns. Then again, that's the problem I have with most empiricist applications of scientific method to problems which are by nature indeterminate.

Nothing frustrates the hell out of me like Communications Scientists holding a scientific ruler up to a concept like love, defining a unit of love as 1*L, then doing a bunch of complex math to prove jack squat about it. Anyhow, I'm not really allowed to talk in class anymore after bringing up how Face-Negotiation Theory is racist orientalism, so I'm bringing the questions to y'all. References based on chapter 2 of William Betchell's _Philosophy_of_Science_.

1) "Because ordinary discourse often fails to adhere to the standards of symbolic logic, the positivists found it necessary to propose the use of formal languages designed to adhere to the canons of symbolic logic in order to present these analyses." Does this disqualify L.P. as an analysis of 'ordinary discourse,' or does it call for linguistic cleansing of impurely analytical ideas?

2) "Hempel (1962)...proposed a modification of the D-N model to allow for 'inductive-statistical' explanations where one could infer that the event was highly probable." Are any of y'all familiar with said modification? How does L.P. handle issues of probability that are by definition only observable after the fact, like fractals and chaos theory and quantum physics and other groovy stuff? It strikes me that any probablistic measure from L.P. could be used as a frame for fact (or if you prefer, forensic) debate. Put another way, why are we able to challenge another's claims in policy debate by politely pointing out that the carnivore email system didn't kill 300 million baby seals last year as the government team claims, but not have a full debate about whether we should believe that the carnivore email system has a hankering for seal-snacks?

3) If the goal of L.P. is observation and prediction, then why care about laws at all? There seems to be no clear proof that just because the last five times I got plastered I fell down, that the next time I get plastered I won't fall up instead. The laws certainly ain't probablistic, are they?

4) If the process of theory reduction is to solve the universe like a puzzle by joining generalizable aspects of all sciences together, then what happens when we're done? And why bother to pursue it when that pesky chaos variable is screwing everything up? At a quantum level, whether stuff exists or not is mostly a matter of opinion. Doesn't that break logical positivism as a universal framework of scientific explanation?

5) Does Eleanor Rosch's criteria of typicality of instances within a category explicitly allow for debate on assertions made outside the mathematical structure of L.P.? According to her example, I assert that the robin is a typical bird... game on.

6) What about adopting a Karl Popper-esque idea of proof through denying a consequent as a debatable foundation through the standard of corroboration? Would that fit into what you'd see as a valid expression of fact debate?

That should be enough to open with.

Sincerely,
Brandan

I recently came out from the darkness and started to post. Lets see how I do here....

I think its really interesting that the original post unintentionally sparked a discussion that really questions Parli's distinction from Policy. I certainly hope people don't start reading cards on me if they think my facts are "wrong." What then is the difference between the events?

As for the original question, I see different "types" of factual errors... All of these kinds of errors have been illustrated throughout the discussion.

The first type of factual error is the "we are both right but someone IS wrong" error. This is what happened in a round to me once: we had a res that basically had us reprimand Israel for its recent attacks in Palestine. Opp comes up and says "What are you talking about? Palestine is a UN recognized member state!" We didn't know how to react...
I immediately made eye contact with the judge to see their reaction. fortunately, I got a "no...." reaction from the judge and I just kept my frustration focused on the other team. I would say more often than not the judge would know better if the factual error is THAT obvious. Its a scary thought, but I have had enough trust in judges for these kinds of fact errors.

Recently, in another round, we had a round where a team contended that we didn't directly elect representatives for the U.S. Congress. The judge, while I tried to make eye contact, wasn't giving any readable response. Forunately, people in the room for shamed and shook heads so that helped. But, otherwise, although its fairly obvious, you've got to somehow prove how you are right either by citing an article from the constitution or explaining logically why House Reps are voted in directly. These are the scariest of factual errors because not only are they concrete in being "true" but it requires being "sold" to the judge, while at the same time, both teams genuinely feel that they are right. This could be seen as a real weakness to the event. So, I guess the main difference is the response you get from you judge during the round. Get the reaction you are looking for, your burden to proove is really minimized to just pointing out.

Moving away from the original question, what about the more subtle differences? These, I think, for the most part, are seemingly factual, but are usually forecasts or predictions backed with some research. You can call these the "fact differences" errors. These are the most interesting because the question then becomes "are they really 'facts?'" This is where a lot of the discussion has taken place, especially the application of logical positivism. Most of your abilities to convince your judges that your side is correct come in to play here and, more importantly, are most valid. Is social security going to run out in 15 years or 30 years? Studies PROVE both... Unlike the other two forms of factual errors, this is where Parli shines in that you can't just hide behind evidence, rather, you debate the validity of the "facts" with as convincing of analysis as you can. (That is the best I could do in response to the deep Logical Positivism discussion that was just posted)

So, regardless of the types of errors, your obligation is to convince. But depending on the type of error, it can be seen as a asset or a liability to Parliamentary debate. I think the question is "can you live with this obligation?" If not, policy debate is always an option...

And one more thing: couldn't one way to reduce the amount of "fact disputes" is by making sure that resolutions don't require specific knowledge? It certainly is a viable solution to the orginal problem. Thats another discussion altogether.

Well... thats what I think. I'm not sure how much sense it makes. I may be putting too much stock in reading judges. But, I figure I'd throw it out there, see what kind of responses I get.


Erik

My two cents on logical positivism and truth games:

Even if you do not subscribe to the idea that there is truth with a capital T and lean towards more postmodern or poststructural approaches I would still think that engaging in truth games would be less interesting than engaging in questions of justice. Truth is always about competing descriptions of reality. Justice is always prescriptive and has a built in normative dimension. The only times I can imagine a truth game being intersting is when you change the game to a normative question of justice. The above comments on a kritik making the round interesting I think supports this claim. Denying truth does not make truth games more interesting - I think it tends to prove that parli should be more focused on questions of value, policy, and performance. I tend to lean towards the pomo side of things and my readings of those folks makes me inclined to think that when then take up questions of truth and fact they are always doing so to rupture and fragment the meanings (as a question of justice - read policy, value, or performance). If the whole of question of fact debates is about creating discursive space for criticism why not just offer more critical and performance based topics? Either we agree that something is true - gravity exists - or we offer competing descriptions of the veracity of some point. Weighing competing interpretations without any normative content seems pointless - add a critical dimension and you are beginning to make the game worthwhile.

Hey All:

If I read dissensus right, then we're in agreement for the most part on how fact debate should be conducted. Absent a concept of the right meaning for a verbal signifier, the results of utilizing that signifier may be the easiest method of decision calculus. Not to mention that it's getting easier to sell Kritiks on the parli circuit, and what is Kritik except for a complaint about assigned meanings.

So, hellz yeah. Debate the kritiky impacts of whether global warming exists all day long, debate the impacts of whether the WTO should be defined as evil, and let the love flow.

Geof Brodawg and I have had a number of nifty discussions (and some drunken brawls) regarding the meaning of fact debate and how it can/should be waged. If you're looking for a way to integrate it into the traditional harms/plan/advantages structure, we've had some luck with "Our policy is that you should assign this meaning to this word." It's a nice way to get your fact debate and neatly dodge the Fact=100%/No Way!/Yes Way! debate which almost inevitably erupts. In fact, it would be a groovy fact to run that facts should be judged on preponderance of evidence. Holy metadebate, batman!

Anyhow, gradskool finals are a living hell. Anyone who wishes to invoke Kwan Yin or any other forces of universal compassion on my behalf, please feel free to sacrifice a com science textbook or something.

Ex out the Post-FactO,
Brandan