An Important Note on the Structure
Debate mapping is about trying to get beyond rhetoric, repetition and deliberate obfuscation to try and capture the essence of a complex debate in a visual form. The end result is typically an
argument map in which issues are raised, positions stated in response, arguments for and against advanced - and then successive rounds of attempts to support or undermine the arguments are depicted. The result is typically an 'argument tree' (in
DebateGraph we allow much more complex structures however).
In many real-world debates it is impossible to reduce the responses to an issue to a simple Yes/No dichotomy - a whole range of positions with opposing and common elements may be taken. With
Debategraph we make allowance for this by, among other things, providing for the decomposition of complex positions into their component parts. This particular debate however is one in which a simple Yes/No dichotomy is appropriate. Either Romney's plan is mathematically possible, or it is not.
But this raises a further issue. We have added the two possible answers to the
Does it compute? question. Logically however, the debate could mapped comprehensively within the sub-structure of either of the two answers. With the
No case, objections would be raised supporting the view that the plan is mathematically viable, then objections could be raised to those objections by those who arguing the opposite case, and so on. If the
Yes were chosen as the starting point, a mirror sub-tree would appear where in which opposition becomes support and vice verse - resulting in the same arguments and supporting material being repeated.
So it makes sense to make either the
Yes or
No case the main locus of argumentation - without this choice signaling a prejudice for one side or the other, or compromising the presentation of either case. In this debate we have decided to follow the chronology of the actual debate, which went like this:
- Mitt Romney presented his tax plan - but without an accompanying analysis demonstrating that its goals of revenue and distributional neutrality were achievable.
- In early August, the Tax Policy Center released its analysis, including the claim that achieving all its goals is mathematically impossible.
- Various critics weighed in attacking various aspects of the TPC analysis.
- The TPC responded to criticisms.
- A multitude of economists, journalists, bloggers and political figures (including the Presidential candidates) joined in on both sides.
Given this sequence - and that the debate was (overwhelmingly) triggered by the TPC's initial analysis - we have decided to make the No case the primary branch, starting with the TPC analysis, its core claims, and adding in the challenges to them that argue the plan is indeed mathematically viable. Within the Yes case we simply identify the major studies that counter the TPC and cross-link to them in the main debate sub-tree beneath the No case.