[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Stand for something, or you will....
Tuna says:
>Those who say it is bad to "advocate" ideas they "believe" in are committing
>the fallacy they are identifying.
I agree completely. I always knew I was missing chunks of the CEDA-L
discussions. Would you please forward to me the messages in which people
say it's bad to advocate ideas you believe in? I'm all over the part where
people say it's bad to write cases that are so tied up with your personal
politics that you can't/won't debate them rationally and reasonably :)
(<--meant to indicate an exercise in humor...)
>From Tuna:
Right, that is not your position just as " it's bad to write cases that are
so tied up with your personal
politics that you can't/won't debate them rationally and reasonably" is not
my position.
My position is that if an idea is good enough for you to believe it it should
be good enough for you to advocate it in a debate. In fact, you should pick
the best argument you can make in a debate just as you think of the best
argument in making a decision for yourself. To attempt to bifurcate reasoning
and decision making into "real world" and "debate" contexts is unwise
pedagogy.
Most of your previous arguments ("get's nasty" etc.) assume conduct by
advocates I would not approve of in any instance.
However, as a former 2AC-2AR I was willing to pour the blood of the innocent
victims of the status quo on the negative team and then point this out to the
judge. But, I was nice about it. ;)
The point remains: I think it is beter to defend a case you believe in
whereas some seem to think this should be avoided.
To say that we must in debate avoid what we personally think is important is
to condemn ourselves to triviality.
Tuna
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page