Context: "no standards" rising from the grave

[Kenneth Broda-Bahm <broda@midget.towson.edu>]

>why? because there is no standard for WHAT out of context MEANS 
>we just know that it is something unethical and bad, and no
>debater wants that stigma

Similarly, Berube notes that we lack a foundation for making such
evidentiary claims.

I feel that my rather lengthy attempts to explicate and to justify
such a foundation must be just traveling out into thin air.  I
think that a foundation for "out of context" claims exists in the
following question:  is the author's opinion (as evident in the
article) consistent with the claim that is made by the advocate (as
evident in the tag, and in other surrounding discourse)?  Exactly
what is vague, problematic, or even 'nonexistent' about this
standard?  

I agree with Gordie, and Bear, and Berube that it is nice to feel
good about our community.  I agree that we should go outside too!

But I absolutely disagree with the notion that an issue that
apparently needs discussion and requires consensus should be
brushed aside.  

Aside from the responses from Glen Clatterbuck (which I think we
now agree on) I don't know what the community thinks about a
definition of "out of context."  A belief in ambiguity seems to
persist, but a *reason* why a standard doesn't exist I havn't
heard.


In addition, if people are assuming that because of its subject matter 
the discussion between Glen and I has been "accusatory" I invite you to 
read it and see.  Standards can be discussed (and I think ARE being 
discussed) without accusation or slander.


                                   Ken Broda-Bahm
                                   Broda@Midget.Towson.Edu

---

• Prev by Date: Survey of Topics Form
• Next by Date: Re: Counterplans in the 2NC
• Prev by thread: Survey of Topics Form
• Next by thread: Re: British Bulldog ='s nuke warRe: Ky.CEDA meet
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page