Syracuse Debate Position

[Amos Kiewe <akiewe@mailbox.syr.edu>]

******************
*    Dave Genco  *
*  University of *
*   North Texas  *
******************

--Depends on who you talk to. For me, a simple argument might be better than
an argument supported by a source that isn't particularly good. I hold the
1AC to a higher burden of proof because of my view of presumption as a
stipulated rule. There is no point, however, in quoting evidence written by
those who can claim no experitise in the field of the claim being supported.
This is true to the extent that you believe the purpose of evidence is to
defer to authority. Why defer to a lay person when there are already three
lay persons in the round? The idea is to import an expert to help us
adjudicate a claim (one of the reasons I have a problem with theory evidence
is because the critic is assumed to be the expert in the debate). But you are
right if you are saying that there seems to be little difference between some
of the people quoted and yourself or the judge or other debaters. I am
constantly amused to hear editorials from local newspapers, etc. being quoted
to support complicated issues involving judgment. The importance of the qual
is that it gives the audience a reason to INITIALLY accept the evidence as
proof. The other team can then argue the qual. Absent the qual, there is no
reason to believe that the evidence supports the claim. IN fact, the basic
rule of burden of proof would have us reject the advocate's claim if it is
not supported, either by evidence or analysis. Why evidence as opposed to
analysis? I think the context of the activity dictates the type of support
preferred (which is really kind of a circular normative claim, but I think it
is true). CEDA was developed to stress analysis, and at its inception I guess
analysis would have been preferred to cards. Now cards are preferred by many
over analysis. There is something to be said for the argument that, absent
evidence, debate turns in to a kind of tis tisnt argument. I have argued, for
example, that evidence standards have decreased since the days that I
debated. I cannot prove that to the reader. Others argue that the have not.
We could go back and forth all day. Ultimately, you will be obliged to
believe the souce that you are most prone to believe (based upon your
decisions regarding credibility, etc).

Hope that helps
Crossman

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Ky.CEDA meet
• Next by Date: QualsI have to go along with that old model that suggests an argument is not an
• Prev by thread: British Debates
• Next by thread: QualsI have to go along with that old model that suggests an argument is not an
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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