[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
ans Sherwood
look, i think i understand the Greenhouse debate pretty darn well. i
think that the "stops ice" position is silly. am i justified in saying,
"unless i hear some damned good evidence which i haven't heard yet, i'll
ignore the silly thing"? of course not. i don't know it all, but
that's not the real reason to not intervene.
debaters learn to debate by taking responsibility for making arguments.
if you take that away from them:
the first thing you teach is that their arguments and advocacy don't
matter.
the second thing you teach is that they are inadequate to the task of
understanding the world and constructing knowledge.
the third thing that you teach is that Ken knows what's right and wrong,
good and bad, true and false and they better kow-tow to that "knowledge"
or else.
the fourth thing that you teach is that it is okay for them not to think
and argue because you will protect them by ignoring the other team's
arguments.
now, i would respond to your particular gripes about plan-plan, but it
would put me in the position of trying to convince someone who
obviously has given little thought to the issue but who is nonetheless
prepared to intervene against it.
it has apparently been a long time,
michael korcok
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page