[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: ans Sherwood

So, is it simply the fact that I disagree with P2 that makes you assume that
I have not spent much time thinking about it?  In fact i have been following
the discussion form its beginning.  the reason i rarely comment is because I,
like many others I have talked to, have been waiting to see if a decent
logical justification were forthcoming.  In the absence of such a
justification there was not much point in arguing the issue.  However, since
the issue has not died I decided to contribute.  I am sorry, Mike, that I
dared to contradict your obviously well thought-out theory which relies on
the notion that we should abandon the teaching of tradtional approaches to
debate because you think a new paradigm would be interesting.

What I teach is very simple. " Argue logically and most judges will have some
reason to vote for you.  You won't always win because sometimes the other
team will be better or make a better argument."  What I do not teach is;
"argue whatever the hell you want because this is your activity and no-one
should restrict your abitlity to make stupid and illogical arguments."  I do
not simply intervene and vote against a team for running P2 in front of me
(though I do think there may be some justification in doing so).  My position
simply translates to a low threshold for defeating such an approach.  Anyone
who claims that he or she does not intervene in a debate at some level is
rendering a no-decision in every round.  Every judge must intervene to decide
who wins.  I must decide which arguments persuade me more.  Obviously the
arguments that I find persuasive are the ones that I vote for.  This activity
cannot operate any other way under its current format.  So, when a team
argues "ice" in front of you and you find it silly, the only way you are
going to vote for it is if the other team doesn't respond.  I handle P2 in
exactly the same way.  When I judge two teams in a debate and one argues for
P2 and the other argues against it, what am I supposed to do?  The only way I
know to adjudicate this issue is to evaluate the arguments on each side and
vote for those that persuade me.  I cannot help that I do not find the P2
arguments logical or persuasive.  Am I intervening when I vote against P2?
Yes.  Do I have a choice?  No.  I know of no other way to judge than to apply
my knowledge to make this decision.

This is not, as you suggest, an attempt to stifle the advocacy of the
debaters I judge.  It is an attempt to teach them more effective methods of
advocacy.  Yes it is my opinion of what is effective, but again, this is
unavoidable in our activity.  What do you do when you are teaching a speech
class and a student says, "I disagree with this notion of audience analysis.
 I don't think I should have to bend to the will and the interests of the
audience when I speak.  I think I should be able to say whatever the hell I
please and they should just shut up and listen."?  Do you say, "Well, I don't
want to stifle your free speech so I will evaluate your speech according to
whatever new paradigm or criteria you prefer."?  If you do handle this
situation in this way then we obviously cannot agree on what this activity
should be.

Regarding my specific complaints about P2 that you don't want to take the
time to answer, all i can say is that I don't think I am the only person in
the community that has been waiting for a good response to why we should
adopt this new paradigm and dispense with the resolution and its purpose in
the debate.  As I said, I have been following this discussion from its
inception and I haven't seen a response to this issue that I consider
persuasive.

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