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

Plan Plan: First Bear, then Bob -Reply

>>>>>Bear is right - the best way to be rid of plan plan is not with
argument, but with widespread displays of community resistance.  My
proposal is this:  each one of us should write _one_ post per day
decrying plan plan in general terms.  We'll make basically the same
arguments, but with our own twist so that we can be indignant if
Korcok or Lectrek is slow in answering.  With the sheer force of
numbers, they'll never be able to respond and victory will be ours.

sarcasmsarcasmsarcasmsarcasmsarcasmsarcasmsarcasmsarcasmsarcasm

<<<Bear responds<<<
The smell of fresh blood stir up your aggressive tendencies? Why
don't you re-read my post, because I wasn't even indicting plan-plan.
Despite some clear initial predispositions, I see it as essentially a
critique of traditional competition. I have enjoyed the exposition of
ideas, but if you believe that theory debate on the L takes place in
some sort of vacuum, removed from community consensus, you are by the
impact judges see in the rounds they hear than it will ever be by the
thousands of words and hypothetical examples you and Korcok engage in
on an hourly basis. Theory is never right or wrong. Argumentation is
never going to be an objective science, no matter how seriously you
choose to take yourself.



> We have nothing more than community consensus to guide us in the
>absence of philosopher-kings or a pipeline to objective reality.

Nothing more than community consensus?  That disappoints more than a
thousand flames.  What is your field?  How about the practice of
argument?

>>>Bear Responds>>>

What about being debate coaches and communication teachers? The
notion that you and Korcok are saintly scholars pressing the
dialectical envelope is, I'm sure, a great comfort for you. Don't get
me wrong - I've jotted down some of the best ideas for inclusion on
Weber blocks. It's just that the ideas have all gotten to be rather
stale and repetitive. The discourse has become characterized by a
style of ad hom-laden posturing that makes a mockery of academic
theorizing. What you've done is divorced theorizing from observation
to the extent that we are all treated to endless displays of wasted
superior intellect. No matter how much discussion you engage in there
is no possible conclusion via your route. The conclusion is the one
of despair that I feel over so much energy devoted to such an
esoteric enterprise. What do you really feel you are accomplishing?
Is this nothing more than a post-Saluki plot to keep the
"atheoretical" NDT'ers at bay by frightening them into believing that
CEDA is some sort of nest of advanced argument theory? <sarcasm>


<<<Dr. Broda-Bahm<<<

My view is, as always, with Mike on the important stuff.

>>>> Bear says>>>>>

The fact that it this is always the case has not escaped my notice,
either. 

<<<<Broda-Bahm says<<<<

  And I want to be clear in my point.  I am not writing so say, "plan
plan, how awful -- this has no place in rounds."  I am writing as a
way of brainstorming possible affirmative _answers_ to this strategy,
and frankly to test market them to see what P2's advocates will say. 
By all means, the debaters should debate this issue, but theory
should act as some sort of guide on the side serving as a catalyst
for better debates.  That is why I'm trying to theorize:  not to
prevent P2, but to promote debates on the subject.

>>>>Bear concludes>>>>>

And I am sincerely thankful for your efforts at community
enlightenment. Please note that I never criticized any of your
efforts. Please note that I never even made any evaluative comment
about P2, at all! The part of my message that wasn't included makes
clear the notion that I was specifically indicting posturing and ad
homs, which I felt you were innocent of, at least before you decided
to pillory me. Interesting contextual decisions, particularly for the
individual charged with establishing community standards in that
area.

Please feel free to continue whatever esoteric exercise that
self-justifies your existence. I just thought I'd let you know that
some of us no longer feel that the 100 messages a day on this subject
are really advancing the cause of argument theory that much. Maybe
one day you could seek to apply your magic perception of
self-objectivity to critiquing the way Korcok chooses to belittle
every non-Saluki that dare disagree with him.

If this is the path of theoretical intellectualism, I think the
NDT'ers may have one clear advantage over CEDA. But then, no real
argument scholar would eschew endless paradigmatic chatter, would
they? Play the game.

I also have to admit that I feel that your rhetorical choices in
decribing individuals who apply a different criteria to their judging
processes (i.e., "Winebrennerization") are offensive and serve to
undercut your claims to intellectual credibility. CEDA-L is more than
your and Korcok's private smoking room.

Just another "dim bulb" blocking the "real brilliance,"

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