[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Fw: Even more answers to JP
----------
> From: parcherj <parcherj@MCI2000.com>
> To: zack@tsw.berkeley.edu
> Subject: Re: Even more answers to JP
> Date: Tuesday, April 29, 1997 6:08 PM
>
> I tire of this - so let me just group it with two last comments -
>
> First, judges always attempt to define the truth when we make a decision.
> We look at the arguments in the debate and determine credibility of
> evidence, soundness of reasoning etc., It is beyond my comprehension
that
> judges could compare the soundness of two competing arguments without
> engaging in substantially the same reasoning that I would undergo when
> evaluating a dropped argument - how credible is the proof, does the
warrant
> match the claim, do I even understand what this argument means?
Evaluating
> the quality of arguments is what a judge does - in my view it is
inevitable
> and educationally desireable.
>
> Second, the notion that we can simply slough off the paradigm arguments
by
> saying - well if the judge has to vote for dumb arguments it is because
of
> dumb debaters is simply unacceptable to me. I can't bring myself to say
> that coverage is more important than quality - everytime I vote for a
> dropped argument that has no warrant I am making such a judgement.
> Dropping an argument is often neither a sign of the debaters skill nor
> their intelligence - it is simply an inevitability of the complex outcome
> we engage in. Coverage is an aspect of good debating not the be all and
> end all of it. Giving a dropped argument a sort of presumption is more
> than adequate compensation to the team that has succeeded in forcing it
to
> go unanswered. Blaming undesireable outcomes, such as awarding the
> decision to the affirmative on the dropped statement, "RVI - you know
that
> it is", on the debaters ignores the fact that it's the rules of the
process
> that create the outcome as well. I think it's a worse outcome than me
> saying after the round - "I didn't vote for that argument - it was dumb -
I
> couldn't understand what the warrant was - try to make a better argument
> next time."
>
> A debate community that rewards arguments like those we have discussed
here
> is not worthy of the high intellectual esteem in which we hold ourselves.
>
> Later, JP
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------
> > From: Zack Brown <zack@tsw.berkeley.edu>
> > To: Issues concerning CEDA Debate <CEDA-L@cornell.edu>
> > Subject: Even more answers to JP
> > Date: Tuesday, April 29, 1997 4:23 PM
> >
> > JP says:
> > >BTW - If the negative says "vote negative
> > >- we're cool," and the aff drops it, would you vote negative?
> > >If yes, the
> > >result is a strong warrant for the silliness of your paradigm.
> >
> > I wish to answer this out of order, at the top, because I
> > think it represents the core of why people are hesitant to
> > just let the debaters debate: they fear a "silly result."
> >
> > To me, not being able to beat a "vote neg we're cool"
> > argument is the rough equivalent of not being able to debate
> > one's way out of a paper bag. EVERY novice can beat it.
> > So when it is made and NOT beaten we have two choices:
> >
> > 1. Vote for a team that can read a bunch of great cards but
> > couldn't debate their way out of a paper bag.
> >
> > -or-
> >
> > 2. Vote for a silly argument and hand the careless team a
> > loss.
> >
> > I personally find option #1 very distasteful (more on that soon).
> >
> > Why do others find option #2 distasteful? I don't. I think
> > it comes from a mistaken ego involvement with the decision.
> > When a bad argument wins, some judges feel shame/embarassment
> > (witness JP's remarks about the silliness of my paradigm,
> > the attempt to make silly arguments reflect on the judge).
> > Maybe other judges will hear and laugh at you in the hall :).
> >
> > When I vote on a silly argument, I think "gee, what silly
> > debaters." If JP (and others?) were to vote on a silly
> > argument they would think "gee, what a silly judge I am."
> > Why the difference? To me, a paradigm just governs the
> > PROCEDURES of the debate and the RFD. Garbage in, garbage
> > out. JP doesn't like that... he wants roses out every time,
> > no exceptions. I fear that this leads to a paternal and
> > perhaps disrespectful attitude toward debaters' strategic
> > and tactical decisions ("well, I know you are making a
> > tactically sound attempt here, but it's too silly").
> > Judges are the arbiters of better debating. Are they the
> > arbiters of truth? Hmmmmm...
> >
> > This leads judges to try to control the content of a round
> > to a greater or lesser degree. Silly arguments won't be
> > permitted to win. Period. This control is harmful, both
> > to education and competition, as well as being counter-
> > productive (top-down vs. bottom-up). This control leaves
> > debaters on shaky ground about what may be a silly argument.
> > "Slavery bad" and Galileo may have once seemed silly.
> > Narratives as warrants may still seem silly to some. The
> > judging pool is fragmented, not just diverse.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Back to Option #1... voting for the team that failed to
> > debate their way out of a paper bag....
> >
> > I find this distasteful:
> >
> > Reason 1: It makes arguments for one team (and not the other):
> > the argument that x is silly. I think that if those
> > arguments don't occur in the debate, inserting them afterwards
> > is very bad. It draws into question one's own certainty,
> > makes one a participant in the round, and the real damning
> > risk is that the debaters may be ready to further support
> > the argument that you're dismissing! In other words, often
> > the debaters are ready to handle the reason you're intervening
> > but they don't because they didn't hear it IN THE ROUND.
> >
> >
> > Reason 2: Time: time is the key pressure in debate. Good
> > debaters have to devise ways to easily dismiss bad arguments
> > and explore good ones. Adding your own arguments or subtracting
> > those of debaters skews time spent. Shall we protect debaters?
> > Should they rely on this?
> >
> >
> > Reason 3: The drop: the drop in debate is what creates a
> > separation of tactics from truth. Teams make their inround
> > decisions based on how arguments shape up, what's beaten
> > and what's undercovered. If the other team fails to probe
> > the main holes in your position, you're ready, right? Go
> > for the win. That also means you try to emphasize that issue
> > and deemphasize others that you may also be winning! Fine
> > by me... you got my ballot. The alternative? Never sever
> > down, because the judge may see some hole in your argument
> > that hasn't been made. Never give up any chance to win,
> > because it's never safe to base a decision on tactics.
> > In other words, never try to develop a tactical feel for
> > debate. Shall we just read more cards? Bye, bye issue
> > selection....
> >
> >
> > Final thought on option 1: an analogy.
> > Do the refs insist that basketball players take smart shots?
> > What if one team just shot the ball full-court as soon as they
> > passed it in? Would the refs intercede and say "stop this silly
> > play"? What if they made a lot of these full-court 3-pointers
> > and started to win? Would the refs say "you can't use that silly
> > strategy to win"? No.
> >
> > And most certainly no one would say "your ref paradigm is
> > bad."
> >
> >
> > =========================
> > The rest of this is just a jumble of line-by-line
> > with JP that gets pretty long. Read at your own risk.
> > May be boring.
> >
> > Zack
> >
> > =========================
> >
> > JP says:
> > >Predicability is simply not achievable in a world that requires
> inevitable
> > >judicial intervention. I also question how valuable predicatablity is
> if
> > >it requires voting for silly data like eclipses are pretty. Finally,
as
> > >long as the judge attempts to consistently follow one rule of thumb or
> the
> > >other - the debaters can be certain how he or she will respond.
> >
> >
> > On consistency, I challenge (repeatedly) your own misguided
> > self-perception that you have this "rule of thumb" level of
> > consistency.... any formulation of your rule results in no
> > certainty for debaters. Is your rule still:
> >
> > "Assume that one team fails to press
> > the Clinton link evidence and I read the evidence after the debate,
> > and discover that the evidence goes the wrong way or says solar
> > eclipses are pretty. There is no theory of argument or more
importantly
> > any reasonable theory of decision making which would not require me to
> > judge the risk of the disad as being quite low if not 0."?
> >
> > That's what it used to be, two posts ago, right?
> >
> > Now, it seems that there is some notion of "relevance" added in
> > there, too. I thought there was "no theory" yadda yadda yadda,
> > but now you're voting aff on risk of turns which you were "REQUIRED"
> > to judge as "quite low if not 0."
> >
> > An end to the self-deception:
> > Now that relevance has crept into your "rule of thumb" that offers
> > "certainty" to debaters, we can all see that the "rule of thumb"
> > includes reference to further rules and processes that remain
> > hidden from debaters (and yourself?). A rule that claims to
> > apply "only when relevant" without a definition of "relevance"
> > fails to qualify for rule-hood at all (perhaps you were trying
> > to avoid such burdens by calling it a "rule of thumb"). You
> > may be willing to accept your own lack of predictability. I
> > doubt anyone loses any sleep over that. But please don't try to
> > dress it up with "the debaters can be certain how he or she will
> > respond"; nice try to have your cake and eat it, too.
> >
> >
> > =======================
> > >Regarding judicial intervention, my single and continuing answer is
that
> it
> > >is NU. Since the judge has the job of evaluating arguments - it makes
> > >sense only to follow consistent standards in the evaluation and I am
> simply
> > >saying that accepting arguments with terrible or non-existent warrants
> > >should violate such a standard.
> >
> > Answer 1: the harm was and continues to be a LINEAR harm; now
> > that we have slapped the debate labels on them, do you see why
> > your "single and continuing" answer of NU fails?
> >
> > Answer 2: the harm may be deontological, which would trump uniqueness;
> > don't perform any avoidable wrong
> >
> > Answer 3: your consistency is a myth, we already know you will
> > accept an argument with a non-existent warrant when you deem that
> > part of the debate "irrelevant"
> >
> >
> >
> > >Don't know of any decision making models in which it is a logical act
to
> > >vote for bad arguments (answered or not). If you can think of one,
let
> me
> > >know. The reason is that such a model almost by definition leads to
bad
> > >decisions. My warrant is: acceptance of stupid arguments=stupid
> decisions
> >
> > Yes, this is your central error. You believe that the measure of
> > decisions is how much you personally agree with the decision
> > and think it is intelligent. Leave the ego out of it. A decision
> > is just an evaluation of how the debate occurred. Some debates
> > are great/fun/smart and some are bad/boring/stupid. The judge
> > doesn't change that. So my equation is:
> >
> > believing stupidity measures the quality of decisions=bad decisions
> >
> > A vote for a given argument says that argument is winning within
> > a certain context, not that the argument is right/smart/etc.
> >
> >
> > >> Here's the hypothetical scenario:
> > >> 1AC reads a case with only a deontological impact.
> > >> 1NC reads Clinton with the pretty eclipse link and
> > >> crushes the crap out of deontology.
> > >> 2AC concedes the deontology, and just runs impact
> > >> turns to Clinton.
> > >> The rest of the debate: all about Clinton impacts, but
> > >> the Aff (in your mind) wins the impact debate.
> > >> Do you a) vote Aff despite the bad link to the turns
> > >> or b) vote neg because the DA goes away due to the
> > >> poor link and you're left with nothing but
> > >> presumption.
> > >
> > >That's easy - two reasons: 1) Never have to evaluate the Clinton link
> > >because it is not relevant. Remember, in the earlier example, I
> postulated
> > >that the disad evidence was not pressed but the link was debated and
the
> > >disad had to be weighed against the case.
> >
> > Right, this is a new example, not the earlier one.
> >
> > So you are saying that sometimes you'll overlook a really bad link?
> > You used to say:
> >
> > "There is no theory of argument or more importantly
> > any reasonable theory of decision making which would not require me to
> > judge the risk of the disad as being quite low if not 0."
> >
> > What happened to this rule of thumb debaters could rely on? Perhaps
> > you really meant some other rule of thumb. Perhaps you were just
> > imprecise (too bad debaters have to lose a round to find out about
> > any imprecision).
> >
> > >2) With nothing left in the
> > >debate - the RISK of turns is enough to vote negative.
> >
> > I assume you meant "affirmative," right? They're the team
> > with the turns.
> >
> > And after the round, the 2N says:
> >
> > "What happened, JP? We were counting on your reliable rule of
> > thumb that would assess that link card as of zero risk! You
> > totally let us down, dude. We were just suckering the aff into
> > the impact debate because we knew you would save us."
> >
> > The point is you allow something that you said you wouldn't
> > allow. What next? Change the rule? Fine. I'll find
> > a new hypothetical scenario for that rule. I'm very good
> > at it. Your only choice is to include vague language in
> > your rule of thumb like "relevance" and "appropriateness"
> > that makes it not really a rule at all.
> >
> >
> > >> I'm guessing most judges would vote Aff. and allow the
> > >> bad link that they would ordinarily reject but that both
> > >> teams accepted. And surely you see the danger of exceptions
> > >> to your policy... the lack of predictability is problematic
> > >> and your intervention does not seem so innocuous when you
> > >> are applying your own (not the debaters') critical thinking
> > >> to all the cards/arguments as well as when to suspend the
> > >> rules, etc. Where does it end, JP? If in some cases you
> > >> subordinate "truth" to tactical decisions by the debaters,
> > >> why not respect their tactical decisions in other cases?
> > >
> > >My earlier answer to the fallacy of the slippery slope stands:
> >
> > There's no slope here. Just a request for the bright-line.
> > There's nothing we're sliding down to disaster, etc.
> > So I ask again, "where's the bright line?"
> >
> > I recommend you reread you rhetoric 101 textbook on this
> > fallacy. You're missing key elements and it's not nice
> > to throw around those accusations lightly. :)
> >
> >
> > That's all folks,
> > thanks for reading.
> > Zack
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page