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

Re: Critiques Resurgent

First, who determines when behavior is so egregious as to supersede the
propositional question?  Are there standards for adjudicating such a
question?  Granted, Ken says that critiques should come with a heavy
presumption against them.  However, what does that mean?  What burdens do
critiques have to meet.  Ken says they have to meet minimal burdens, but what
burdens are those?  We know that they don't have to link to aff plan, being
that the supersede the propositional question.  We also know that they don't
have to be unique, again for the same reason.   Consider the popular language
critiques.  How much bad language has to be used for the judge to affirm the
language critique?  Does it have to be language used by the team's
 author--or is it language used by the debaters in the round?  

Second, why does offensive behavior (using sexist/racist language,
fabricating evidence, etc) need to be LABELED a critique, as opposed to some
other argumentative form.  Wouldn't sexist language be better classified as
inappropriate behavior?  Wouldn't using fabricated evidence be better
classified as cheating.  I guess one could offer a critique of cheating, but
it seems to add words to an already clear  violation of standard debate
protocol and it serves to confuse debaters as to the proper function of a
critique.

Third, there seems to be a clear dichotomy between theory and praxis.  While
Ken and Tom (and others) offer a distinctive view of critiques, it appears
that the theoretical postures that they promulgate are at least partially
ignored by debate practioners.  Such behaviors leads to the inevitable
question, "what happens when theory does not guide behavior?"  What happens
when theory is misapplied?  Does this mean we should revamp theory, or does
it mean we should revamp practice?  Which is privileged?  I will argue that
when theory is inconsistent with practice, theory must be reconstituted and
reformulated to conform to actual rather than hoped for behaviors.  Herein, I
think is an important point if we are to adequately build a theoretical base
for our activity.  

A theory, at least as far as I am concerned, is no more than a person's view
on how the world functions (generally based on some empirical
observation(s)).  This is distinct from the notion that a theory is a summary
of HOW the world OUGHT to function.  I think from the theoretical
perspective, the way Ken and Tom outlined critiques, is nicely presented.
 However, it is clear that it is somewhat removed from the actual practice of
debate.  I think it promotes the "ought to" perspective rather than the "what
is" position.

Just a few thoughts.

Mark J. Jones
California Lutheran University
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page