[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Critiques
Both Mr. Whitney and Ms. Yackanech seem to be working from the concept that
resolutional critiques are based on some form of punishment paradigm. While
some teams do argue that sexist language, definitional inconsistency,
inherent res flaws, etc. are reasons to punish the affirmative out of a
ballot, I think there are plenty of good logical reasons to look at these
types of positions as legitimate dejustifications of the resolution absent
any punishment paradigm. It seems that the primary reason NOT to vote on a
res flaw or resolutional linked language objection is ground and abuse
arguments.
Why should the idea of what is "fair ground" or "abusive" matter worth a
squat in debate rounds if the judge's responsibility is to evaluate the
arguments and the resolution as a proposition to be proven? Unless you
adopt a games paradigm and accept that the focus of debate is to be a game
then ideas like "fair ground" and "abuse" seem to have no reason to be
weighed in the round. Sure, if debate is like football we need to have
artifical rules and restrictions like fairness and ground to preserve the
competitive game, but if it really intends to focus on intelligence,
propositional inquiry, argumentation, and analysis, then any grounds or
abuse arguments should be secondary to logical or well reasoned arguments
as to why the resolution is unjustifiable.
-/-Pat Gehrke
-/-Cal State Chico
ps- By the way, if debaters claim a parametrical interpretation of the
resolution, can't that be used as a tool to take out any resolutionally
linked objections since the resolution's meaning and presuppositions are
restricted solely to the case interpretation?
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page