[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Mutual pref/Pick at least 20
On 6 Dec 1995, Jack Rogers wrote:
> ON 12/05 MEREDITH GARMON WRITES:
>
> How is having only a little meaningful input into your judge
> selection worse than having none at all.
>
> I respond with: " I find it interesting that the claims supporting MPJ have
> gradually diminished from "it's the answer that assures fairness," to "how is
> having only a little meaningful input . . . worse than having none at all."
> Random/strike gives me as much or more meaningful input than MPJ. I would
> prefer that we all be subject to the same randomness than to create a system
> that would seem -- it could be argued -- to create a system that favors those
> "in the know" at the expense of those "ignorant" of the choices.
"would seem" and "could be argued" do not constitute strong claims on
behalf of your position.
The strategy Prof. Garmon is engaging in is often used. It is called
"giving a worst-case scenario". If you say the worst case scenario is the
same (functionally) as the present system - seems to me that any
advantage (or possible one) is a reason to support MPJ.
This is not a retraction of earlier claims. How can you read it that way?
Even if it is a gradual backing away from "grandiose" earlier claims
that's what you are asking for...more "reasonable" claims. Now, because
their not "power tagged" you reject them for that reason?
You ask people to accomodate your concerns and
address them and when they do you accuse them of retraction. Fascinating.
It seems to me that you are not so interested in the "rhetoric" of the
arguments (which you earlier indicated was your concern).
Aaron Klemz
University of Minnesota - College of Natural Resources
Assistant Director of Debate
The Blake School
Minneapolis, MN
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page