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

RE: The Old Man & the Sea

In message Sun, 5 Feb 1995 13:21:45
 you write:

> In actuality, Sean, the poorly-written narrative I shared with the
> list would've been run in either 2AC or 2NC (or any other later
> speech) as a response to your attempt to exclude a narrative that
> might have mentioned "oceans." The way that Weber has approached the
> narrative (which does distinguish it from earlier narrative
> approaches) is that we respond to all arguments in the narrative. No
> line-by-lines. Lines-by-stories. I know that this probably only
> serves to increase your reasons for ridicule, but we think it is an
> interesting statement about what this community has codified as
> "good" argumentation.
(I would love to see you respond to this post with a narrative, but I think
that would confuse the very matters I am trying to clear up)

A variation of your narrative was read in the round Amoh and I debated Steve
and Dustin.  Our answer (via my own personal narrative) was that someone
would neccesarily be rejected when the three judges signed their ballots.

Why is the Narrative so superior that you should reject my interpretation
and not it?

The reasoning of the example you share with the list can just easily be
applied as a justification for a policy round. Policy rounds help
us learn the basic lessons for life by having real world parallels. They also
provided an attempt to explain the nature of human obligation through
humanitarian action. Brave civil rights leaders who fought and died to
define the nature of human rights did so in a policy framework (in fact
"Policies" were a result of their struggle). Policies
shape our lives. I can't imagine a single decision in my life which has not,
in some way, been influenced by a definitive course of action that either I
personally chose or a policy maker chose for me.  I wonder why you would
want to prefer a narrative and exclude the policy framework that is such a
human condition. (sorry for the partial plagiarism)

Lets assume that I accept your paradigm and run a narrative, your example
proves that no one can "win" the debate.  The very nature of academic debate
means that someone will always be rejected, if not the ballot, then a coin
flip.

If I critque the logic in the Space Traders and offer my own narrative as
superior, am I not rejecting your narrative?  If you compare the virtues of
the narratives presented are you not neccesarily rejecting one narrative
for preference of another? If I accept your hypothetical narrative,
can I reject either side?

I am not saying that narratives should always be rejected.  I just don't
think they provide a framework for evaluation.  At the end of the debate you
have two stories with no way to accept one over the other OR you have to
ways of presenting evidence with competing frameworks for evaluating
evidence (objective vs. subjective). Maybe I'm backlashing, but I don't want
to lose a round to a coin flip or a judges subjective preference that dooms
me from the start.

Alyson Lewis
Cornell University
all5@cornell.edu

 *DISCLAIMER*  This is where I say that my views are my own and don't blame
anyone at Cornell for how nutty I may be.  It's not their fault, I came here
that way.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page