Re Jason's Q

[JKM1993@aol.com]

I think we agree...My comment re "complex policy implications" is that it is
rare, not nonexistent...I also agree that employing value argument (as well
as a number of other transcendent themes) within 'policy' rounds is valuable,
hence, the "bitter irony" of contemporary debate.

>Have you met Kate Shuster? I am sure that you would be interested in
>Normativity...

I've seen her debate; she is an exceptionally talented performer...I am
interested in the argument---my posting expressed my concern re general
interest in this and other issues. As I mentioned, and as you similarly 
expressed with your anecdote from Heart, 

 >We do,
> however, now have a circumstance in which the advocates of value and policy
> argument continue business as usual, although they are marching behind
> different banners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A final note:
I suggested an appreciation of complexity, but the process of commodifying
and simplifying issues in debate continues. Your example of normativity is
already undergoing this process ("Schlagging" and "we were Schlagged") at the
same time that subscribers are requesting information about the
argument...I'm not cynical about the introduction of creative arguments in
debate; I do realize that it involves struggle.

John Meany
The Claremont Colleges

---

Follow-Ups:

• Re: Re Jason's Q
• From: Catherine Elizabeth Shuster <cshuste@emory.edu>

---

• Prev by Date: Re rad argument
• Next by Date: Common Ground w/Genco
• Prev by thread: Re rad argument
• Next by thread: Re: Re Jason's Q
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page