[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Racism in debate
Upfront, I admit that my philosophy of debate argument is much closer to
Doyle's than it is to those who claim to be tabula rasa or in CEDA
"non-interventionist". I've made no secret over the years of my cynicism
toward the tabula rasa paradigm since I believe that tabula rasa makes liars
of us all in that the prejudices inherent in this paradigm mask subtle forms
of intervention. What does concern me is when a judge may make value
judgements about certain arguments. Of course, it is easy to expose a
"racism good" argument for its lack of merit. But is up to a judge to make
this decision or the team against which it is being run? And is it
acceptable that a judge have lower tolerance for some arguments as opposed to
others. I wonder under what circumstances Doyle (for example) would vote for
this argument? And if we can reject such an argument based on how most of us
view it, where is the threshold for other arguments.....perhaps I view
malthus (as a death check argument against AIDS) or nuke war good in the
same manner..allowing millions to die so others may live....do I have the
right to censor this argument (and I believe rejection based on person value
is a form of censorship) and the team which runs it? And if so, where is the
line drawn? These comments should not be interpreted as a criticism of
Doyle, but rather as a search for disposition and fairness.
Glen Strickland
Emporia State University Debate
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page