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

Strict Constructionist

I am not certain but I think I coined this phrase about five years ago.  I
could easily have heard it from someone else and thaught it applied to my
philosophy so I am not attempting to claim ownership as much as responsibility.

The questions asked:

1. If the premise is that you accept or reject new arguments then how do you
   determine newness without invading strict construction.  Well, I think you
   reverse the flow and try to determine the first time the argument in
   question appeared on it.  The strict constructionist has to accept the
   premise (forwarded by Tuna Snider a long time ago) that debate is a
   specialized gaming activity.  A game as rules and procedures that are
   created to level the playing field.  One of those rules is that new
   arguments are illegitimate in rebuttals.  The reason new arguments are
   considered to be illigitimate, in my mind, stems from the proposition that
   such a rule equalizes the adavntages that the affirmative inherently
   possesses.  The very concept of Strict Constructionism and its corrolary -
   do the least harm - is opposed to debate being primarily an excercise in
   truth seeking.
2. The second question seemed to be answered by the prior response....In
   other words, debate is not primarily a search for truth rather it is
   a game with some rules and procedures first and a search for truth second.
   So, the first role of a Strict Constructionist is to ensure that the
   game is played fairly and then to evaluate the truth presented through
   argumentation.

I hope this answers your questions David.  Josh

Joshua B. Hoe
Asst. Dir. Forensics
Arizona State University
e-mail:IFJXH@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
(602) 965-5578
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page