Does anyone really support value debate? :-) (Answering Church and Hunt)

[jmd9@cornell.edu (Jamey Dumas)]

I'm wondering if everyone who is lame enough to be checking their email
over the winter break simply agrees that it is not possible to "generally"
debate values in a logical manner...  Despite Professor Church's
suggestions, I believe that there are many people out there who do think it
is possible and I hope that they will explain how whenever they catch up to
this thread.

In response to Professor Church, now.

FIRST:  I really don't think we disagree on anything.  But, I will accuse
you (Church) of hiding behind a semantic smoke screen to avoid straight out
saying so.  You write:

>... their is an assumption on your (Dumas's) part that there needs to be 
>some inferential leap from particular debates to a discussion of values 
>in general.

And that,

>...the function of a CEDA "value" debate round ... is to examine a 
>particular context and the role of values within this context.

HUH?  How can you logically support values within a "particular context"
when you agree that you cannot in a "general" "discussion of values"?  If I
cannot logically argue that happiness is the ultimate value in general, why
can I suddenly logically argue that happiness is the ultimate value when
discussing art?  I would argue that the same logical fallacies I originally
mentioned will apply in this "particular context."  If I am wrong, simply
provide a couple of "logical" reasons why some terminal value should be
logically accepted in any particular context of your choosing.  (I bet you
can't, nah nah...)  :-)


SECOND:  I give up on arguing about what other people mean when they talk
about values.  If you can prove that values can be debated logically in
some particular context I will give all of the articles the benefit of the
doubt that that is what they mean.  :-)  

I would point out that my reading of Zarefsky's article published in the
1980 CY does not offer any help to our discussion.  (I don't have access to
the Matlon article Church mentions, but Matlon's 1988 CY article does
suggest that CEDA should "probably" give up on value debate.)  All of
Zarefsky's suggested ways of supporting values, for example, depend on
concensus over what is ultimately valuable -- which precludes any type of
value discussion where there really is fundamental clash.  


THIRD:  (To beat a dead, or at least dying gnat.)  I still don't understand
the non-unique indict you (Church) makes.  I do not think that my claims
rely on format limitations for CEDA, but on the simply idea that values
cannot logically be supported.  Further (to illustrate) I DO think it IS
possible to debate policy theory "in general" during a debate round.  The
problem, in my mind, is uniquely with logically supporting values, not with
the format of the debate.  (I think the misunderstanding comes because I
originally wanted to avoid assertions along the line of "if you read Kant
you would see that it is possible" with the second line being "you have to
read all 1000 pages."  I think Kant falls to the same fallacies I propose,
BTW.)


FOURTH:  Humor is difficult on the net...  Professor Church chastizes me
for advocating abuse, writing:

>Shame on you for suggesting that debaters should abuse those who don't
>think out positions.  Why not "educate" them with a good argument?

Ahh, I meant abuse in a different (good) way -- by showing a greater
understanding of the problems of value debate and using that to win.  This
should "educate" the team as the arguments WOULD be better.  (Sorry
Professor Church, I may agree with you on educational goals, but I often
couch my rhetoric in more acceptable, and I think more real, game terms.)


>This is fun and I hope to hear from you again.

I think it would be much more fun if someone who thinks we're both idiots
for suggesting that values cannot logically be supported would enter the
frey...


Now, for a quick response to Professor Hunt:

As I read what you say everything boils down to the idea that values can be
debated if ultimately we accept AUTHORITY or CONCENSUS or RHETORICAL
APPEALS.  Of course, I pre-empt authority as ultimately a fallacy in this
matter, and concensus as precluding discussion of values when we
fundamentally disagree (thus both inappropriate for a logical support of
values).  I would agree that rhetorical appeals are used in the real world
to support values, and I despair with Mr. Korcok that this may be the only
alternative, but alas these are not "logical."  (Am I sounding too much
like Spock?)  Perhaps I misunderstand, and you (Hunt) are suggesting that
the authors you mention provide some logical argument for values.  If so,
could you provide that argument for us?  Or if you think authority,
concensus, or rhetorical appeals are logical (even in a field dependent
way, as I guess Toulmin would suggest) please explain how?


Enough for now.  :-)

Chat,

--Jamey Dumas
  Cornell University

---

• Prev by Date: about posting Eastern Debate 1/94
• Next by Date: Re: Does anyone really support value debate? :-) (Answering Churchand Hunt)
• Prev by thread: about posting Eastern Debate 1/94
• Next by thread: Re: Does anyone really support value debate? :-) (Answering Churchand Hunt)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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