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

Re: Debate as anti-authoritarian & Evidence




On Mon, 29 Jan 1996 jhobbs@acuvax.acu.edu wrote:

> Sue (from Chico) and Mike (from Cornell):
> 
> I've read with interest your posts on debate as an activity where
> education gets away from its traditional authoritarian structures.
> If this is true, why do we have to read evidence (from an authority--
> often a white male) to prove a point?  Professor or author--what's
> the difference when it comes to entrenching power structures?

	good point jeff!  i think the reason we read evidence is that we can'
t bring the authors of the evidence into the round for the discursive 
action.  in a sense, i think of evidence as the voice of the author in 
the round.  a voice that supports my partner and my points of views.

	i think that debate allows me to espouse what I believe in, and 
if i can find others to support that point of view, then i will use their 
discourse in support.  i would also like to say that if the majority of 
authors you are reading are white and male then i don't think you're 
doing thorough research on this particular topic.  my case authors are 
made up mostly of Mexicans and there a couple of females as 
well.  with mexico being the topic area, there is a ton of evidence from 
Mexican sources...and that evidence should be read, because i doubt if 
most of us have any kind of experience with the real situation in mexico.

	i understand the point you are trying to make, but i think the use of 
research and evidence in this activity does more to make debaters 
question the validity of public press information then it does to feed 
our believing in the "mass" media as being always correct.  at least, 
that's how it works for me!  

Sue Lowrie
Chico State DB8


References:

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