[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Mark Whitney, in his reply to my post (which was in reply to his post), dwells
a lot on the fact that something or another had already been covered in an
earlier post (is everybody still with me). What he doesn't do is answer the
arguments I make. However, I will reply to his post anyway.
Mark says that, "Judges are asked to intervene simply by being asked to cast
a ballot". First, Mark is splitting semantic hairs. His form of forced
intervention is nothing like the intervention that he KNOWS we are refering
to. Second, when a kritic writes a ballot s/he is doing something necessary
for the debate to even occur. When the kritic, however, forces one team to
read minds, work harder, or waste time because s/he has interjected their own
likes, dislikes, and viewpoints into the debate, it is both UNnecessary, and
bad (notice how I am having a hard time finding the right adjective for this
Mark says, "Judges can not avoid intervention because of their subconscious".
Well hoorah! We're only human after all. BUT, and this is a big but, there is
a world of difference between the intervention that we may all do subconscious
ly, and the intervention that many do consciously. One is done naturally, and
is fair to all, and the other is intentional and unfair to one team or the other
Mark then says,"If an advocate puts forth a position, they have minimal burden
to "prove" it with a TR judge". This is silly. At what point does Mark tell the
debaters where is brite line is on "proof"? Where does he explain how much is
enough to "prove" it to him? My guess would be on the ballot after it's too
late. By placing too high a degree of proof on ANYONE, the non TR judge, once
again, proves to be much more interventionist than the TR judge. The great
thing about the TR judge is that they place the burden on all debaters. The
advocate must show "some" proof (or at least advocate it), and the negative
need only show the same amount or quality of proof to deny it. Noone is left
out in the cold as to how much is necessary to win the argument.
Mark then shows his true colors when he says, "How many nuclear wars have you
seen lately? I have "learned" that ice ages are improbable, anarchy does not
work as long as humans are involved.....". Makes me wonder how much work for
the opposing team Mark is doing when someone advocates these things. It also
makes me wonder if Mark lists EVERYTHING he has "learned" to the debaters so
they don't waste time advocating them. If not, he's doing someone's work for
them, and intervening (the bad kind). Additionally, I wonder how improbable
it was for Mt. St. Helens to erupt a few months before it did, or if anyone
could have immagined a nuclear war before the bombs were dropped on Japan.
Finally, one of the reasons I adopted the TR philosophy in the first place,
is because I felt it would have been very egotistical of me to think that I
knew more than authors being read. I am not an expert on ice ages, I will
let someone more qualified than I decide if there will be an ice age or not
(at least in the context of the round).
Mark then says, "There are many types of judging philosophies that could be
used, but I'm not sure I've seen one that starts by saying "I'm going to make
arguments against you myself." Well I've seen one..... It's in your post.
"I have "learned" that ice ages are improbable, anarchy does not work...".
The TR kritic would want the opposing team to make those answers, s/he would
not go into the round saying them. Besides, the kritics who intervene the
worst rarely say they are going to do it. As the Nike commercial says, They
just do it.
Then Mark asks, "If you assert that non TR judges are interventionist (to a
greater degree), don't you have the burden to prove it?" Yes, I do. And I
think I have done that in my last two posts. 1) I have shown how the TR kritic
places an equal burden on both teams, while the non TR place a higher burden
on one team or another. 2) I have shown that TR judges don't profess to know
more than experts being cited. 3) I have shown that TR judges wait for a team
to make answers, and don't make the answers for them. 4) I think your quote
on ice ages, anarchy, and nuke war pretty much proves it as well.
Mark then says,"It's a matter of applying a probability to the scenario to
determine what burden the opposition has to defeat it." And this isn't just
about the most interventionist thing you could do??? First, how does a team
know how much burden is required? How do they know which scenarios are not
winable (in your mind)? If that probability is based on things you have "
"learned", how are the debaters supposed to find this out? No, when you set
some arbitrary level of burden based on YOUR knowledge, you are entering the
debate. This is another proof that non TR kritics are more interventionist than
Mark then says, "You say passive kritic, some are saying L.I., I call it critic
of argument...". Please Mark, these are nothing alike. The passive kritic and
L.I. kritic remain outside the debate. We make the debaters do all the work,
and don't make arguments for them. A critic of argument, by its very name,
assumes that there are some arguments that you won't listen to. You are involv-
ed in the debate more than the TR kritic.
Finally, on the name debate, you miss the point. When I say you are too wrapped
up in the TR name, you respond with the same stuff. Forget that a perfect TR doesn't exist, just remember that it REPRESENTS an attempt to remain outside the
debate. If a person said your tie was "cool", would you assume that that s/he
meant that it was a few degrees less than ambient temperature? Of course not.
The word "cool" has taken on new meanings over the years, as have many other
words and phrases. The term Tabula Rosa has come to reflect a judging style
that promises to try to remain outside the debate and bring few (if any)
preconceived notions into the round. To attack TR because it's latin meaning
is impossible to achieve would be like telling the earlier person that your tie
is the same temperature as the rest of your clothing. Forget about the latin,
and concentrate on what the term represents.
One last note on TR kritics. Mark, how would you like to be in a debate where
you are winning on a great position (whatever) that the other team is just
not handling very well. You spend a great deal of rebuttal time on the position
and win it big. After the round you find out the judge ballotted against you
because he just didn't "buy" your argument. He knew a little something about
the position and just didn't believe it was going to happen. I can't say what
your answer will be, but if you wouldn't like it, DON'T DO IT. That is why I
am a TR kritic. I hated judges like that when I debated (albeit a long time ago
ago), and I will do my best to not ever be that kind of judge to anyone else.
Whew! This would be a lot simpler if you would explain to me how you are able
to quote and respond like that (the way you do it).
(We're just a J.C., but we're a damn good one)
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page