No theory/no need for evidence

[HANSON@whitman.edu]

Hey Ken and others interested in the "using theory evidence post Ken made"
First, for others who don't know--Ken coached me when I debated at Western 
Washington and he is an amazing coach.  He is insightful; has great ideas; and 
you can see it in the articles that he has written.
Second, I disagreed with you then about theory and t-rasa judging Ken--and I 
still do.
Third, are you going to coach at Towson?
I agree with Ken that dismissing theory evidence is as arbitary as if we 
dismissed evidence on the "substantive" issues in a debate (though I have some 
sympathy with the notion that as debate participants we know as much or more 
than some of the authors that are read to us--particularly, in its application 
to the arguments in the round).
I'd also add that I think we often have a over deference for the "authority" 
read in the "substantive" evidence when we would do better to examine the 
reasons and values exhibited in the arguments the authors present.
That said--what arguments would really need theory support?  Hasty G?  Whole 
Res? Critiques? Language based value objections? Criterial objections? I hope 
not, at least when I am judging.  Students should be focused on whether 
military intervention is a good idea in Bosnia--not whether such a case 
violates principles of formal logic in its relation to the resolution nor 
should they be forced to defend a term in a resolution they did not write nor 
should they be forced to defend their criteria interpreted in a way they never 
intended nor argued.
That said--the theory argument that is worth discussing is topicality.  Now, to 
make a good topicality argument, I would argue that it must be a specific 
violation topicality argument.  By that, I mean a violation that is supported 
with specific (I'd underline that word if I could) reasons to support the 
definition/interpretation given and specific reasons why that violation should 
be a reason to vote for the argument.  Hence, the good old "reasonable is 
better" "no--best definition is the way to go" and "t is a voter because of 
jurisdiction" just do not present good enough reasons to reject an affirmative 
case (I should say in most situations do not present enough reasons).  Instead, 
the good topicality argument must be specific to the violation the affirmative 
has committed with their case/plan.  Example--Michigan State ran a "must be 
1000 troops" standard and then read lots of evidence arguing that using other 
numbers or interpretations were subjective, could be used to say one soldier 
was a military intervention, etc.  They then impacted the argument by 
showing that using the affirmative interpretation would lead to an unlimited 
number of cases.  Now--my question--what theory evidence could help a team make 
such an argument?  The only thing I can think of is theory about a proper 
balance of ground or research abuse or anything which hits at the assumptions 
behind the specific reasons the debaters wish to present.  Absent that, the 
debaters need to provide specifics--arguments based on that semester's 
resolution and the other team's affirmative case.  No theory articles can 
provide evidence to do this--they would appear to late and could never account 
for the multiple permutations of arguments that would exist in each, specific 
round that the debaters need to address to make the kind of topicality argument 
I am talking about.
So, if you are in agreement with me that t is the sole procedural issue and you 
agree with me that t arguments should focus on specifics rather than broad 
theoretical generalizations about the role of definitions, etc.--then, I hope I 
have made a convincing case that theory evidence usually is not helpful nor 
needed and indeed probably would get in the way of debaters making specific 
arguments.  To the degree that the debaters stay focused on the specifics and 
use the "theory" evidence to address the assumptions of the specifics--then, I 
agree with Ken.  Otherwise--lets stay focused on the practical--the 
"substantive" issues.
Jim Hanson
Whitman College

---

• Prev by Date: 9-3-6 plus 10
• Next by Date: Re: Theory Evidence
• Prev by thread: 9-3-6 plus 10
• Next by thread: Packet Sources
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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