[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: The last TR gasp
I guess I'll include one last wrap up also. I'll keep it short -
> I agree. First, they are rarely two word blurbs. I tink Mark does the debate
> community a great disservice with this over-exaggeration. They may be quick,
> but hardly two words. Second, many of those are answers not arguments. They do
> not need to be heavily developed. Third, it is common practice to be crypyic
> in our answers. This may not be the best practice for communication, but it
> is not "two word blurbs" either. Most kritics know that a simple "burden of
> rejoiner" (this was the shortest I could think of) actually means that the
> team wants the burdens to be equal for both teams. I do not need a lengthly
> explanation, I know what is meant.
I don't think I exagerate. Ok, maybe on the "two words thing :).
But I can think of MANY rounds (also alluded to in a recent post on
topicality) where there are many lines of analysis, or standards, that
are just a few words (3 - 5). These are not arguments, but they are
treated as such. Why, because of the intervention of the TR judges.
Above you say, that you don't need a lengthy explanation because you know
what they mean. This is intervention. If we go on the basis of assuming
the judge knows what we mean, why don't we just allow the entire argument
to be - " Disad I. Anarchy, you know what I mean."
> > You seem to associate any evidence with quality evidence.
> That's because I am not expert on who the experts are. If a team has a problem
> with their opponents authors, they should say so. They should also show some
> reason why (since they have become the advocators). If I assume to know which
> authors are qualified and which aren't, I set myself up as being more important
> to the debate than I should be.
Fine, I'm not either. But I do know (there's that intervention again
:) that a Ph.D in the topic area is probably more qualified than the
staff writer for U.S. News and World Report.
> > Is quantity better than quality?
> I wouldn't say that, but it is more measurable. How do you measure which ev is
> the more "quality" ev? At least with quantity, you may offer more of a con
> conscensus. I am not necessarily advocating reading more cards instead of good
> cards, but I also don't think that one flaming card should take out a bunch
> of average cards (the flamer could be just that).
So what do you advocate if the above is true. You say you can't
determine quality, but then you say that you don't advocate just reading
quantity. You're back to the judge using their subjective "decision
making" on a case by case basis. This is intervention.
> Regarding nuclear war, Mark says:
> > This is where the fallacies of equivocation come in.
> Fine, if that argument is made. If not, then it is intervention.
Right, just voting against it because you know it's stupid would be
massive intervention. And we don't (hopefully) intervene to that
extent. That's why absolutely everything in our activity is linked to
nuclear war - you need those outlandish impacts, and for some bizarre
reason otherwise intelligent people don't question it.
> > If aff has a source that says x is true, and neg has a source that says x is
> false, what do you do? Freeze? Refuse to decide? No, you need to make a decisionso you will find some way to weigh it. Sorry, that's intervening.
> Sorry back, that's decision making. The problem we are having is that you get tochange the definition of intervention whenever it suits you. Since the start
> of this thread I have made it clear that the commonly understood definition of
> intervention is what is at issue (that being intentionally making arguments
> for a team). If there are two sources that contradict, I would make a decision
> (just like I would if only one team had read cards). I make a decision in every
> round, but I try not to make arguments in any of them.
I think you are absolutely right. We are talking about the
definition of intervention. You seem (?) to view it as an absolute
concept that is only in effect when a judge takes matters into their own
hands and votes on something not explicitly put out by the debaters. I
view it more on a continuum. On the one end of the continuum there is
that type of intervention, which we both say is bad. On the other end of
the continuum there is the type of intervention that occurs when a critic
fills out a ballot, which we both agree is not bad and is even
necessary. But (for me), there is a long grey area in the middle. What
you call "decision making," I call a form of intervention. If there are
two relatively equal sources arguing opposite things, one must be chosen
over the other. How do you "decide?" You decide by applying your
unconscious (as well as your conscious) criteria and experience to
justify on a ballot why you picked one over the other. Because there is
no across the board standard as to what is acceptable and what isn't,
these decisions are necesaarily biased. If they are biased, it is
intervention. So the question becomes when do we cross the line to the
point that it is the unacceptable type of intervention? That would also
be different for each of the people involved.
> If this is the real Mark Whitney, I congratulate him. He is much more TR than
> he has led me to believe. TR does not assume that you always like the decisions
> you make, just that you make them without intervening.
Thanks, I guess. Like I said, I'm probably much more TR than I care
to admit. Will you admit that not all nonTR judges aren't the devil
> > The TR judges have the same flaws, because they, and everyone else DO interve
> > intervene.
> Talk about fallacies. To claim that TR and interventionist judges are the same
> because they both intervene (again using a different definition of intervene)
> is like saying that a person who kills the gopher in his lawn is the same as
> John Wayne Gacy because they both are murderers. No, there is a small matter
> of degree of harm. The TR kritic may be guilty of some small intervention (my
> problem with this word still goes), but not to the degree that the non TR kri
> kritic does. They are very different, as most debaters on the "national circuit"will tell you.
I'm not sure which fallacy you're referring to, but I think what I
said about the continuum above would apply here.
> I would like to say to Mark, that I have enjoyed the thread. I am always happy
> to continue these types of debates, but I fear the rest of the list may be
> getting tired of it. If I am wrong, I will continue (but I don't think I am).
> Thanx for the interplay, and thanx for the forum.
Well Bob, I've enjoyed it too. But I think you're probably right
about other people being bored with this, although I would've been
interested in other's opinions.
See ya, Mark Whitney
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page