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

Clarification on Theory Evidence

          Just some quick notes of clarification:


1.  I agree  with Tim Mahoney (as Val  Renegar) who writes that theory  can be
overly  generic and can act to  reduce innovation.  But note  that here Tim is
critiquing the WAY theory  is argued and not the fact that it is argued.  This
is a productive  direction - theory  can be argued poorly.   Trotting out  the
same procedural  round after  round is not  particularly stimulating.   But an
argument  that lives, breaths, changes, and seeks specific application in each
individual round  is a thing  of beauty  that should  not be  squashed by  the
generalized  biases against theory and theory  evidence that I am reading from
the judging philosophy book.

2.  The line  between procedure and substantive is blurred.  As Kelly McDonald
notes,  to the extent  that good teams  offer seemless webs of  theme based on
several interacting arguments  (some of  them relating to  procedure, some  of
them not) then it seems most logical to say that they are all substantive.

3.  I  am NOT saying that  theory evidence should  have precedence due to  the
superior  intellegence  or authority  of  the  authors.    I do  believe  that
experience leads to  careful thought  and even insight,  particularly when  an
author  has taken  the time  to consult  a unique  literature base  with which
readers are not yet familiar.  But I believe that authority alone should carry
a very small weight - not just in the evaluation of theory evidence but in the
evaluation of evidence period.  I believe that we use  evidence from published
sources in  a debate,  not because we  presume that  anyone with  access to  a
printing press  is  better than  someone without,  but because  we treat  that
published literature base as a pool  of analysis that we all have access  to -
it is a  tool of  the game.   It can  be used  to augment  our arguments,  and
suggest new and  different arguments.  Hopefully, evidence is being used based
on the  reasoning that the quote offers.   To defer to  authority in isolation
committs us to an ad verecundium fallacy.

4.  The logical  response to #3 - "why  don't debaters just reason  themselves
then"  has been addressed in  previous posts.  They  should.  But we encourage
evidence (and require it to be quoted when used) in the hope that  the reasons
offered in this analytic  pool of published scholarship will  augment, expand,
make more critical, and act as a hueristic for the debaters' own thinking.

5.  The great full-round whole-resolution debates of '88 and '89 (back when it
was an innovative,  living, and breathing argument) were at most 10% quotation
and 90% analysis.  The same cannot be said for the average Bosnia debate.  The
quotes which were used in the whole resolution argument were used not based on
expected  deference to  Mr. Bile's  opinions, but  because the  quotes offered
unique reasons  in crisp and compelling language generated by a writer who had
accessed and synthesized a base of literature and knowledge with which we were
not generally familiar -- The best reason for using evidence on any argument.

                                   Ken Broda-Bahm
                                   Towson State University
                                   Bahm@siucvmb.siu.edu
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page