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

Re: Theory Sources

    I think that the debate between Bahm,Murphy and Roskoski has been 
extremely interesting.  However, I believe that much of what is being 
discussed misses the true problem.  I believe that the major proplem 
is that debaters do not know how to argue theory very well.  
Consequently most debates on theory come down to a mindless blither 
between limits and reasonability and breadth vs. depth, etc..  Those 
who like theory, such as Bahm and Murphy, should be, and I am sure 
are, horrified at these types of debates.  Those who do not enjoy 
theory, such as Matt, no doubt have been influenced in their 
decisions based upon the actual debates that they have seen.  In 
fact, perhaps the best, most developed, and best argued Topicality 
debate I have seen occured last year when judging some of Matt's 
teams.  Thus, I believe that the focus of this discussion needs to 
deal with more practical issues: Namely, how do we improve the 
quality of theory debate in CEDA today.  Once that has been 
accomplished, there may be a need to engage in a more theoretical 
debate about the benefits of theory.  If Ken and Tom are succesful in 
their goal of persuading those onthe list to their side, nothing 
really has been accomplished because theroy debates will still be 
awful. 
    I do not believe that I have the answers on how to go about this 
project.  I certainly am not very qualified to discuss theoretical 
issues.  Even though I was a relatively succesful debater, I know 
that I was god-awful when it came to theory arguments.  Thus, I 
believe that there is a good argument to be made that people who have 
thought about theory a great deal, and are published, can speak more 
authoritatively on theory than I can.  This does not mean, that we 
should defer to Bahm and Murphy merely because they have written 
articles.  However, there should be some presumption that they have 
more knowledge on the subject than I do.  However, their knowledge 
will not help improve the quality of theoretical debates accross the 
country.  
    Thus, I propose a new thread of this discussion.  How can we 
improve the quality of theory debates in CEDA?  If this can be 
accomplished, then this argument that has been going on will have 
some real value.  If this does not occur, then this has been a 
pointless discussion up until now.
    And now, I have a few thoughts on the ongoing debate.  It seems 
to me, that both sides seem to be missing critical parts of the 
otherside's arguments.  For instance, Matt has no answer to the 
question of theory ev. from sources other than debate coaches.  While 
it may be true that we shouldn't put others in the debate community 
ahead of us, this does not logically follow to mean that we should 
not place some great phiosopher or argument theorist ahead of us.  
The other question, is why should the reasons we use evidence to 
support bombing Bosnia, not be applied to the reason why we should 
debate the whole resolution?  If citing experts in one is good, why 
is it bad for the other?  
    On the other hand, merely because a debate coach is published 
many times in refered journals, does not necesarily make that person 
the absolute expert on debate or argumentation.  Certainly, his 
argument is probably more thought out than the average debater's.  
However, good debaters should be able to analytically tear apart 
evidence from a debate theorist, just as they might from an arms 
control expert.  
     I guess this puts me somewhere in the middle.  I think that good 
theory debates are highly valuable, but in the long run, I do believe 
that more deucational benefit can come from learning about the topic, 
especially when they are as broad as they have been.  
    My final point, is that I belive that this discussion proves that 
there is no such thing as a pure tabula rasa critic.  I know from 
personal experience, that it is much easier to win a theoretical 
argument in front of bahm and murphy than it is in front of roskoski. 
 All three of them try very hard to be objective and fair, but at 
some point it becomes impossible to completely divorce yourself from 
your decision.  Thus, it is important for judges to be candid about 
their biases.  Instead of jumping on those who write in their 
philosphy that they do not like theory, we should be happy that they 
are not trying to hide their biases.  The same line of attack could 
be made against peopel who claim to like theory in their philosphies. 
 These judges are probably less likely to vote for arguments which 
say that theory is not a good argument.
    I am sorry if this is a bit rambly, but I just got out of 
property class, and my mind is a mess.

                    -Jeremy Rosen
                    Cornell Debate/Duke law
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page