TR & theory

[Brian R McGee <bmcgee@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>]

I returned from vacation a few days ago to find my mailbox overflowing with
interesting CEDA-L messages.  I wish to comment briefly on two threads I find
particularly intriguing:

THEORY

I think Ken Bahm is quite correct when he notes that repeated statements of
disinterest in theory debates and/or theory evidence by highly respected
critics has a chilling effect on some kinds of theory argumentation.  In the
last few weeks, the "free speech" defense for tabula rasa has been advanced
on CEDA-L.  Yet repeated statements of judge preference--even by critics with
an avowed commitment to TR or least intervention--do encourage the
development of some arguments rather than others.  When multiple critics who
judge regularly express a common distaste for one kind of argument or one
mode of argument development, then the incentive to create well-developed
arguments of these sorts is proportionately reduced.  At the very least,
constraints are put on the means for developing theory arguments that are not
placed on any other sort of argument in academic debate.  At worst, my novice
CEDA debaters a few years ago found it curious that some critics existed who
were more inclined to vote on the most implausible of
low-risk/high-significance scenarios than on arguments concerning the
substantive effects of certain kinds of language use on academic debaters. 
Some judge preferences--such as opposition to use of fabricated
evidence--undoubtedly should be stated by as many critics as possible.  I
doubt that distaste for theory evidence or theory arguments fall into this
category, however.

Imagine this counterfactual: Assuming that Ken Bahm, Tom Murphy, Jeff Bile,
and I were all judging regularly (some of us aren'), imagine your reaction if
our judging philosophies routinely reported our strong preferences for theory
argument, our presumption that expert testimony on argumentation theory
counts for no less than does expert testimony on any other subject, our
fondness for language arguments, our love for intricate standards debates
over the mundaneness of violations debates, our assumption that education
about enduring issues of argumentation theory is preferable to learning about
the contingencies of foreign policy disputes that will be irrelevant in five
years, and so on.  Now, Ken, Tom, Jeff, and I don't take many of the
positions I sketched above.  But if we frequently were judging the top power
rounds at tournaments you or your students attended, would you feel somewhat
constrained in terms of argument development?  If not, I have no complaint. 
But if your reaction is less than enthusiastic, then I suggest you re-examine
the widespread community reporting of distaste for theory argument and/or
theory evidence.  Judges have many ways of discouraging conclusionary
evidence use or tagline debate; stating preferences in ways that chill the
free speech valorized on CEDA-L surely isn't necessary to combat bad theory
debate.

TABULA RASA

Ken Bahm noted recently that complaints about tabula rasa voiced on CEDA-L
and elsewhere often constitute straw argument.  I agree with my colleague and
former coach on this point.  I coined the (somewhat awkward) "least
intervention" label because that label avoids some of the misunderstanding
that seems to plague TR among both TR adherents and TR foes.  As Bunch and
others have argued for decades, the audience--any audience--actively
participates in interpretation  of the discourse to which the audience is
exposed.  Passive judgment in academic debate (or anywhere else) is
impossible from this perspective, and Bunch's reading of Gadamer et al. seems
well founded up to this point.  The question at this juncture is whether or
not Bunch's conclusion--that we should embrace our active status as
judges--is justified.  I'm not at all certain that it is.  Saying, "well, we
can't be passive, so we might as well forget the idea of constraints on judge
intervention" doesn't seem to follow necessarily.  In contrast, critics could
adopt a series of constraints on their behavior, after the fashion of least
intervention, for example, that are intended to maximize competitive equity,
fairness, etc.

Brian McGee
Ohio State

---

• Prev by Date: Topic Selection Procedure
• Next by Date: SEAN'S TOP TEN LIST
• Prev by thread: Topic Selection Procedure
• Next by thread: SEAN'S TOP TEN LIST
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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