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

CRITIC OF ARGUMENT* (fwd)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 1996 17:02:40 -0600 (CST)
From: N. Antonucci <antonucc@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu>
To: Michael Miroslav Korcok <mk48@cornell.edu>
Cc: Multiple recipients of list <merger-l@debate.net>
Subject: CRITIC OF ARGUMENT*


Before exploring my substantive theoretical differences with Mr. Korcok, 
I want to grant some arguments.  I did NOT advocate a critic of argumemt 
model.  I don't see the problems to which Korcok alludes (conditionality, 
bad T violations, etc.) as intrinsic features of Affirmative Plan Focus, 
particularly when some restrictions on abuse are allowed as additional 
safeguards.  

I think that Korcok's argument, whcih advocates adopting his model in 
order to prevent abuses, might be a WARRANT for a critic of argument 
paradigm.  Since I don't accept many of his claims, though, I don't 
accept the conclusions that might follow.  My position is conditional 
(ah, the irony) - IF Korcok claims about insoluble dilemmas of APF debate 
which we MUST achieve closure on are TRUE - THEN we should consider a 
critic of argument model.

On Mon, 11 Mar 1996, Michael Miroslav Korcok wrote:

> 3) intervention solves theory problems
> his more "sophisticated" solution seems to be "evaluator of argument".  well, that's peachy too. 
> da judge knows what's stoopid and what's right and you better do it that way.  not my cup of 
> pedagogy, thank you.  debaters should make the arguments and critics should respect them.  THE 
> PROFESSOR belongs in THE CLASSROOM not in a debate round.

You're right **.  I do not advocate 'critic of argument' asa solution.  
It is, instead, the logical outgrowth of YOUR position, a position which 
attempts to seek closure on theory issues, which dismisses APF because it 
has raised theoretical dilemmas that have not been "conclusively" 
answered.  Korcok's defenses of plan-plan debate reads like a Francis 
Fukuyama of debate, which sees the "elegant simplicity" of plan-plan as 
the End of Theoretical History. 

Thus, before Korcok advocates his own teleologically resolved theory 
positions, he should look more carefully at another paradigm that has 
achieved a similar closure, eliminating theory problems by passing over them.

> also, Mr. Antonucci waves the "paradigms may not be debatable" silliness.  of course they can.
> the "perm" here isn't.  i'm discussing them in this forum too.  of course, ALL of this is merely 
> guidance and examples for the REAL debates which happen in rounds rather than making "rules" or 
> writing a "textbook" or ...  

I absolutely agree. If I were to judge a plan-plan debate, I would NOT 
exclude plan-plan theory from the sphere of argument.  I would try to 
refrain from injecting my opinion into the debate.

I mention the paradigms might be hard to debate silliness.  I think I'm 
right, too.  Debating a paradigm is darned difficult -every aspect of 
debate is supposed*** to fall under the rubric of these epistemic 
metaphors.  Is that a reason to reject such debates?  No.  According to 
THIS logic, we can't throw out APF debate because it happens to raise 
hard questions about fiat, conditionality, usw.

I am engaging this conversation as a DEBATER - I do *not* defer to the 
authority of a "judge" or a "community consensus."  Ismy post post 
supposed to end the issue?  Not at all.  Plan-plan, on the other hand, 
packages itself as a method to AVOID, to END the "interminable" theory 
debates of the APF days.

> remember "stock issues":  THESE are the rules and THAT is how you need to debate.  whole lotta 
> crud which was the "status quo" for decades -- and there are still "critics of argument" who 
> think that's the way it's gotta be.  COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE?!?  that's not DEBATE, dammit.  
> where's your INHERENCY?
> so, Mr. Antonucci, nanotech solves all environmental problems in 15 years.  as an evaluator of 
> argument, is that just stupid or what?  of course, there do seem to be quite a few extremely 
> brilliant folks who seem to believe that...

This is addressed in the overview and in the immediately preceding response.

A side note- it's amusing that you raise this issue, given some of my 
history of deliberately "pushing the envelope" in high school and college 
debate.

Two cases I wrote, which I hope will put this issue to rest:

Commander-in-Chief topic: Declassify information related to the "Roswell 
incident," a July 1947 UFO crash which is the centerpiece of many UFO 
conspiracy theories.  (Classification is a commander-in-chief power.)  
Advantages include miscalc (ignorance breeds fear of aliens and 
hair-trigger responses to UFOs among all militaries internationally) and 
global UFO consciousness (if you want to know, you'll have to ask.)

I spent 100s of $$ in phone bills talking to Texan conspiracy theorists 
in order to put this case together.

High School Space Exploration:  High-ranking officials in the U.S. 
government will explore space using "remote viewing" techniques to 
astrally project to othe planets.  Advantages include precognition, 
ability to "see" the future (which solves all potential disads) and 
"mental living death" (again, if you want to know, ask...)

And Nanotech development planning, of course.

I won't get into the freewheeling Kritik days on the South Asia topic.

Suffice it to say, I have NEVER been an enthusiastic fan of critics of 
argument who impose their own views of "common sense" on debate rounds.
I'm not such a fan now.

The tone of Korcok's arguments, which attempt to reject a model of debate 
because it entails "problems" without unitary, conclusive "solutions" 
seems similar to a critic of argument model, popular within NDT, that 
attempts to put theoretical dilemmas to rest.

It's possible that NDT is seeking a merger because it wants to reawaken 
some of these questions.  It would be a shame if Sleeping Beauty were 
reawakened by the kiss of a merger only to have Korcok put her back to 
sleep talking about plan-plan.

Respectfully,
Michael Antonucci

FOOTNOTES:

*I want to start distinguishing this from the "arguer as critic" 
anti-paradigmatic non-teleological starting point for innovation that I 
haven't even published yet...

**But not completely.  I will concede to the critics of argument that it 
is completely impossible to avoid importation of a set of ideas regarding 
theory.  Blank slates couldn't understand English, flow, or believe in 
clash without making some concessions to critics of argument.

The difference between an Antonucci and a critic of argument consist of a 
difference in MOBILITY.  My preconceptions exist, and I don't try to hide 
them, but for the purposes of a debate round, they are simply highly 
mutable "default settings."

***They never are as all-encompassing as they would like to be - I think 
they should change their nature and recognize their nature as limited 
METONYMS, not METAPHORS that establish unity.  But that's antoher story 
and shall be told another time.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page