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

RE: Cards by debate coaches. (fwd)

here is one of my hs-l posts that started the discussion.
ANdy

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 11:52:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Andy Ellis <foren021@midget.towson.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of list <cx-l@debate.net>
Subject: RE: Cards by debate coaches.

On the top, I'm not saying that the evidence from coaches is superior to 
debater generated analyisis, but that it is a valuble tool that we should 
not reject on face.The line by line.

On Tue, 25 Mar 1997, Chris Smith wrote:

> I have to disagree with Andy Ellis on this issue.  Evidence by debate 
> coaches may be evidence by professionals, but there is a problem in drawing 
> the parallel between debate professionals and professional scientists.
Hmmm, I don't nessecarily agree here I think professionals in 
argumentation should be treated as professionals in other fields, knock 
the anlogy down from scientists to foreign policy experst and it puts 
both of them in a liberal arts framework.
> First of all, a proposition about the role of evidence.  If I could give 
> you sound logical reasoning from an unquestionable foundation to prove that 
> we should adopt my plan, then I will win, without evidence at all.
Granted but the appeal to authority is used to give arguments some weight 
and to provide us with the logic which we may not be able to assertain 
from our less educated background
  Where 
> evidence is required is when that logic is either too complex for the time 
> constraints of a debate round or non-existent, which hopefully is a 
> situation that is impossible to avoid.  What happens in this case is that 
> we either provide evidence from "experts" to say that the logic exists and 
> thus prove the conclusion or show empirical conclusions from "experts" 
> which show that despite a lack of conclusive logical proof, there is reason 
> to believe in the plan, or more commonly, we employ a combination of these 
> tactics.  But what is meant to be shown is that despite the common modern 
> belief that evidence is stronger than analysis, evidence is only needed 
> when analysis fails.
Yes, i agree, but informed evidence from professionals in the field 
allows for the analyisi to be developed and advanced
> Now to the point.  In most issues in debate (DA's, for example) it would be 
> ludicrous to try to prove through sound logical reasoning that aff plan 
> results in nuclear war, or destruction of liberty, or any other real 
> impact.  It would be ludicrous to try to logically prove that aff plan will 
> solve for juvenile crime.  There aren't enough time or conclusive arguments 
> to do so. 
1)why couldn't you make the same logical arguments in that time that the 
expert could make? 2)why doesn't this apply to theory based argumentaion 
as well. it seems to me the dicothmy you set up is betwenn complex 
arguments(substantive debate) and simple argumentation (procedurals). I 
think this can seriously undermine the ability of procedural arguments to 
be developed to their fullest.
 For this reason, someone using analysis to prove their solvency 
> would be in trouble.  In theory or topicality, this changes.  It is not 
> ludicrous to support completely through analysis why extra-topicality 
> should be rejected.  It is not ludicrous to support completely through 
> analysis why topicality is not a voter.  It is not ludicrous to support 
> completely through analysis why conditionality is bad or why (although I am 
> not trying to start another thread here) p/p theory is superior.
Again I think this destroys the value of the ideas advanced by debate 
professionals, because as you say you could argue  substantive debate 
with just logic, why not do so. This is not really the thread but it has 
kind of developed in to this.
  Appeals 
> to authority could certainly be used here, but I think we are better off 
> using analysis for the the simple reason that, in this case, it is a 
> superior tool.  I'm not ripping on coaches or anything else that Andy 
> provides as justification for rejecting their cards.  I'm just saying that 
> analysis works, it is better, so use it.
I agree, but i think a proper mix of anlyis and evidence makes the most 
superior argumentation.
 > Thanks for reading this far,
> 
> Chris Smith
> Woodland Park HS Debate
Andy Ellis
Towson ST University
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page