Evidence, authority, and debate theory

[Kenneth Broda-Bahm <broda@midget.towson.edu>]

The discussion on the use of evidence by debate professionals is 
interesting, but so far seems to make the assumption that the warrant for 
the evidence is necessarily authority.

Certainly, one reason for using evidence is to say 'Dr X says Y' (data), 
therefore 'Y is true' (claim) due to the assumption that 'Dr X is an 
expert' (warrant).  The authoritative warrant is just one to choose 
from.  Alternately, or additionally, the evidence could be using an 
example, drawing an analogy, applying a principle, noting a sign, posing 
a dilemma, etc.  The _form_ of reasoning used is another warrant.  E.g., 
'Dr X uses an example to support Y' (data) therefore 'Y is true' (claim) 
because 'Dr X's example is a good one' (warrant).

This brings up another function (aside from authority) in using 
evidence:  avoiding plagiarism.  When we read articles, on argumentation 
or on other subjects, we may find experts but we may also find good 
examples, responses to arguments, a structured set of reasons, or even a 
particularly apt turn of a phrase.  If we desire to use that material in 
a speech, or for any academic purpose, than the appropriate step is to 
cite it.

I am amazed whenever I hear debate teachers say, "just read the theory 
article and then make the argument in your own words."  That action would 
be plagiarism if it occured in the basic course.  It also seems like the 
judge's defensive reaction, 'don't quote theory to _me_, I know just as 
much as/more than Dr. X' is also assuming, 1.) that the evidence is _just_ 
an appeal to authority, sans reason, _and that_ 2.) the judge is an 
interventionist, priveleging their own understanding of argumentative 
process over the argument that the debater seeks to advance.

That said, I think that resistance to theory evidence is greatest when 
debaters quote conclusionary cards on theory from questionable 
authorities without an attempt to integrate their own reasoning.  The 
troubling part is that I think debaters are frequently doing exactly that 
on most issues -- we just notice it more on matters of debate theory 
because that is our area.  Because it is our area, it represents an 
opportunity to teach good evidence _use_ as an alternative to simple ad 
verecundiam, (2 cents).

------------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth T. Broda-Bahm, Asst. Prof., Director of Debate
Towson State University, Towson MD, USA, 21204-7097, 410-830-2888
Broda@Midget.Towson.Edu
------------------------------------------------------------------

---

• Prev by Date: michigan state
• Next by Date: Re: Cards by debate coaches.
• Prev by thread: michigan state
• Next by thread: FYI: [CUSID] Final Report on Stellenbosch Worlds...
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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