More TR Debate

[Michael Bryant <MBRYANT@central.weber.edu>]

After breaking down and reading Bunch's essay in _A&A_, I'm still not
convinced that we should all be free to intervene at our deliberate
discretion. Allow me a couple observations:

First, Bunch simply re-states the obvious. No one has really defended
the viability of a pure TR approach. Most of us are reflective
enough to realize the impossibility of absolute objectivism.

Secondly, Bunch employs a fallacy of false analogy. To look at a
single debate as dialectic misses the broader purposes of the
activity of debate. While each single debate adds to the process, it
is the broader realm of dicovering arguments and evolving them
through progressive game runs that enables debaters to more closely
approximate dialectic. Each individual debate, or game run, may be
viewed as a structured exercise to help facilitate both dialectic and
the development of speaking skills. We must recognize that dialectic
is not the only goal of debate.

Thirdly, I don't think most of us are willing to include the changes
suggested to the debate process by Bunch. Bunch admits for any real
dialectic benefit to be achieved from judge intervention there would
be a necessity for an extensive de-briefing of the judge prior to the
round and opportunity for the judge to provide overt feedback during
the round on an argument-by-argument level. This would inevitably
result in longer debates and heightened opportunity for judge-debater
conflict.

Finally, Bunch dismisses all negative aspects of judge intervention
by simply suggesting that we focus on the dialectic benefits of such
intervention. Unfortunately, this attempt at dismissal of the
problems of intervention does a great disservice to the debate
community by ignoring real problems that we have long struggled to
correct. Legitimating judge intervention turns debate into a
popularity contest, since by Bunch's own admission, we are more
predisposed to some people and some arguments. A community consensus
against overt intervention won't eliminate these risks, but they do
serve as a guiding criteria for judges that they should focus on the
arguments and behavior IN THE ROUND. Also, frankly, I don't want
debaters running the same set of arguments in front of me every
round, because they perceive it to be "politically correct."

There are many arguments that I do not like. I will openly admit that
the level of necessary refutation may be lower for arguments that
strike me as offensive. For me to totally ignore these arguments,
based on my personal predispositions, seems to eliminate an essential
element of fairness. I agree that unusual or repugnant arguments have
a higher level of presumption. We are only human. But if this
activity is to continue to be a larger source of dialectic, then we
must at least keep the door cracked open.

Mike Bryant
Weber State University

---

• Prev by Date: Re: More on NEDA
• Next by Date: Tabula Rasa
• Prev by thread: Re: More on NEDA
• Next by thread: Meta-debate
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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