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

Re: Billy's grammar confusion re: "pimping"

Hey, folks:

I have several problems with the use of "pimp" to mean "case attack
applied directly to a piece of evidence."  Some have been discussed, and
some have not.  

1. This degrades the value of analytical argumentation against evidence.
I have seen a trend in CEDA debate towards less and less analysis and more
faith that "if a card says it, well, you need another card to beat it."
Much of the case evidence I hear is blatant rhetoric, without even a
pretext of empirical or analytical basis.  Why should I believe that
"Greenspan will raise interest rates" if no data are offered, simply
because some Wall Street Journal editor thinks so?  Isn't it at least
legitimate to raise the question and discuss it?  Do I really need a card
from some other (equally unqualified) source to comment on the internal
workings of Alan Greenspan's mind?  Why use a degrading term for a
perfectly legitimate argumentative form?

2. It is potentially inflammatory.  What if one of the debaters has been
victimized by a supervisor in the illegal sex trade?  How will that
debater feel about a characterization of arguments as "pimps"?  This is
much more direct than a remote possibility of offending someone with, say,
pronoun choice.

3. The language analysis, as West correctly notes, was way off base.
"Pimping" as an adjective is not what is being used in debate rounds.
"Now off the pimps against the B subpoint" uses the term as a noun.

4. It gives a bad image.  What happens when an administrator sits in on a
debate round, or sees a videotape of one, and asks "Why are they talking
about pimps?  I thought the topic was pollution?"

5. This usage is pointless jargon.  Don't invent a new term when an
existing one will do.  Why not "arguments" or "attacks"?  The more
unnecessary jargon we use (and the more mis-applications we have of the
existing jargon), the less approachable the activity becomes.  Some
concepts will need new names to simplify communication, but don't go
inventing names just for the hell of it, or you will impede communication.

6. Even if "pimp" had a well-known meaning in addition to "exploiter of
prostitutes" in common usage, its use would be inappropriate.  I could say
my opponents were gay, then retrospectively justify this reference to
sexual orientation by saying "I meant they seem happy."  Or I could tell
another debater "now don't get uppity, boy" in cross-x.  While not
inherently racially inflammatory, that phrase would have a highly
offensive meaning if the debater in question were black.

7. I agree that "policing the language" can lead to ridiculous extremes
(and was involved in a long and acrimonious thread here about exactly that
issue just a few months ago), but when the misuse is obvious and serves no
purpose, I think we should at least discuss it openly and without ad
hominem attacks.

          --Alan

__________________
Alan Dove
N3IMU
ad52@columbia.edu
http://128.59.173.136/Poliolab/Alan/Dove.html
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page