Response to Professor Harris

["Robert E. Tucker" <rtucker@pop1.fullerton.edu>]

Once again I cross swords with Professor Harris.  This is interesting to

me because of the immense respect I have for him.  His program is
excellent in large measure because of his leadership, and since I've
called him enough names in print to blister paint on a barn he knows I'm

serious about my compliment.  Nonetheless, as in the past, I disagree
with him.  Specifically,
After quoting me thus:

>
> > In the past two days, Jason Hernandez and Ryan Sparacino have
> advanced
> > the debate about the relative merits of a CR topic versus a SE
> Asia
> > topic in well thought out and measured tones (no sarcasm -- even
> Ryan's
> > rants are filled with valuable content).  They are wrong.  They
> have
> > advanced a model of practical utility which is naive and does not
> pay
> > close enough attention to the actual ways in which a debate topic
> > changes the lives of those who debate and coach it.  In this post
> I want
> > to show how the civil rights topic will be better for the those of
> us in
> > the debate community and for the society in which we live.

he argues,

>         Maybe its just me (after all Rob has called me naive in
> other
> forums as well) but I find a form of argument which suggests failing
> to
> rank the CR topic first somehow makes one less worthy as a human
> being
> just a wee bit offensive.  We haven't decided how we will vote yet
> but the
> suggestion that if we don't vote for CR we are preventing us from
> making
> society a better place is a bit much.  If thats the way the debate
> over
> what the topic should be goes, I'm "really" looking forward to the
> debates
> on the topic.

Now I will leave it to the community.  I ask you to search through the
section quoted and find evidence that I am ranking human beings in terms

of their worthiness.  I said (after a heartfelt compliment to Ryan) that

I thought _his views_ were naive, and I still think they are (unless he
changed them ;) ) I _certainly_ do not believe Ryan is unworthy as a
human being.  First, I don't have the qualifications necessary to make
such a judgement, second, I have enjoyed his comments immensely.  What I

did, and what I am still doing, is criticizing a set of arguments.
    Scott's paraphrases me as saying, "if we don't vote for CR we are
prevent[ed] from making society a better place."  Actually, I said
nothing about the negative implications of _rejection_ of CR.  What I
said was, "I want to show how the civil rights topic will be better for
the those of us in the debate community and for the society in which we
live."  This is a simple argument for the CR topic.  I don't think it is

all that controversial, and I tried my level-headed best to defend it in

a rigorous and rational manner.  Just as we should avoid calling anyone
a racist about their topic choice, so too we should be careful not to
read charges of racism when there aren't any.
    Again, I think Scott (other than his well known faith in the
marketplace of ideas ;)  ) is astute, gifted and mistaken about the
civil rights topic.  I would not think to attack him personally, I
apologize for any perceived slight, and I am glad that this dialogue is
continuing.

Sincerely,

Rob Tucker
CSU Fullerton

---

• Prev by Date: Yuri and Glen and more posturing
• Next by Date: With respect to Professor Harris
• Prev by thread: superman
• Next by thread: With respect to Professor Harris
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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