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

Manufacturing Consensus

I'm not really following the counterplan discussion, but this line did 
catch my eye...

>my notion here is that it is better to re-create consensus during the 
>off-season and the summer Institutes than in confusing debate rounds in 
>the fall and spring.  this forum provides a useful means to go through 
>this process once again.  (Lucius K., GMU)

So one perceived function of this discussion is to knit together the 
theoretical consensus that was rent in two when the debate communities 
split?  With all respect I hope that consensus fails.  

My assumption is that debate is an educational process and that debate 
about debate is a meta-educational process working at the highest levels 
of Bloom's taxonomy: requiring students to synthesize and not simply 
enact received scripts.  Consensus is the enemy of debate.  

Assuming that we could reach agreement on what 'correct' theory is, the 
beneficiaries of this received consensus (students) would hardly have 
cause to thank us, since the argument and the reasoning would have been 
taken out of their hands.  A community of high school debaters and judges 
strongly believes that inherency is an absolute voting argument...without 
knowing why.  Its become reified practice rather than argument.  

We may feel justified in the appropriateness, if not the 'correctness' of 
our consensus model, _because_ we are vetrans of the discussion the 
brought it about.  But that knowledge of the reasons is lost in one 
generation of debaters.  A community of college debaters and judges 
strongly believes that the resolution only requires proof by 
example...without knowing why.  Consensus takes arguments and reifies 
them into practices.  It is the enemy of creative argument.  

The "confusing debate rounds" that result from a clash of different 
assumptions is part of creative argument.  While confusion may make the 
round less enjoyable to watch, problematizing content makes debate no 
less effective educationally.  

That said, theory discussions are good.  But lets not fool ourselves into 
thinking that we are writing the rules. 

 _______________________________________________________
|o                                                     o|
|o     Kenneth T. Broda-Bahm, Asst. Prof.,             o| 
|o     Director of Debate                              o|
|o     Towson University,                              o|
|o     Towson MD, USA, 21252-7097,                     o|
|o     410-830-2888 (office) 410-830-3656 (fax)        o|
|o     Broda@Midget.Towson.Edu                         o|
---------------------------------------------------------
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page