[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
New arguments & TR
Purdy asks:
>My question is: How does the judge know when an argument is
>new? Often a judge may disregard an argument they think is new but is, in
>fact been extended throughout the round. A true tabula rasa judge would
>not, I think, disregard any arguments.
No. I think not, for two reasons.
First, identifying new arguments is not that difficult. As Gallentine notes,
if you make the debate so hazy that we diverge as to what is a new argument,
you've done a shoddy job of debating. Note that this is different from
deciding a factual claim is untrue. The latter relies on outside knowledge,
usually accumulated in a haphazard way. Further, it more often relies on
inferences from that knowledge, not first hand acquisition. Identifying new
arguments is merely a process of observation.
Second, fairness categorically requires judicial exclusion of new 2AR
arguments. 3NRs are not offered and if they were, we would simply shift the
burden to prevention of new 3NR arguments. No debater at all, regardless of
skill, research, intelligence, or experience can possibly preempt all possible
new arguments AND still accomplish the tasks set out for a 2NR (kick unwanted
stuff, extend wanted stuff, make comparisons etc...) I believe and will defend
to the wall that this is categorically impossible.
Now, a point important enough to warrant its own paragraph. The values
embodied in the "no new arguments" rule are the same as those embodied in the
"no judge intervention" rule. The value is that debaters should be the
masters/mistresses of their own fate - you should control whether or not you
win. Intervention violates this principle by introducing judge arguments to
which the team cannot respond. New arguments violate this principle by
introducing 2AR arguments to which the team cannot respond. Both are
objectionable because they reduce the degree to which the decision relies on
the debater's performance in the round.
Now, as we are all learning, the way our social and legal system works is that,
when one actor "cheats" and violates the rights of another, the state takes
action we would otherwise consider "cheating" to compensate - i.e. if you steal
from me, it's OK for Uncle Same to "steal" from you to recompense me. If the
government just fined you out of the blue, that would be bad. If they fine you
to compensate for your theft from another, it's not. The same is true here.
The new argument "cheats" and violates the rights of another debater. The
judge's exclusion of the argument merely restores the balance. Judge exclusion
of arguments in the absence of a "cheat" on the part of a debater is bad
because it warps the result of the round.
A pre-empt. This claim doesn't apply to any of the traditional cases for judge
intervention. My argument is based on the categorical impossibility of student
resolution - it's physically impossible to preempt all new arguments.
Intervening to protect slow teams isn't justified - they could get faster -
witness the fast team. Intervening to exclude untrue arguments isn't justified
- the other team could figure out they're untrue (surely the critic isn't
Christ/Buddha/Rastafari and possessed thereby with divine knowledge unshared
with the rest of us trailer trash.) If someone wishes to claim that my
analysis warrants judge intervention in another context, I would ask them to
demonstrate that no debater could possibly rectify the injustice.
Peace
Matt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Matthew K. Roskoski | "Roskoski" isn't Slavic. It's Irish. |
| UMKC Debate Forum | It used to be "O'Roskoski" before the |
| Kansas City, MO | butchers of Ellis Island got to it. |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page