[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Critiques and Gaming theory
On Mon, 24 Oct 1994 Joe Boyle of Harding University wrote:
>
> I have a few thoughts on Critiques and the application of the concept of
> debate as a game...
>
> First, debate is a game both teams agreed to play under the parameters
> of the resolution. The critique, basically, questions or analyzes a
> particular aspect of the parameters the game is being played under. It
> is perfectly legitimate to question the assumptions under which the game
> is being played - BUT, no one should lose the game based on the critique
> of these assumptions or parameters. The reason for this is that both teams
> reify the acceptability of debating under the resolutional parameters by
> entering the round. It is still okay to question those parameters, both
> before, during, and after the round. An in-round critique only affords
> a different arena for examining the parameters. The affirmatives only
> burden should be to facilitiate this analysis by responding to the
> critique. Both teams agreed to play the game and one team should not
> lose because, perhaps, the parameters are flawed. I suppose this
> would apply to resolutional critiques.
On the matter of resolutional flaw critiques, I tend to agree with Joe.
Why should the affirmative team be punished for having to defend a
resolution that has grammatical errors? In that case, there is no outlet
for the affirmative to argue unless the grammar critique is flawed in
itself. Doesn't it take away from aff ground to be held responsible for
mistakes made by the topic writers? I recieved David Berube's paper to
the SCA and he feels likewise. Any comments?
Joe Gantt
Texas Tech Debate
P.S. Joe, you're right...sexism DID become a voter in 2AR on my flow...
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page