[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: CEDA-L digest 1057
I somewhat agree with you. I vote for arguments which are not real world
when the other team accepts them as real world or when the other team simply
ignores the argument. However, when I percieve that an argument is not real
world (granted, a subjective decision), it takes less to defeat it. For
example, sometimes I think it is an unfair burden to require teams to have
evidence against positions which are not real. Why? Because the position
is so far from possibility that people don't take time in the "real world"
to write answers to it.
Now the critical part, why should a debater - having done little or no
>research on the subject and with little reason except an appeal to tradition -
>be able to make the NOT REAL WORLD argument and be successful. Why is the
>REAL WORLD even something that you and I can objectively assign specific
>truth values to. We are not experts in the REAL WORLD we are experts in
>argumentation that puts focus on arguments in controversy. In other words, we
>are debate coaches.
Three answers: (1) Fisher's narrative paradigm says we do not have to be
experts to analyze arguments by the criteria of narrative fidelity. It is a
skill that humans develop through communjication. True, narrative fidelity
is not 100% reliable, but there isn't any method of infalible reasoning.
Yes, the narrative paradigm can lead to a "wrong" decision. (2) I like
Goodnight's thesis concerning the public versus technical spheres of
argument. I agree that more decisions should be made in the public arena.
(3) Your and Mike's previous posts seem to indicate that I can't claim to be
an expert in debate/argumentation/rhetoric. If I try to interject my
expertise, I'm intervening.
> In addition, how can the debater adapt to tastes that have not been expressed
>? In theory I agree that the audience is important, however, in practice the
>expectation that mind-reading is a part of the program seems a little over-the-
Granted. You can't adapt if you don't know the audience. So try to find
out about the judge. One reason for coaches to exist is to tell debaters
what they no about the judge from previous experience. Also, listen after a
debate round to a judge's decision rather than argue about it. The
argumentative stance doesn't change the judge's mind but it does seem to
keep the debater's from listening.
> More importantly, you misunderstand my philosophy. Ken Broda-Bahm explained
>it best to me when I was but a youngster - It has to be an argument before
>it counts as an argument. We do have fairly concrete and agreed upon ways
>to detemine what an argument is while we do not have such clear-cut mechanisms
>for determining what the REAL WORLD is. In other words, the statement, "Its
>a VOTING ISSUE," would not qualify while,"Its a voting issue because it makes
>the 1NC irrelevent by changing the intent and focus of the 1AC," comes a bit
I agree that you need to apply standards to arguments. You seem to be
saying that an argument consists of a data, warrant, and claim--no matter
how valid the warrant (just say "because"). I believe warrants are
"permissions that the audience grants." Authoritative, motivational, and
substantive warrants come from the audience's experience.
True, not everyone agrees what the real world is. But, not everyone agrees
as to what constitutes an argument.
> Whoops, one more, you missed my argument that the critic is not silenced by
>the approach I suggest. There is more pressure to apply judge criticism to a
>useful model for debate practice. In fact, when you make the argument that
>your debaters do not debate the way that you would like aren't you saying that
>you have failed to convince them that such an approach would be viable?
You misunderstood what I was saying. They debate like I want them to in
terms of adapting to an audience. I was just trying to say that when they
adapt to a majority of the judges on the national circuit and debate for
them, they are not debating to my personal tastes (in terms of speed, real
world arguments, etc.).
I have convinced several that the narrative approach works better in
argumentative situations outside of the debate round.
In other words, it is a useful model outside of debate and it can serve as a
useful model inside of a debate when an audience/judge holds that paradigm.
Just because it isn't used doesn't mean it doesn' work.
Josh, thanks for continuing the discussion. I percieve that the discussion
is revealing some points of agreement between us. Also, it is helping me to
clarify what I believe about judging. And, hopefully, it lets those
listening in know more about their audience.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page