[eDebate] Totally Tangential Reply To Branson
Tue Mar 6 17:32:49 CST 2007
First, I am saying there should be a default that judges can use called
academic standards that they can apply to a) determine the quality of
evidence in comparison or b) decide that a logic argument is sufficient to
take out a carded argument. I am indeed making that argument.
Second, you are, perhaps, right in claiming that I too quickly blew off your
argument. In retrospect, I do think it is ok for a judge to decide a card
is not from a qualified source and use that to decide if one card is more
valid than another card regardless of if it is read. In addition, this is
different than saying a team should have to read the warrants in the cards
because NOT reading the warrants to the cards doesnt speak to the relative
quality of the evidence in comparison (card A and card B are from different
sources one qualified and one not). In this example card A (warrants read)
is bettter than card B (warrants not read) not because of a comparison of
the quality of the evidence, but rather, by what was literally read in the
debate round. I will admit, it would be better if teams read qualifications
for the reasons I said they should not read under-highlighted cards. This
still doesnt seem very competitive to me.
In addition, I am really calling for judges to have standards for evidence
that allow for logical arguments to trump bad cards. However, you make your
standards is your choice etc. Finally, if the logic argument is "that card
is unqualified" this argument becomes moot.
Your first gray area is not gray to me - saying "our evidence is more
qualified" is a call to compare the relative qualifications of the evidence
in question...Those cards are inherently more or less qualified than each
other OR are equally qualified (which is fine). Saying, "our warrants are
better" presumes something not about the card or where it came from but to
your choices of what you read in your card. If you read the quals or not -
the card is or is not from a qualified author.
You also argue "what if they are equally qualified" - that seems simple -
the claim, "prefer our evidence, it is more qualified, is as good as the
comparative argument that warrants or backs it. If one is not made YOU THE
JUDGE would make this decision for them (and you would have to anyway).
Do I consider x,y,z...short answer...Yes....but only in relation to what
they are making arguments about - if Professor A is a professor of English
making an argument about how to bring down capitalism maybe its less
qualified then evidence from a political theorist? Yes, your political DA
applies here and was answered in the last email.
Your second argument is answered above - if they read the "unlighted parts"
that answer the argument - yes...if not, no. I answered the double standard
argument several ways above.
Who gets to define what is Academically defensible...we judges do, its
subjective for sure, but refusing to make a choice and just washing your
hands because you are not willing to "be political" in this way is an
application of your political view of debate. I think attempting to apply
some standards is better than just saying "its only relevent if debaters
bring it up." You and most debaters and judges seem to disagree....I
understand I am out of step with our radical libertarian activity.
You make this decision anyway, the only question is under what system you
plan to decide. No system is "objective" that is the antithesis of my
argument. My argument was not that my system was more objective than
yours...It was that both are subjective equally.
You say I dont make an argument for why "striving to be objective is worse
than embracing subjectivity." That is because my argument was never that my
system was more objective...It was that it was more academically defensible.
You say "last time I checked wrapping yourself up in complete subjectivity
linked harder to the 'self-serving da" than the pursuit of objectivity."
This clearly misses the point - my argument was that your claim to
objectivity was false...That both of our positions come from an implicit and
political point of view about how debate should/ought operate. You impose
that subjective system on debaters when you decide in your libertarian
manner just like I do when I try to apply academic standards. Never ever
made an argument to objective truth.
Again, hope chicken capital is treating you well and that the internet is
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman