[eDebate] Totally Tangential Reply To Branson

[Eli Brennan]

It seems inevitable, and laudable, that a person's judgment in life would
have some sway over their preference for evidence.

This judgment can be reflexively restrained according to community
norms/mood/fashion... which i take to be the point of this discussion.

It is important, I think, that there be some sign of this in the debate... a
nose crinkle, a shudder at the Sac. Bee citation, a guffaw.
Just so it's not a surprise to the debaters why the debate was won- or what
the boundaries for the judgment will be.

Another argument against stoic judging posture.   If you want to be a human
judge, with full berth, none of the traditional scowl-and-flow please.

best,
eli brennan




On 3/6/07, Josh Hoe <jbhdb8 at gmail.com> wrote:

>

> 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

> rocking again,

>

> Josh

>

> _______________________________________________

> eDebate mailing list

> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com

> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate

>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070307/dcfd5b0e/attachment.htm