Zero-Sum Pedagogy (A Paper on Judge Intervention)

#1 12-04-02, 11:35 PM

Zero-Sum Pedagogy:
A Case Against Judge Intervention in Competitive Debate DecisionsJedidiah Link
December 5, 2002___________ In academic debate, education is the medicine and competition is the spoonful of sugar._ Schools across the country and around the world spend thousands of dollars each year in order for their students to compete at debate tournaments because the activity teaches mastery of life-skills that can’t easily be taught in the classroom._ Students dedicate countless hours of their already busy schedules to the activity because they are seduced by the thrill of competition.___________ In the past, there has been an uneasy standoff between the educational and competitive goals of academic debate._ Nowhere has this dichotomy been more clear than in the discussions of judging paradigms that took place in the mid 1980s._ In these discussions the power of the judges’ ballot as an educational tool and arbiter of fairness is central._ Educational goals are reified through the carrot of winning and the stick of losing._ The ballot is also the primary medium of fairness and the direct source of competition._ Proponents of competition support fairness as the judges’ utmost consideration on a ballot._ Maintaining a level playing field is essential._ If students are convinced that the activity cannot render fair and accurate decisions, they will be less motivated to work because victory and loss will be meaningless._ Advocates for fairness support a paradigm of tabula rasa where the judge enters the debate as a “blank slate” and refuses to actively intervene in the decision._ Advocates for education argue that in abandoning the right to intervene, judges are sacrificing the best educational tool that they have._ In the name of education, varying levels of intervention are justified._ Two such justifications are presented by Thomas Hollihan, Kevin Baaske and Patricia Riley in Debaters as Storytellers: The Narrative Perspective in Academic Debate and Robert Gass, Jr. in The Narrative Perspective in Academic Debate: A Critique in which the Narrative Paradigm and the Expert Paradigm are discussed, respectively.___________ For the purpose of this essay, intervention shall be understood as a decision affected by information brought into the round by the judge but absent from the text of the debate._ Additionally, intervention will be limited in definition to intentional, cognizant and unnecessary forays into the debate by the judge._ It seems clear that some intervention is unavoidable both unintentionally due to the imprecision of language and intentionally due to incomplete decision calculus provided by the debaters in the round._ The type of intervention I intend to address is that which is done with the goal of education in mind as proposed by Hollihan et. al. and Gass, Jr..___________ The Narrative Paradigm, based on Walter Fisher’s theories of the same name, is the most egregious in its advocacy for judge intervention._ Hollihan et. al. believe that debate has become elite and lost its ability to teach students to communicate effectively in everyday life._ In the tabula rasa paradigm Hollihan et. al. believe that judges have abdicated their positions as guardians of educational development within the debate._ They further argue that “the major influence that judges and coaches have… is via the ballot – lending credibility to certain communication practices and behaviors and discouraging others,” (184)._ Their solution is for the judge to become an active participant in the debate – intervening in order to preserve the importance of narrative probability (external consistency) and narrative fidelity (internal consistency) based upon their pre-existing attitudes, values and beliefs._ In the Narrative Paradigm, judges are required to “critique” arguments based upon their personal experience and understanding of the facts whether those notions are present in the text of the debate or not._ Particularly telling was the justification given for such intervention:Most debate judges are also educators, and in their role as educator they are expected to evaluate students’ work fairly._ No one expects a professor to be totally neutral in evaluating a student’s class work, some positions have more currency than others for a variety of academic reasons._ Professors are asked to apply their expertise in evaluating their student’s performance, and thus provide their students with the benefits of this expertise._ We should ask no less from debate judges.” (190)_The justification for intervention in this case is based in a traditional pedagogical model which places the professor in a privileged position over a homogenous student body._ As will be demonstrated, this model is not appropriately applied to competitive academic debate where the student body is not homogenous._ ___________ In response to the Narrative Paradigm, Gass, Jr. proposed the Expert Paradigm for debate in which the judge acts as an expert in the field of argumentation._ Where Hollihan et. al. are interested in teaching students skills for communicating to a public sphere, Gass is more interested in teaching skills for communicating in technical sphere._ Gass agrees “that non-intervention has hampered the educational goals of the activity,” (86) but is critical of the excessive amount of intervention allowed by the Narrative Paradigm._ He additionally notes that “for a debater, there is no experience more frustrating than to learn upon conclusion of a debate that he or she has been debating a ‘third team’ whose arguments were kept secret from him or her during the debate, and whose objections were made known only after the ballot was completed,” (88)._ The Narrative Paradigm champions education as the primary value of debate and is willing to sacrifice fairness to that end.With the Expert Paradigm, Gass strives to find a better balance between educational goal and the fairness goal in the activity._ The expert judge is still interested in using the ballot as an educational tool but is much more limited in ability to intervene._ “Conscious forays into the debate would be authorized only o the basis of specific knowledge and facts possessed by the judge,” (88)._ Intervention is justified only when positions or facts are contrary to the expert knowledge of the judge._ Once again, this justification is predicated on a traditional pedagogical model which favors the position of the judge against a homogenous student body.But even the limited intervention allowed in the Expert Paradigm comes at the expense of fairness._ Facts and the nature of reality, which are the standards by which a judge is allowed to intervene, are not objective._ Gass is unable to completely divorce himself from the implications of the Fisher’s Narrative Paradigm._ In evaluating any story, the judge will use narrative probability and fidelity._ Such evaluations may be masked by the support of facts, but those facts do not guarantee the accuracy._ A judge’s subjective worldview affects which facts he or she is exposed to because people will tend to favor forums that provide support for their own beliefs._ But more importantly there is inconsistency in how facts are interpreted._ Social Judgment Theory explains that people unduly give greater credibility to those positions which are closer to their own while being more critical of ideas that challenge their own ideas._ In the context of the Expert Paradigm, this means that a judge may unfairly intervene against facts which challenge their existing beliefs and in favor of facts which support them._ There is also the possibility that the judge’s understanding of the facts may be wrong. There is no reason that a judge’s intervention with fact is less frustrating for a debater than the judge’s intervention of beliefs, attitudes and values advocated by the Narrative Paradigm since even facts are equally subject to criticism and debate._ In such cases, debaters are still debating a ‘third team’ whose positions are hidden until after the ballot has been written.Gass’ limited approval of intervention at the expense of fairness can be justified if it is necessary to maintain the educational goals of debate._ If indeed Gass has provided a “harmonious balance between these two extremes,” (89) then advocates of both education and fairness should be placated in the knowledge that their interests are maximized relative to each other.___________ However, I believe that the notions of fairness and education are needlessly pitted against one other and the very notion that one must be supported at the expense of the other is counterproductive to both ends._ As has been demonstrated, the justification for intervention in the name of education is founded on a traditional model of pedagogy in which the decision on the ballot takes the place of a grade intended to reward those positions which are good and punish those which are bad._ It is classic conditioning._ In traditional situations, a teacher can reward or punish the positions of one student independent from the reward and punishment of another student._ In this way, the role student is homogenous; actions toward the student are independent from actions toward other students._ In debate, however such reward and punishment is zero-sum._ Action to reward or punish one debater through intervention and a ballot decision also serves to punish or reward, respectively,that debater’s opponent._ The action of the judge toward one student can not stand independent from the action of the judge toward the other student.___________ Consider the following example._ In a debate about privacy, the affirmative claims that privacy is specifically articulated in the United States Constitution._ The negative does not challenge this claim._ The judge, being an “expert” knows that in fact privacy is a penumbra right and not directly expressed in the text of the Constitution._ In this debate, the truth of this claim is pivotal to the decision, and the judge, in the interest of education, intervenes in order to punish the false claim of the affirmative._ She votes negative on that intervention._ This is the scenario of intervention which is advocated by Gass._ The ballot is intended to encourage debaters not to misstate information.___________ But consider the implications of this example for fairness and education._ The interventionist argument was never presented in the debate._ As a result, there was no reason for the affirmative to defend their claim._ The judge understood that the text of the Constitution does not use the word privacy, but it is unfair to assume that the affirmative is unaware of this, or that this fact is gospel truth._ If presented with this challenge, the affirmative could argue that the Constitution is not bound to the text of the document, but in lies in organic common law interpretations._ This perspective of the Constitution is valid, and would not justify intervention on the part of the judge._ But the affirmative is silenced de facto by the fact that they were never challenged to explain their claim in the text of the debate._ Hollihan et. al. would argue that it was the responsibility of the affirmative to explain the position regardless of whether or not the fact was challenged, in order to achieve narrative fidelity._ But it is unrealistic to demand that every fact or statement be exhaustively supported absent argumentative challenge._ There is no way for the affirmative to predict which facts will be issues of contention in the mind of the judge and inevitably some facts must be presented naked of warrants, if for no other reason than the restrictions of a timed speech.But the more compelling implication of this intervention is in the educational value of the debate._ The judge is intervening with the intention of punishing the affirmative for basing their case on an erroneous fact, she is also unavoidablyrewarding the negative on the merit of an argument that they failed to make (if they’d made the argument, she wouldn’t be intervening)._ Surely, the oversight of the negative in pointing out that privacy is not specifically articulated in the text of the Constitution is not something that should be rewarded._ The reason for the silence is opaque; it could be ignorance or strategy._ Their silence could be because the negative was equally unaware of the facts._ If this is the case, the judge is not justified in punishing only one side._ On the other hand, the silence could be strategic._ If the negativehad mentioned the factual error, the affirmative could have responded and defeated the argument._ By remaining silent and depending on the intervention of the judge, the argument was not introduced into the debate to be defeated._ Surely it is not the judge’s intention to reward strategic argumentative silence since such a strategy is antithetical to the very basis of debate._ Either way intervention for the sake of education specifically rewards ignorance and/or silence and thus serves to reward the wrong behavior at the same time that it punished the wrong behavior of the other team._ It is counterproductive.Intervention is harmful to both the goal of fairness and the goal of education._ While this is not a novel revelation for the first standard, education advocates have consistently failed to consider the zero-sum educational implications of intervention._ They have consistently viewed the relationship between debater and judge as similar to teacher and student._ They have used the ballot to appropriately punish or reward the intended team for their actions, but ignored the consequential inappropriate reward or punishment for the opposing team.There is a solution which provides equally for the desires of those interested in fairness and education._ It requires a revision of the way the ballot is understood to affect educational control on the debate._ Instead of presiding over the dialogue of the debate from a privileged position of power, the judge should use the ballot to enter the dialogue performatively._ The judge should make the decision of who did the better job of debating based as closely to the text of the debate as possible._ The judge’s ideas should not be privileged in the decision, as they are if said decision is based on the unchallenged intervention of the judge._ This is tabula rasa and it provides the essential fairness of decision.Pure tabula rasa however, as criticized by Hollihan et. al. and Gass, forces the judge to abandon the educational utility of their ballots to encourage certain actions._ In pure tabula rasa, debaters are allowed free range and educational opportunity is lost._ This is not a necessary result of non-intervention however._ The ballot draws its power from the fact that debaters want to win._ This can operate on two levels._ Traditionally, proponents of using the ballot for education have advocated that actually awarding wins and losses serves as the classical conditioning carrot and stick._ You punish a team for doing something wrong._ It is also possible, however, to use the ballot to inform debaters how they could have won._ By telling debaters the arguments that they could have made, the judge is entering the dialogue of the debate without usurping it._ In this case you are punishing a team for something they didn’t do right.The addition of adiscussion section to the ballot would provide the educational value of the ballot, although from a different direction._ Most ballots have a reason for decision (RFD) section in which the judge describes his or her decision calculus._ This section often includes a list of the crucial arguments and how they were decided._ RFDs usually limit themselves to analysis of the text of the debate although if there is intervention in the round, it is where it is explained._ A discussion section would include ideas and facts that were not present in the text of the debate but which the judge feels would have improved the dialogue of the debate had they been present._ Thus, the discussion section would be composed of entirely interventionist positions – but none of those positions would influence the decision of win/loss.Consider the application of a discussion section on a ballot in the previous example of the debate on privacy._ The decision of who won the debate is made considering only that information that is presented in the round._ The judge does not impose her knowledge against the affirmative and in favor of the negative._ Instead, she votes for the affirmative and then explains in the discussion section that the negative failed to point out a crucial error in the reasoning that, if it had been addressed, could have warranted the ballot._ Incentive to change is shifted from swaying the affirmative to not misquote facts to swaying the negative to challenge misquoted facts._ Both scenarios achieve the same effect on the affirmative team since negative challenges of misquoted facts brings those facts into the text of the debate and holds the affirmative liable in the context of the debate itself._ Fairness is preserved because the negative loses as a result of a real oversight and the affirmative is not being voted against on an argument they were never asked to defend._ Education is preserved because the negative has incentive to become better informed and use that information argumentatively within the debate._ Additionally, such criticism would be better received by the debaters._ Whereas the reasoning of decisions predicated upon intervention are often ignored because they are seen as unfair and undermine judge’s credibility, the advice given in the discussion section of the ballot is not jaded by such feelings._ Because the decision is fair, the commentary is accepted by debaters more readily._ The ballot remains powerful as an educational tool by appealing to the desire of the losing debater to win by pointing out erroneous facts on their own rather than by punishing the flawed argumentation and making the argument for the other team.Currently, judges who make arguments on the ballot are accused of showing off or mistaking their role as judge for debater._ This stigma exists because debaters are used to intervention._ If it is clear that the discussion section was not a factor in the decision, these stigma may disintegrate._ The judge’s role will be bifurcated on the ballot._ In the RFD section, the judge will act as a referee between opposing arguments yielding a fair decision._ In the discussion section, the judge acts as an educator promoting and discouraging ideas based upon their merit._ This proposal neatly melds educational goals with fairness goals, providing the maximum amount of each independent from the other._ While the opposing sides in a debate are zero-sum, the value of education and fairness need not be.

#2 12-05-02, 06:09 AM

Jed, could you email me a copy of this paper? I would like to consider writing a reply critiquing the feasibility of the "tabula rosa" approach.

#3 12-05-02, 08:37 AM

Sure Jason, although if you read closesly (specifically the definition paragraph) you'll see that I'm not advocating true tabula rasa. Let me finish polishing, and I'll send it to you sometime this weekend.

jEd

#4 12-05-02, 09:52 AM

"In academic debate education is the medicine and competition is the spoonful of sugar."

"In the tabula rasa paradigm Hollihan et. l"

Typos?

"The justification for intervention in this case is based in a traditional pedagogical model which places the professor in a privileged position over a homogenous student body."

This isn't the traditional position, but a radical departure that came about to a large part because of John Dewey in the 1900's. By "traditional" I mereley mean "A long established ... custom or method of procedure" (OED) Just a nit that nobody else probably cares about.

"Intervention is harmful to both the goal of fairness and the goal of education." While I see it harmful to fairness, I don't see how it hurts education in your paper.

Also, while the question may be beyond the scope of your paper, the one question of intervention that is most interesting to me is on the assertion of facts. Imagine that the gov said there was a right to privacy, and the opp negated it, mentioning there is no explicit mention of privacy, and then the gov answer is simply, "Yes, there is. Read the damn thing>" or something to that effect. Here you have two factual assertions, but both lack sufficient warrant for their belief. Is it now acceptable for the judge to intervene?

--Joey

#5 12-05-02, 10:11 AM

How is it a typo? I ask because I helped Jed look for them. . .even though i'm not paid to edit papers anymore it's an uncontrollable urge. . .and it helped me procrastinate editing my ps for law school.
Speaking of which, does anyone else think Jed's overusing the typos in a MAJOR way?

Finally, i think this paper does propose some good ideas, but I wonder how speaker poitns also allow for the "punishment" of the debater in the wrong vs the win. I think, fundamentally, that this is a big reason that low point wins should be allowed, as I prefer to have a "stick" there to punish rudeness or inaccuracy. I don't think a "discussion" section alone is sufficient to provide this kind of education.

#6 12-05-02, 10:21 AM

The second one shold read "et al" I believe. I just re-read the intro paragraph, and I parsed it correctly - no typo there.

I parsed it: (In academic debate education ) (is the medicine and competition is the spoonful of sugar.) Thus, I thought it was a question about educating academic debaters, and Jed's grammar was killing me. I couldn't understand how he missed it! Re-reading, I parsed it correctly: (In academic debate) ((education is the medicine) and (competition is the spoonful of sugar.))

--Joey

#7 12-05-02, 10:55 AM

Can someone explain to me how the student make-up in a class room is "homogenous" and how it differs from the make-up at a debate tournament? My knee-jerk response is that debate is probably more homogenous in student make-up than a normal classroom, but I'm wondering how it relates to the justification of intervention by the teacher/mentor figure in the classroom as described by the writers.

Pardon any typos. <img src=http://www.net-benefits.net/emoticons/drooling.gif ALT="

">

ML

#8 12-05-02, 11:05 AM

Perhaps homogenous is not the right word. Maybe you can help me find a better one.

The difference between the relationship of teacher to student in classroom and judge and debater in a debate is in the effects of "intervention." In a classroom, the teacher can reward/punish one student independant from the other students. Punishing one student doesn't affect anyone but that student. In a debate, because it is zero-sum, punishing one debater is also - at the same time - rewarding other students.

Does that make it clear?

jEd

#9 12-12-02, 12:17 PM

I enjoyed reading this essay. I have a couple of thoughts on the subject. First, I have a team that lost recently when a judge wrote an impact story for a position that was not in the round. Obviously such an egregious action is unwarranted and our response to that will be to strike that individual. On the other end of the spectrum is the pure tabula rasa position that suggests a critic bring no baggage into the round and potentially vote for repugnant ideas. I tend to think this appoach is also problematic. Sometimes there are arguments that are so wrong that even if the other side does not respond I would not vote for them. Allow me to throw out an example - perhaps it is unlikely - but it gets to the heart of what I see as the problem. If during a debate one side seriously advocated that all african american people be rounded up and killed and the other team being african american walked out in disgust I would never imagine it my place to tell them that they should have made some arguments if they wanted to me to vote for them. I heard a person once describe it in terms of persuasive force. There are arguments with high persuasive force (innocents should not be made to suffer needlessly), arguments with low persuasive force (a limited nuclear war would be good because it would make us more conscious of the ecological harms to the environment), and arguments that have a negative weight (rape is okay - most womyn deep down want it). Arguments with high persuasive force are easier to win. You can still win an argument with low persuasive force if the other side completely or mostly mishandles it. Arguments with a negative weight will burn you and you should know better than to ever make them. Tabula rasa is mostly a good ideal but there are plenty of times when some degree of intervention for decency is called for. Imposing one's views on a debate is a violent action but it can certainly be justified under certain circumstances.

#10 12-12-02, 12:49 PM

This is exactly the scenario that I'm talking about with "zero-sum" pedagogy. Let's use some of your examples. First, the "rounding up of Africans Americans." For me, the other team leaving the room is an argument, especially if it's clear why they're leaving. So I don't know if that's a good example. As for your other thoughts, and "negative weight" arguments allow me to reitterate my argument. If you are interveneing, it means that the other team didn't make the arguments against the "negative weight" position. For you to make it for them, therefore, is rewarding their silence and their mistake (because in intervening against the first team, you are intervening for the second)..

Maybe it would help to think of your ballot differently. Let's say the government advocates the legalization of rape and the opposition doesn't challenge it. Don't think of your ballot as reifying the rape argument; rather think of it as punishing the opposition for failing to engage the rape argument, as was their duty. Make said distinction (that you aren't advocating the legalization of rape with your ballot) clear on the ballot in your discussion section.

jEd

#11 12-13-02, 08:43 AM

The idea of the ballot as a pedagogical tool has a lot of promise and on the whole I would agree with most of your ideas. I just can't get past the idea that certain arguments are so offensive that they need no formal reply. In the case of legalizing rape - I think a team walking out is enough to win my ballot. If we add some detail to your example and a member of the opposition team has suffered from a rape and they refuse to engage in a public debate about something so repugnant (and perhaps sensitive to them) I would not tell them it was their responsibility to respond and get over their past issues. Hate speech should be rejected and the ballot is just one more tool for accomplishing that. I place no obligations on a team to respond in a civil form to an uncivil and hateful attack. I think that forcing or demanding a team respond to hate speech would probably just cause the round to devolve into a Jerry Springer show

For me debate is not just about education - it is about citizenship in the political sense of being a member of the body politic. Henry Louis Gates once said "[C]ritique can also be a form of commitment, a means of laying a claim. It's the ultimate gesture of citizenship. A way of saying: I'm not just passing through, I live here." Thats how I feel about debate. Critical legal scholars and supporters of outsider jurisprudence have long contended that racist speech makes a negative contribution to public dialogue by silencing disenfranchised groups. Whole communities are hurt by racist, sexist, and homophobic discourse. While the arguments for whether hate speech should be legal and protected under the first amendment or illegal is another issue, there is certainly a device available for a critic to deploy in response to hate speech and that is to drop the team with low (or no) speaks. I would never demand a team respond to hate speech. In a sense you are right that their silence would speak volumes. And it would not necessarily be solely about rewards and punishments - it would be about rejecting hate speech in all possible ways. Demanding that a person who has been victimized by racist, sexist, or homophobic discourse respond with logical arguments to refute points is unreasonable. I think the issue of winning or losing is really almost irrelevant - a team that walks out is saying I don't care about the ballot - I'd rather lose than engage these jerks. My point is sometimes there are arguments that are evil and it should not fall upon the victim to have to point it out after having been discursively assaulted. I will intervene to critique - and I would do it without any feeling of shame or remorse - and my guess would be that most of the debate community would support that decision.

Next thought, if a team read evidence in a round and then made great arguments about why rules are bad and evidence is good for debate would you accept those reasons and weigh them against the other teams arguments that it violates the rules? If a team can win that evidence is good (for lots of good reasons) should the tabula rasa critic vote for the team with evidence? This issue is fascinating to me and perhaps less polarized than the hate speech (and perhaps more likely). What do you think?

By the way, while I disagree about pure unmodifiable tabula rasa I really liked your essay. Its pretty deep on several layers.

#12 12-13-02, 12:10 PM

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Next thought, if a team read evidence in a round and then made great arguments about why rules are bad and evidence is good for debate would you accept those reasons and weigh them against the other teams arguments that it violates the rules?[/quote]It sounds like the government can: "Topicality is not a voter." I think you'd need to also read cards about why rules are bad. As I understand it, a judge isn't tabula rasa, but tabula rasa + rule set. So, for example, competetors don't need to have an argument that says, "7, 8, 8, 8, 4, 5," or whatever. But if the government can win "rules bad" and "cards good" I see no reason to dissalow them.

--Joey

#13 01-06-03, 09:04 PM

All right, got a bone to pick with that intervention example. Skip the advocacy of genocide or rape -- I think those are strawmen that are really unlikely to happen in a debate round, and while I think having a plan for the eventuality is a useful intellectual excercize I would put it in the "not going to see this in my lifetime so the point is moot" hat, along with the "would I change my views on the death penalty if someone murdered my wife and kids" hypothetical.

How about a somewhat tougher question. The gov team, for example, decides to run a case about entitlement programs being bad because they create dependency, hence the USFG should overhaul welfare.

Somewhere in the speech, the PM makes an argument derived from classical economics, which states that, if you effectively pay people for having children out of wedlock, then that will increase people's propensity to choose having children out of wedlock.

Alright, its not that hypothetical. I ran that argument in a round freshman year. I know it is controversial, but I believe in it (yeah, evil patriarchial Republican that I am), and have gotten fairly adept at convincing people of its veracity (it helps that it happens to be True).

When I was about half way through the sentence, the judge snorted with derision and, well, thats the only time I've ever seen the gov lose BEFORE the LO stands up. RFB was, of course, that even mentioning the possibility that "minorities brought it upon themselves" was racist and must be on face rejected in spite of it not being addressed by the negative team. Ironically, race had no bearing on any part of the debate (the gov went with classical economic theory and the opp with social safety nets, all four speakers assuming absolutely fungible actors). Luckily, I didn't quite get called a Klansman, but in victimological terms I definately felt like it was a "hostile educational environment".

It is my impression that legitimizing judge intervention validates the judge's conduct in that round. Oppression is inherently subjective, the judge saw it, all viewpoints are equal, ipso facto she was right to drop me. Anyone care to either defend that decision OR offer a rational explanation as to how it can be reliably distinguished from the above strawmen?

Patio

#14 01-06-03, 10:01 PM

Welcome Patio, and good example.

Introduce yourself in the introduction thread in off case!

jEd

#15 01-07-03, 08:06 AM

I think there are a couple of differences between the examples of hate speech and your example of a conservative approach to welfare. First, you are not speaking hatefully about those on welfare - your language from your post seems to indicate that this was not a case where you labeled people on welfare parasites or some other racial or class based slur. Second, the problem arises from a difference in political approaches - that is really unfortunate. No judge should impose their personal norms and preferences on a student. In the cases above the situation is rather different. Lets use a malthusian example and see if it helps. Do you think there is a difference between arguing klan style that all blacks and jews should be killed and on the other hand arguing that overpopulation is a serious problem and saving lives now will kill millions later? While I think the malthusian position (the latter) could potentially win rounds when a team mishandles the argument there is not a time when I could vote for the former. That is the difference between your case and the examples of hate speech. And although I will admit the cases may be few and far between they can happen - ask Scooter Gratson about the round he had to sit through when a Gov team suggested sending all gay people to the moon. When a critic votes against a team that does that it is not about imposing personal views - its about community norms for decency and the respect we have for all people in this activity.

Some further thoughts - I have had judges provide verbal feedback to students during speeches to indicate preferences and dislikes - I am not a fan of this practice but I am sure there are plenty of people in the community who will defend a critic pounding or nodding and so forth. Are you sure the critic was not providing early feedback as opposed to your suggestion that they had already voted? In either case it sounds like you are correct in your example - the judges conduct was unacceptable.

Does this mean that your example validates the idea that judges never intervene because all oppression is inherently subjective? Not really, a community has norms for competition. There was recently a long thread on the policy list serve on the topic of sexual harassment. I won't speak for the topic in the parli community, but in the policy community there is a good deal of concern about harassment that occurs in rounds. If a student is harassed in a round and leaves would you as a critic tell him or her to toughen up and deal with it if they want to win your ballot? Or would you support a vote against the perpetrators and a set of community sanctions to stop it from happening again? A pure tabula rasa critic would say too bad - and after listening to the remaining speeches would sign the ballot for the team that stayed. A decent human being would walk out, notify the tournament director and the coaches of both teams of the incident and then if they were certain that sexaul harassment occurred I imagine they would vote for the team that walked out.

I am not against the idea that we suspend our political preferences when we observe and evaluate a debate. But I am against the idea of ceasing to have a sense of decency in order to play the game.

#16 01-07-03, 06:57 PM

>>First, you are not speaking hatefully about those on welfare - your language from your post seems to indicate that this was not a case where you labeled people on welfare parasites or some other racial or class based slur.>>

I don't know if the analysis is so clear cut. Certainly saying "welfare recipients should have more personal responsibility" is in the A-OK realm, right? "Welfare recipients lack of responsibility imposes substantial costs on the rest of society" "Welfare recipients lack of responsibility imposes substantial costs on productive members of society" "Welfare recipients are leeching off of productive members of society" "The government should stop encouraging welfare parasitism" "People on welfare are parasites" Can you provide a rational framework for discriminating between the first of those statements and the last? And what, aside from a judge's inherently personal perspective, lets you decide where the cutoff is for the middle statements?

>>
Second, the problem arises from a difference in political approaches - that is really unfortunate. No judge should impose their personal norms and preferences on a student.
>>

But the reality is the judge does that each and every time they intervene.

>>
In the cases above the situation is rather different. Lets use a malthusian example and see if it helps. Do you think there is a difference between arguing klan style that all blacks and jews should be killed and on the other hand arguing that overpopulation is a serious problem and saving lives now will kill millions later?>>

Do I think there is a difference? Yes, in that the second argument is *much more persuasive to most of the judges in the CDC*. Do I *personally* think that the two are morally distinguishable? No, I value human life independently of racial considerations and I would personally be equally offended by either "lets 3 million blacks or we'll all die" and "lets kill 3 million racially diverse people or we'll all die". If I were a judge, I wouldn't drop a team for making either claim absent an argument to do so.

>>
While I think the malthusian position (the latter) could potentially win rounds when a team mishandles the argument there is not a time when I could vote for the former.
>>

I hate to use privilege as a verb, but I think you are privileging one sort of offense over another based on your personal inclinations.

>>When a critic votes against a team that does that it is not about imposing personal views - its about community norms for decency and the respect we have for all people in this activity.
>>

A community norm is a personal norm which other people happen to share. (My my, that might be the most socially liberal thing I have ever said in my life. Let me think if I actually believe that or am just trying to win this argument for a while. Darn debater tendencies...)

And again, even in cases of wide agreement on the general principle (I think "I will drop any racist/sexist/homophobic remarks" is more common than even "tabula rasa" in judge philosophies), its always going to be the judge drawing the line on the hard cases, and always by their own personal preferences. I know, for example, some judges consider "homosexuality is a sin" to be a homophobic remark -- and that nixes any discussion of homosexuality I could have in front of them.

>>
Some further thoughts - I have had judges provide verbal feedback to students during speeches to indicate preferences and dislikes
>>

Hmm. I have had judges laugh at my jokes, nod vigorously during the odd argument, and look absolutely stuped when I was quoting obscure theoretical computer scientists. I applaud all three of those reactions -- they allow the debater to gauge the persuasiveness of the argument they are making without controlling the content of it so much.

>>Are you sure the critic was not providing early feedback as opposed to your suggestion that they had already voted?
>>

Again, the round happened two years ago, but if I remember correctly the early feedback ocurred during the PM's thesis statement. While I think there might be some educational benefit in looking puzzled to say "I can't quite understand your argument here, perhaps you could phrase it in another way?", I think the only plausible interpretation of that interjection was "You are the weakest link, goodbye".

>>If a student is harassed in a round and leaves would you as a critic tell him or her to toughen up and deal with it if they want to win your ballot?>>

I used to be in the "all arguments are conveyed through verbal speech" camp but I have grown just a little in that department. Isn't leaving the room sort of a response to the argument, as an earlier poster noted? Again, were I a judge, I could quite possibly be persuaded by that "speech act", particularly if they elaborated briefly on the reason for it. "Some statements just speak for themselves" and leaving the room could definately convince me to vote against a truly odious argument. If its less odious, and the "offending" debaters explained why to the three people left in the debate, then I wouldn't make new answers for the team which left, but rather weigh the explanation versus one rhetorically powerful action. I don't know how the vote would come down in such a situation (what can I say -- if you ASK the judge to intervene, you're going to get it -- whether you like the results or not are is by definition out of your hands). But then again, ASKING the judge to intervene means it isn't intervention anymore

>>A pure tabula rasa critic would say too bad - and after listening to the remaining speeches would sign the ballot for the team that stayed.
>>

Is there such a beast as a pure tabula rasa critic?

>>
A decent human being would walk out, notify the tournament director and the coaches of both teams of the incident and then if they were certain that sexaul harassment occurred I imagine they would vote for the team that walked out.
>>

Please see above.

>>
I am not against the idea that we suspend our political preferences when we observe and evaluate a debate. But I am against the idea of ceasing to have a sense of decency in order to play the game.
>>

You know, on reflection I don't think we disagree on either of these two points.

Patrick McKenzie

#17 01-08-03, 06:53 PM

Lets start with your first point on distinguishing between the statement "Welfare recipients lack of responsibility imposes substantial costs on the rest of society" which you morph to "People on welfare are parasites". My initial thought was that you should start a thread with the title "welfare recipients are parasites" and see what the rest of the community thinks. But perhaps an example can illustrate why I believe that reasonable people would categorize the statements differently. I could start with the statement "we disagree about the degree to which disenfranchised people are responsible for their own situation" and that would be pretty different than stating "Patrick is a racist" right? The one statement does not insult or demean you - it does not scapegoat and it could be categorized as a civil statement. The second statement is an ad hominem attack against your person. If it was made to you I imagine it would incite a very different response than the first. Another example, as a liberal I would be offended if someone said "jews are tight with their money" because it stereotypes. If they said "lets get those dirty jews and string them up" - I'd be more than disturbed - I'd be furious. Its not that hard to see that language choices matter. One set of choices will offend more than another. Look at what the Republican party did to Trent Lott for his language choices and what they thought those choices said about him. Not sure if this meets your rational framework test - but it seems like common sense to me. If a politician says "welfare recipients lack of responsibility imposes substantial costs on the rest of society" they can get reelected. If they say "welfare recipients are parasites" then they are out.

On the 2nd point - Every intervention is not the same. I would contend that there are community norms that would inform interventions around hate speech, harassment, etc while intervening for personal political reasons would be different. Kant describes community reasoning as a sensus communis - refering to the community sensibilities. These community norms can inform our approach to intervention. In addition, I think it is question of ethics - which are more than just personal opinions. We have shared senses of what is right and wrong -

On morally distinguishing between malthus and a racist claim to kill millions - You suggest that you would be equally offended by a claim to allow people to die now to make the earth more sustainable and the claim to kill people because of hate. You say you value human life independent of such considerations. But the whole western legal system is against you on this one - motives and context make all the difference in the world. Take three examples where one person kills another. In the first it is in the context of self defense of one's home and family from an intruder. In the second it is a vehicular homicide that occurred in bad weather when a person slid into another car in a head on collision killing the other driver. In the third case we have a person who goes into an office and kills their ex with a machete. If all killing is the same and all life counts the same then all three killers should be treated the same right? But perhaps all killing is not the same - maybe the motives and context matter - and perhaps a reasonable person would buy the argument that killing a billion now saves billions in the future (as a form of a self defense argument) but could never condone the argument that we should kill a billion people because of their ethnicity or race. I think the cases are clearly morally distinguishable. We have not guilty (self defense), Guilty of vehicular manslaughter, and guilty of murder one and it all comes down to the motives and context.

I privilege one sort of offense over the other because it is reasonable to do so. Its not just my personal inclinations - In fact I would suggest that I am suspending my own parochial concerns when I argue from the position that this is for the collective good.

You say that a community norm is a personal norm that other people happen to share. I disagree - I think that the public and a community has shared ideals and visions that encompass more that just personal preferences. In the debate community there is a ethos of citizenship and political engagement that represents more that just personal inclinations. When a community shares a vision I'd think it could be more than the sum of the individuals involved. Even if I conceded this point there could still be ethical reasons to not allow hate speech, harassment etc. With some help from folks better versed than I we could have a great conversation about how ethics are more than just personal opinions.

As far as the "homosexuality is a sin" point - if that is your strategy against a gay rights case I think it is lousy - Arguing from religion always seems to involve making appeals to authority. Saying God does not approve seems rather presumptuous at least, and in any event there are plenty of non-christian judges who could not even make sense of how to evaluate the claim. I must admit - some arguments are more persuasive than others and arguing that homosexuality is a sin won't win you too many rounds. Some people will drop you for making the argument that way - They can certainly claim that your language is hateful and silences and adversely impacts homosexuals. While it would be a little different than saying "Matt Shepard deserved what he got" it still is pretty offensive. If you talk like Pat Buchanon or Louis Farrakhan then you might be viewed in the ways they are. We can extend the conversation on this point (on a different strand) - I would be willing to defend that the statement makes a negative contribution to public dialogue about homosexuality and that that statement has a propensity to incite violence and injury. At that level, it would be unethical to endorse or advocate it. I would defend a judge who refused to sign the ballot for you in that case. (and from your informal survey of critics philosophy statements I would not be alone).

"You are the weakest link" - well that is unfortunate - I think that form of intervention is certainly unacceptable - wouldn't it be great if the community rejected that type of behavior - I have seen students experience hostile critics and it absolutely sucks. Maybe we could find a civil way to approach those critics to ask if they would not scowl, snicker, groan etc so that students can speak uninterrupted and unmolested. Doesn't alter my belief that there are substantive differences between that intervention and an intervention to stop harassment,hate speech etc.

Leaving the room is a response? - Do I flow it? Should I write down - Opp calls Gov "%$#&#" - then both gov members race out of the room crying. Or Gov flashes their privates - then Opp leaves the room in disgust. You would translate those speech acts into arguments for the teams? You could fill in what was meant? Cause that would be at least some intervention. Do they have to explain why they are leaving? And can a tab critic extend those arguments through rebuttals that are not given? I think your description of how to interpret one rhetorically powerful act is exactly what I am advocating for. I thought you would be defending the strict flow - if its not on the flow it doesn't exist. Clean slate - you fill it how you want - not bringing in your own views on how walking out is a rhetorical speech act...

Is there such a thing a a pure tabula rasa critic - no - I suspect not - I think of tabula rasa as the effort to suspend your parochial interests and judge from as non-biased a perspective as possible. That effort for the most part is a good one - there are only a certain set of times when I would suggest suspending the tab approach to be reasonable and decent. I like flow judges who are willing to listen to diverse and counter intuitive arguments. But there are times when we get so caught up in playing the game that we forget to be human. I would just voice my concern that advocacy for the ideal of being tabula rasa can have pitfalls. I believe as a critic of argument that arguments have persuasive force. An argument for saving the lives of the innocents would carry a great deal of persuasive force - in general I think it is good to not allow innocent people to die. So far it looks like a basic weigh the advantages vs the disadvantages - then add in that some arguments carry a negative weight - just by making the argument you lose - engaging in hate speech or sexual harassment will cost you the ballot. Just like a politician who says something stupid and mean. In a Texas gubernatorial race years ago candidate Clayton Williams said (jokingly) that "rape is like bad weather - you might as well sit back and enjoy it." His opponent Ann Richards did not ever respond. She didn't have to - it was so offensive that the public recoiled in disgust. I think reasonable people would. I don't have a problem with doing the same in a debate round.

Will there be middle statements that offend some but not others - of course - but a critic should be willing when they intervene and leave the flow to discuss with the tourney director and both coaches the reasons why an intervention took place - I think that would tend to check back overuse of intervention.

You said you felt that you experienced a hostile educational environment when you were dropped by the critic in the welfare round - just imagine how hostile it could feel to a gay student to be told that they would be damned for their sin. Our community should do its utmost to include different perspectives and belief systems - that includes conservative ones - I draw the line when someone engages in a discourse of hate aimed at silencing someone. Our community should allow civil disagreement on political grounds but should not allow hate. There is a difference.

#18 01-08-03, 08:13 PM

A cool and thought provoking discussion, thank you for the opportunity. Taking your points in order :

Regarding your counter-analogy of "Patrick is a racist" versus the "welfare recipients are parasites". Excellent counterexample, because it proves my point. I've been called a racist dozens of times in debate rounds, and never once has a critic independently decided to drop a team on that issue. Community norms privilege an offense to minorities, present in the room or not, over other offenses. That is getting a bit off topic, but I think it sort of answers the community norm standard.

"We have shared senses of what is right and wrong"

I would absolutely agree with you for perhaps some offenses, but the claim is just flagrantly untrue for borderline cases... I guess I am advocating anti-interventionism to prevent that borderline from being entirely subject to the whims and opinions of the critic in the round.

Sorry, I sort of mischaracterized your Malthus argument. This is what I get for posting on an empty stomach. I'll agree you can make a distinction between "killing" and "allowing to die".

>>With some help from folks better versed than I we could have a great conversation about how ethics are more than just personal opinions.>>

I reflected on the line I tagged as "socially liberal" above. I think I sort of reverted to debate mode for a minute, forgive me. Part of my debate experience has been that you can assume the decision-maker has liberal politics as a given, so sometimes I tailor my arguments to that assumption, even when I don't fully believe the explanation myself. I think that the majority of this community, while supporting restrictions on offensive speech for whatever reasons, would disagree *loudly* with both of us on there being universal ethical standards (I think that is what you're claiming, and its certainly what I believe "in my off hours") Too much postmodernism floating around, what can I say

>> if that is your strategy against a gay rights case I think it is lousy>>

Conceded, but my personal opinion is that it is a "lousy strategy" precisely because it is difficult to convince a fungible debate judge to buy it, rather than the argument being factually false. Louisville's "project" is also strategically lousy -- they lose lots of rounds on it. But they also happen to passionately believe in it. Would it be right for a critic judging one of their rounds to drop them based on his perception that they were making racist arguments, without allowing them a chance at rebuttal?

I know a lot of judges would insta-drop me for making the argument "homosexuality is a sin". Yes, they could certainly claim it is hateful, causes acts of violence, yadda yadda yadda. That could be a VERY productive debate if the opposing team engaged in it. When the judge makes that decision absent the debate happening, however...

>>I would be willing to defend that the statement makes a negative contribution to public dialogue about homosexuality and that that statement has a propensity to incite violence and injury. At that level, it would be unethical to endorse or advocate it. I would defend a judge who refused to sign the ballot for you in that case>>

Would you similarly defend a judge who had a good faith believe that passing policy X would give Bush political capital, allowing him to pass a missile defense, which would tick off China, thus causing thermonuclear war, swamping the impacts of the case? If judges can insert a kritik into the text of the debate on their own initiative, what is to stop them from inserting a disad? A topicality violation?

>>I think your description of how to interpret one rhetorically powerful act is exactly what I am advocating for. I thought you would be defending the strict flow - if its not on the flow it doesn't exist. >>

I'm definately NOT a fan of the strict flow, especially not in parli. I believe that is perfectly consistent with opposing judge intervention. My objection to intervention is when it introduces arguments in a debate that weren't previously present, then proceeds to vote on them. ("Beat in the 3JR" is my policy partner`s expression for the phenomenon). I think it is fine, and almost required, if a judge filter things a little if, for example, both teams neglect to provide a weighing calculus for issues that were raised in the debate. (That would go at the very top of my judge philosophy sheet if I had one, along with a quick rundown on how they could predict what that calculus would be). Of course, this introduces other problems (what do you say to debater's whose pet issues are habitually lowly scored in the most prevalent calculi? "Wait until you become a judge"?). I don't know if those CAN be solved.

>>Will there be middle statements that offend some but not others - of course - but a critic should be willing when they intervene and leave the flow to discuss with the tourney director and both coaches the reasons why an intervention took place - I think that would tend to check back overuse of intervention. >>

Hmm. I think that is a sensible policy option at least. Keep the intervention to cases where you are willing to take it beyond the game... You know, I think I could live with that. (Of course, sooner or later a judge is going to drop someone for very "debateable" conduct, like using the word "statemanship" or something -- and what is the tournament director to do then?)

>>just imagine how hostile it could feel to a gay student to be told that they would be damned for their sin.>>

Just want to clarify that I didn't say that. I could go on all day on why Church teaching, theology, biblical citations, et ad nauseum refute the assumption that man can ever know with certainty God's admit/reject decision on entry to Heaven (actually, just the rejects -- some of the admits are knowable). Chalk that up as a profitable discussion which CANNOT be held in a debate round because of the danger that the judge will intervene against you if you say the words "homosexuality" and "sin" in the same sentence.

>>I draw the line when someone engages in a discourse of hate aimed at silencing someone>>

Your line is drawn on water. "Discourse of hate" is entirely dependent on who hears it, see way above. And can any judge (or mortal man, for that matter) claim with certainty to know the aims of another? If you drop someone for "the silencing discourse of hate", isn't there the very real possibility that you are putting intentions into their mouth, to mix metaphors?

Again, thoroughly enjoying this discussion. (I should really add this to my "why do competitive debate" reasons -- its cool how talking about the game leads to productive discussions with intelligent people.)

Patrick McKenzie

(P.S. I feel myself branching here into a broader discussion on the biases of the CDC and, hence, judging pool.... might start another thread based on that.)

#19 01-09-03, 10:36 AM

I am also enjoying the dialogue.

You suggest that community norms privilege offenses against oppressed groups. The label "racist" not being voted on is your warrant. First, calling someone a racist probably would not constitute hate speech - its an inappropriate ad hom and its rude - but it does not injure in the same way as hate speech. Now I think it would be fair for you to argue that ad homs are bad, that calling someone racist forecloses the discursive spaces available for exchange etc and I think there are plenty of critics who might buy those arguments. A policy team in my district regularly ran that argument on last years native american topic - they suggest that calling someone racist entrenches their views making meaningful change impossible so the first step has to be the elimination of name calling because otherwise dialogue is killed. Good argument I think. But the situation is different from hate speech. In the case of harassment or hate speech an intervention is grounded in the ethics of saying no part of the game is worth tolerating this. You being called a racist is rude and in bad form - someone saying we should kill niggers is pretty different - and if you get upset at being called racist imagine the experience a critic and opposing team would have with real hate speech.

On borderline cases - my argument is not that there are universal ethics - rather - (perhaps in postmodern style) - that there are shared community standards for judgment that although perhaps aesthetic in nature deal with community visions of the collective good. I understand that those standards may change over time and that different communities may have radically different visions. Our community is specifically invested in questions of justice, citizenship, and political participation. As members of the debate community we have internalized those values. When the values of justice and participation come into conflict with a free exchange of ideas we have to make hard choices. I do not mean to make the case that ethics are universal (though others could take up that ground). Instead, I think that there is a middle ground between universal ethics and relativism - and that middle ground is in shared ideals of right and wrong. Ok, now I am sounded much more Habermasian than I feel comfortable with. So back to the middle ground and how it disadvantages conservative approaches - I don't think the middle ground is nearly as big as you seem to. If it is that is probably the product of critics who will intervene regardless of what either of us say. How does fairness and nonintervention in borderline cases weigh back against nonintervention that rewards those who engage in hate speech or sexually harass opponents? I mean - I think I am winning that if a vicitmized team walks out the non-interventionist critic will vote for the team that stayed because there will be no one to refute their "arguments" - I would not place the burden on victims to respond. That evokes too strong an image of what happens to many victims in our legal system - The burden of proof is on the victim - so we can not intervene and say to the victims - you should have been stronger - you should have said those arguments are bad and evil - you should have done more to defend yourself - and if they leave the activity we will probably not even notice they are gone. I think stopping unethical behavior and speech is a greater good than maintaining our sense of fairness. Justice trumps. Especially at the level of impacts in this debate.

I think making formal rules for intervention on ethical grounds is a good idea. In policy, if you make an evidence challenge it stops the round - and the outcome of the round hinges on you proving the fabrication took place - and depending on the evaluation of that proof one side will win and the other will lose - its not about tabula rasa any more - its about ethics and a shared community vision about the evils of evidence fabrication.

Lousy strategies - unfortunantly there are critics who will drop Louisville because they do not accept their form of argument as legit. That said, there is no question that their approach is significantly different than the use of hate speech. They do not set out to create conditions aimed at injuring and silencing the other team or members of the audience on the basis of gender or ethnicity. The question is not the truth of the claim - there are true statements that will cost you friends and ballots aplenty. Its a question of civility and creating community norms to allow exchanges of ideas. It may be "true" that your opponent is a slutty cunt - but you can't say that - your description would be too offensive and problematic even if you could somehow support the idea that it is truthful.

We both agree that a critic should not write a disad for a team. I am not suggesting the critic write a kritik - that is a debate tactic - a position in the game - what I am talking about is when it is time to leave the terrain of the game. The critic does not produce the criticism - they just reject (real world) the use of offensive language. The decision is not that one team won - it is that the other team forfeited by engaging in acts so egregious that the round had to be halted.

Not a fan of the flow? Yikes... thought you were. Okay, so your point is that judges introduce arguments that were not there - is it not possible to distinguish that intervention (which I don't support) and an intervention that ends the debate rather than participating in it? The interventions that I am justifying that you think are the same as all interventions are not about who won or lost on the flow (or off). Weighing issues in the debate is irrelevant. Its not about adding a line of attack for a team - its about a community stopping unethical and hateful speech.

gender neutral language - statesmanship - and middle ground- my team has lost before for using the words 'impotent' and for describing police officers as 'policemen.' obviously those examples are of sexist language and not hate speech - very different - and the critic was evaluating language on the basis of arguments in round - I'm guessing you have very little faith in critics to notice the glaring differences between in round language use criticism and hate speech - more codified rules to intervention with a handout to judges before a tourney begins could only help.

God/theology - The point is that that argument is excluded because it adversely impacts public dialogue and that imposing christian beliefs on non-christian judges and/or opponants is just as bad as imposing other religions on christians. I don't expect you to accept my arguments that gays and homosexuals should rule the planet because they are uniquely endowed with super powers given by our deity Elton John. So why should a non-christian care a fig about sin? Translate the argument into a public claim about right and wrong and perhaps we could then have a discussion. Sin is intrinsically religious - and I am all about not imposing religion on non-believers - I see it as a form of spiritual violence.

Can we tell the difference - ya - reasonable people can tell the difference between hate speech and civil disagreement. Even voters know when someone has crossed the line - lots of examples of politicians losing their gigs because of stupid things they said - so I think our community can tell the difference.

#20 01-09-03, 05:16 PM

More things to think about, and a discussion about hot issues with both sides being civil. I should show this to my policy buddies who think nothing useful comes out of Parli

I hadn't realized that you were advocating an automatic stop of the round when the problematic speech occurs. Treating it like an evidence challenge would remove some of my objections to intervention (at least it would discourage people from doing it, for fear of death by papercut on the required forms if nothing else). Minimally in that case the "offending" team gets to make a response to the allegations. I think the intervention I was discussing was the judge waiting until after the speeches were over to decide that "conduct X in the round warrants a ballot for the other team irrespective of the fact the other team made no such claim".

I think the dilineation of hate speech versus mere offensive speech is unsustainable. Don't take this as a unique criticism of you, by the way, I am against the idea in general. Its impossible to write a standard for it that could be enforced in a manner that isn't capricious and subject to the whims of the judge.

Consider the assumption that hate speech injures. What if someone says "welfare parasites" in front of a room of upper middle class debaters and judges? Do we say there is no harm, no foul, or that the very existence of that idea is worthy of sanction? How about "trust-fund kiddie"? Its the same "class based slur" except inverted -- should that be insta-banned? What if someone, instead of indicting the entire class, indicts a specific member as representative of it? "George Bush is one of those rich WASPs who rule the country", "Liberman is part of the overly-influential Jewish lobby", etc. Aren't some of those protected political speech? At what point is the judge banning the speech not because it is "offensive" but because they are offended?

Or how about maximally-offensive hate speech directed at a person who is a firm believer in "sticks and stones"? Minimally offensive speech which happens to be heard by someone with a low tolerance threshold for, say, blonde jokes?

Yes, you can make the argument that ad-homs are bad. You can make the argument that hate speech exists and its bad. I think both of these CAN and SHOULD be debated in the round rather than being written into the laws of debate (but better it be a written law than a "community informed standard of behavior" which is enforced capriciously).

>>That said, there is no question that their approach is significantly different than the use of hate speech. >>

According to whom? You yourself said, on another topic

>>My point was that I can understand (though disagree) with a person or team being offended when a speaker draws from a personal experience and uses it to make a compelling argument to win a round. It sucks to lose a round because you are white and have no idea how to answer a hip hop or rap affirmative. However, tactics are used all the time in public speech and debate and to suggest that the use of personal testimony is offensive is to deny a resource to a particular group of people.
>>

If a team feels they are "losing a round because they are white", that "their voices are being silenced", that "the actions of [Louisville] are violent", is Louisville's conduct transformed into hate speech? What if the judge assumes that the opp team feels that way? You and I know their project isn't hate speech -- but then again, your opinion, my opinion, and Louisville's opinion(s) will NOT be heard by the judge before he drops them for it.

>>obviously those examples are of sexist language and not hate speech - very different >>

Again, total agreement with you on the substance of the allegation, but that is far from obvious to many people, including quite a few who judge debate. There was a discussion on the e-debate listserv on how the language kritik had managed to almost completely transform the realm of acceptable discourse in that area. Score one for MiniTrue.

>>God/theology - The point is that that argument is excluded because it adversely impacts public dialogue and that imposing christian beliefs on non-christian judges and/or opponants is just as bad as imposing other religions on christians.>>

OK, quick question : are you saying "that argument is excluded" to mean "I would run the following argument against it" or "the judge should drop you on his own initiative"? If its the former, please ignore the next paragraph.

Pardon me if I don't answer the argument here, because that would be exactly the situation in a round. This is EXACTLY the type of abuse that would take place. Discussions of religion are now BANNED in parli debate because of the POSSIBILITY they could offend someone. Logic plus nondiscrimination say the first religion to get axed after Christianty is Islam, if I don't miss my guess. You can talk about Muslim's reactions to the war on terror... but bring up a theological point about how bin Laden is abusing your religion and KABLAMO you just imposed your religious perspective on the bystanders in the round. Israel oppressing the Palestinians? You're criticizing the Jewish state? Watch out, their might be Jews in the audience -- no ballot for you. Irrespective of any argument you could reasonably make about the distinctness of Israel and Judaism, all it takes is one overly sympathetic judge and...

At this point, the "thou shalt not abuse thine fellow debaters" QUICKLY devolves into a speech code where some words, ideas, and even topics become too sensitive to touch. Lest you think this is a slippery slope, your own advocacy has already shown the slippage -- no hate crimes soon morphs into don't advocate religion soon morphs into...

Well, thats about all I have to say on the matter. So here is my final LOR weighing criteria : if this extremely productive discussion would have been banned under judicial intervention, then judicial intervention is a bad idea.

Patrick McKenzie

[Edit : posted in two chunks]

#21 01-13-03, 07:38 AM

Okay, here are my final thoughts/remarks plus final weighing:

As far as hate speech/harassment being indistinguishable from other speech - I will maintain that reasonable people can distinguish between the two. We allow citizen juries to decide if a sexual joke constitutes sexual harassment. By your logic on the impossibility of evaluating some speech as different from other speech there would appear to be no way to ever say anyone could be guilty of hate speech or harassment. A person could sexually degrade and demean someone else and by your thinking they could never be proven guilty because that would lead us inevitably down a slippery slope to where saying "I have to go to the bathroom" gets you charged with sexual harassment. Now even if it is true that there may be some cases where incompetent critics choose the wrong path (which I say is totally non-unique), I think that the impacts of allowing and endorsing harassment and hate speech by not forfeiting the guilty party are worse than the relatively few cases where a team suffers from judicial intervention. I would add that the real world places such conditions on politicians all the time and there has been no response to the various cases where politicians have been booted out because of racist or sexist speech. Blaming the victims of injurious speech for not responding is in my mind negligent in the extreme.

On the religion topic - My initial point is that a critic is invited to intervene when a team assumes they have the same faith as the critic. Why should a non-christian care one way or the other if a team can prove that homosexuality is sinful? Why does winning that argument ever win a round? The only way that makes sense is if the critic assumes that sin is undesirable. So why should a clean slate assume sin is bad?

Next, I would still contend that saying homosexuality is a sin is both hateful and unethical - why should a critic endorse something hateful and unethical? Why does your game mean that I have to pretend to be stupid or be evil? Maybe debate is more than a game and learning responsible advocacy and civility are more important than winning or losing?

I will look forward to your final remarks.

#22 01-13-03, 08:56 PM

Alright, time to address the hypothetical Judge and say which arguments I am winning (overwhelmingly, I suppose, because I have never heard a parli debater claim "winning" without "overwhelming") :

The Religion DA is all but conceeded. Under the proposed judicial intervention standard, bringing a religious point of view into a debate round risk being awarded a loss irrespective of how well you can argue the point of view. This, to borrow a phrase from a brilliant thinker, "denies a resource to a particular group of people". Said thinker claims a moral imperitive against any action which would cause the resource-denial impact. That thinker is dissensus, Judge, and this is the only impact you need in the round.

I concede that the ultimate logic of my position implies that so-called hate-speech and harassment laws are unenforcebly vague by definition. This was never impacted, and do not make new arguments for the opp (gov? whatever), Judge.

The analogies to juries and politicians only serve to bolster my case, because in those situations both sides are allowed to say their piece, while in intervention the only opinion which counts is that of the judge. A better analogy for the intervention regime would be The Commission for the Promulgation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice, which excercized dictatorial powers to eliminate behavior which "violated community norms", and against whose discretion there was no defense.

I also win that the "community norms" standard will be enforced capriciously by individual judges, resulting in losses for Louisville and many teams that merely violate a judge's pet kritik. This argument was laughed off as a slippery slope leading to an absurd conclusion, but many empirical examples plus the Religion DA prove the slippage is real. My opponent has no answer to this argument other than "exclusion outweighs", and I am winning that criterion. The claim that stupid judges are non-unique to the status quo is inapposite -- in the status quo, even assuming an incompetant critic the wronged team at least has the right of rejoinder.

My response to the impact calculus that compares a mere game to transcendent rules of good and evil : please dismount from your pituitary-disorder-afflicted equestrian. Aside from the throw-away line about four "speeches" ago about "other appropriate disciplinary measures", we are both talking about assigning an in-game punishment for an in-game "offense". This also begs the question of whether the behavior in question was offensive, and I have conclusively demonstrated that many teams will be dropped for conduct that isn't.

Finally, to the charge that my advocacy requires critics to be stupid and/or evil : this is laughable. Particularly when juxtaposed with your contention that tabula-rasa need not include "evil is undesirable"

Responsible advocacy is never defined, although it presumably includes ceasing to advocate when one becomes sufficiently offended. Civility is also not defined, but if I must hazard a guess, it must mean "never offend anyone". I point out, for the last time, that this is an overly broad standard to apply, particularly for an activity interested in discussing contentious issues.

So for the brief recap :

a) The Religion DA turns case, and I could spin an infinite number of similar DAs with similar links and identical impacts.

b) The fairness criterion is never answered, other than claims that "reasonable people" agree on offensive conduct in the face of evidence to the contrary (the existence of this discussion providing one example in itself).

c) The alternative impact weighing calculus conflicts with specific claims made in the on-case & DA debates and should thus be discarded. Thus even if they win that some parties are damaged by harmful speech the inability to avoid throwing the baby out with the bathwater (i.e. ban harmful speech while preserving legitimate expression) leads to a hypothetical cyber-ballot for yours truly.

Thanks to all participants in this discussion, it has been truly enjoyable and informative. Anyone else still reading this -- please make sure you get some sunlight before dying to vitamin K deficiency.

Patrick McKenzie

#23 01-14-03, 03:25 PM

i am more on dissensus side when it comes to political idealogy, but with regard to intervention i tend to agree with patio, mainly because intervention in the form of a language K i think is an acceptable form of argumentation, but other forms of intervention put the judge in a disciplinary position that i dont think they hold, and frankly wouldn't want them to hold. The examples cited by dissensus about "flashing privates" and the various forms of harassment and/or hate speech are all things that are bad and could be taken out by a quick K, but if that K isnt made, i think the judge doesnt have the right to use the ballot to punish. Rather, i think that there are other things to do to express the displeasure with those actions- like contacting police in the nudity example, speaking to coaches and/or tournament officials in the other cases. just my 2 cents.
matt c.

welltemperedsubject · #24 01-21-03, 01:45 PM

You call the police and speak to coaches but then vote for the team that blatantly is in violation of the rules? You would call the police in the hopes that the person goes to jail but in terms of the round say they win? - Thats dumb - if someone does something that is against the law - pull out a gun, pull out their privates - don't care what they should lose.

Better example for not intervening is an irony case anyway - shouldn't a gov team be able to speak ironically? and if that is seen as hate speech do they lose for innovating?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode