“ Rookies in
Argumentation – Mr. Bush and his so-called brilliant advisers “
By S. Jovian Radheshwar
Having been actively involved in policy debate for some six years, I became exposed to what objectively decent argumentation amounts to. A claim, for example, would be followed by a warrant to match that claim. For example, increasing the scope of the federal government risks upsetting the balance of powers arrangement integral to the constitution, this is true at this time because we see the federal government growing in size and scope and it has been previously decided in the courts that the action my opponent (in the debate) suggests would encroach on the rights of the states. Then the speaker can further justify his line of argumentation by adding the federalist balance of power in the US is essential to preserving order domestically, to ensuring economic growth, to resembling a model to be copied and spread peace internationally in democratizing regions, etc. This is not a tremendously difficult concept, although, I will admit that sometimes to quickly dream up postulates and relevant hyperbole one requires a certain type of training. It need not be found in policy debate only, it just so happens that this activity and its methodology of presentation of arguments, in its best form, represent a polemical version that can be learned from.
It seems to me, and many others, both debaters and non-debaters, that the Bush administration is making poor arguments to under qualified adjudicators, i.e. – the masses. High level policy debate occurs at very quick rates of speaking, somewhere in the neighborhood of 300-350 words per minutes may be a reasonable guess at a median, and as a result, those without the ability to understand this speed of speech are always looked down upon as potentially incompetent judges. In many cases, they are. In this case, the intellectual complacency of the American people has come back to hurt in a major way, as we are collectively unable to evaluate sophisticated arguments, or even to asses if an argument is truly sophisticated even though it may be merely dressed up rhetorically. In certain parts of the country, the problem of bad judging at debate tournaments is exacerbated by debaters who pander; much like the Bush administration pandering to the American people’s worst instincts; to these incompetent judgers. This inhibits the removal of those poor adjudicators from the pool, and certainly does not hasten their re-education. The arguments made by those people who “adapt” to their judges are superficial, and rely on personal connection or ideological identification. In some cases, helpless young girl syndrome has an effect.
Maybe I’m being
too hard on the high school and college debaters of this country, but we all
know how much we loathe debating a round in front of some other debater’s
parent, or an aged coach of yore. I don’t think you can say I’m being hard on
the government, though, as you’ll see that Ari Fleischer never quite answers a
question, that Bush continuously proves and re-proves his own stupidity coupled
with ignorance of life beyond
The problem with
all this, other than the ethical issues of being smart or stupid, is that when
applied to foreign policy, it leads to the remainder of the world’s leaders and
more educated populations being instinctively hostile to the policy being
advocated. In this case, it is easy enough for us, of course, as the policy
being advocated is equally stupid relative to the arguments being posited to
the public and the world to create support for the policy of invasion. We must
remember that our simplistic rhetoric, like “