This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: Gender Answers Michigan 2010 1/36 7-Week Seniors GENDER ANSWERS Gender Answers Michigan 2010 2/36 7-Week Seniors BEST 2AC CARD The structure of their argument undermines feminismthe claim that a single link results in a big root cause impact marginalizes struggles against other forms of violence and discrimination Crenshaw 2 [Carrie Crenshaw PhD, Former President of CEDA, Perspectives In Controversy: Selected Articles from Contemporary Argumentation and Debate 2002 p. 119-126] Feminism is not dead. It is alive and well in intercollegiate debate . Increasingly, students rely on feminist authors to inform their analysis of resolutions . While I applaud these initial efforts to explore feminist thought , I am concerned that such arguments only exemplify the general absence of sound causal reasoning in debate rounds. Poor causal reasoning results from a debate practice that privileges empirical proof over rhetorical proof , fostering ignorance of the subject matter being debated. To illustrate my point, I claim that debate arguments about feminists suffer from a reductionism that tends to marginalize the voices of significant feminist authors. David Zarefsky made a persuasive case for the value of causal reasoning in intercollegiate debate as far back as 1979. He argued that causal arguments are desirable for four reasons. First, causal analysis increases the control of the arguer over events by promoting understanding of them. Second, the use of causal reasoning increases rigor of analysis and fairness in the decision-making process. Third, causal arguments promote understanding of the philosophical paradox that presumably good people tolerate the existence of evil. Finally, causal reasoning supplies good reasons for commitments to policy choices or to systems of belief which transcend whim, caprice, or the non-reflexive claims of immediacy (117-9). Rhetorical proof plays an important role in the analysis of causal relationships. This is true despite the common assumption that the identification of cause and effect relies solely upon empirical investigation. For Zarefsky, there are three types of causal reasoning. The first type of causal reasoning describes the application of a covering law to account for physical or material conditions that cause a resulting event This type of causal reasoning requires empirical proof prominent in scientific investigation. A second type of causal reasoning requires the assignment of responsibility. Responsible human beings as agents cause certain events to happen; that is, causation resides in human beings (107-08). A third type of causal claim explains the existence of a causal relationship. It functions to cause certain events to happen; that is, causation resides in human beings (107-08)....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 02/23/2012 for the course DEBATE 101 taught by Professor None during the Spring '12 term at University of California, Berkeley.
- Spring '12
- The Trial