ERIC Number: ED342031
Record Type: RIE
Publication Date: 1991-Oct-29
Reference Count: 0
The Essentials of Interpreting the Resolution: A Contextual Approach Limited by Six Tests instead of Counterplans and Counterwarrants.
Intrinsic justification in academic debate focuses on the essential characteristics of the terms in a topic. The technique, advocated by Ken Bahm, works with very few Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) topics. It gives rise to counterwarrants, which create more confusion than clarity, while its counterplans destroy affirmative grounds. In addition, intrinsicness does not achieve its objective of increasing clash over the whole resolution approach. Intrinsic justification fails in CEDA debate because very few recent CEDA topics work as non-contextualized statements. Intrinsic counterplans and counterwarrants fail because they do not make arguments as they normally do in policy debate or help test what is essential to a topic. Furthermore, there is neither the time nor the dialogic process necessary to use counterplans and counterwarrants to test intrinsicness in debate. Instead of an intrinsic approach, CEDA should maintain a contextual one. A contextual approach interprets a resolution as it is manifested in contemporary society, and can be applied to any topic. The approach promotes clash and clarity, and does not fall to the whims of whatever the affirmative chooses as reasonable. Intrinsic justification is highly problematic; without any rationale for its use in value or policy debate, it should be rejected. (SG)
Publication Type: Opinion Papers; Speeches/Meeting Papers
Education Level: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers: Cross Examination Debate Association; Debate Strategies; Debate Theory
Note: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association (77th, Atlanta, GA, October 31-November 3, 1991).