[Article] パラダイム評価の危機 The Perils of Assessing Paradigms

[論文] ザレフスキー, デイヴィッド. 1982. 「パラダイム評価の危機」. 『米国討論学会誌』. 18巻冬季号．141-144頁．

すぐ前のローランドの記事に対するザレフスキーからの短い返答です。
このザレフスキーという人は大変面白い人のようです。日本ではハイポの提唱者として有名ですが、そもそもの問題意識は「何のために討論するのか」だったのだろうと思います。彼は競技としての討論しか見えなくなっていく同輩達に警鐘を鳴らしたかったのではないかと思います。ハイポはそれくらい、サイド間の均衡とかフェアネスとかを度外視しているように見えて、それだからこそ面白いと思います。魅了される人が出るのも分かる気がするのです。

[Article] Zarefsky, David. 1982. The Perils of Assessing Paradigms. Journal of The American Forensic Association. vol.18, Winter. pp141-144

This article is a direct and rather short respond from Zarefsky to Rowland's article right before. Zarefsky seems a very interesting person. In Japan, he is well known as an advocator of Hypothesis Testing Paradigm. But it seems to me, his main target was to question the goal of debating. While many fellows were increasingly narrowing their perspective to one for the contest debate (for example, Rowland's justification of his standard was the format of contest debate itself and it is indeed, I think, weak.), Zarefsky wanted them to realize what is the core value of debating. At least, he thought trophies were such a trivial part of debating as a whole. I guess, that is why, Hypothesis Testing Paradigm ignores the balance and fairness between sides of debates to a surprising extent. Regardless the "practicality" of this paradigm, I think his words are worth listening and no surprise at people being attracted by his words. Yes, I find him very charming. :) Although I disagree with Zarefsky on his statement that "a paradigm can be discredited only through ad hominem arguments." (I don't think the discussion over paradigms should be shut down simply because I feel that's the most exciting beauty of debating!!), I still find him very lovely.

--------------------------------------------
But if the starting point of analysis were the contest debate then the inquiry into paradigms would be trivialized.
--------------------------------------------
But the analogy is weak, because the goals of argumentation are themselves is doubt.
--------------------------------------------
Paradigms cannot be assessed against the goals of an activity when the goals themselves are in dispute.
Nor does Rowland's decision to focus specifically on contest debate help here. He asserts, "The ultimate goal of debate is to teach people how to argue effectively." But this statement conceals more than it reveals. What does " argue effectively" mean? If it means "successfuly," then the statement means little more than that the goal is to teach people to win arguments. If it means "realistically," then the goal is to model arguments on those in the public forum. If it means "creatively," then the premium is on novel arguments. If "analytically," then the goal stresses formal and informal reasoning. The point is that we really cannot say with anything approaching the agreements one finds in sience, just what the goal of argumentation and debate is. And without agreement, we cannot evaluate paradigms reliably to see how they function in achieving the goal. The paradigm and the goal are bound up together.
--------------------------------------------
But each of Rowland's other four standards is flawed. The "fairness" standard assumes that the starting point of analysis is the competitive debate activity;
--------------------------------------------
Within one paradigm, "justification" arguments are strong; within another they are irrelevant. Asking questions about an opponent's evidence counts as clash within one paradigm; within another a counter-argument is requirred. Terms such as "weak argument" and "clash" are hortatory, but what they mean depends on the paradigm one assumes. Hence they are not paradigm-free standards which can be employed in comparative assessment of paradigms.
--------------------------------------------
Probably my strongest disagreement is with Rowland's fifth standard, that the paradigm "should operate within the current form of deate." I do not champion innovation for its own sake, and I think that most current paradigms do fit within debate's current form. But to make of that correspondence a standard is to commit a multitude of sins. It trivializes the choice of paradigms by making the contest activity the starting point for a theory of argument, rather than the other way round. It ignores the adaptability of contest debate formats and procedures - "the current cross exam debate format" has not been in continuous use, and no debate format is set in stone. It treats "the current form of debate" as monolithic, ignoring the rich variety of formats and procedures. And it means that the inevitable changes in format will be made randomly and in response to fads, rather than in a systematic way to bring contest debate closer in line with a paradigm of general argumentation.
---------------------------------------------
Rowland correctly states my belief that "the form of debate should be shaped to the paradigm," but adds, "The search for a more perfect format for debate is certainly a laudable goal, but it is not relevant to the point at issue." The point at issue, though, is not experimentation with formats; it is the establishment of a principle of hierarchy.
---------------------------------------------

[English vocab for masako]
peril, adherent, induce, assent, probative, conducive, slippage, moot, antecedent, hortatory, set in stone, monolithic, fad, exalt, put the cart before the horse, tenable, formidable,