What email address or phone number would you like to use to sign in to Docs.com?
If you already have an account that you use with Office or other Microsoft services, enter it here.
Or sign in with:
Signing in allows you to download and like content, and it provides the authors analytical data about your interactions with their content.
Embed code for: Judging philosophy
Select a size
Takayoshi Ikuta from KDU
1. Debate – collaborative work –
I regard debate as, rather than merely a fighting, a collaborative work for good understanding through a dialectic process. For debate being dialectic entails having a conflict part in it, and therefore being a certain kind of fighting. But the important is the kind. The collaborative aspect of debate highlights the value of clear and well-organized arguments, making them a strong weapon in the battle. On the other hand, a tricky method which confuses the adversary and hides the point away is downplayed. It just weakens the power of your arguments.
2. Academic Debate – to win the game, be the best contributor –
I comprehend the academic debate not as an ordinal style of debate but in terms of practice-based learning of debate and a strategic game. To be precise, practice-based learning is the prototypical core and is elaborated by strategy game to yield the concept of academic debate.
Structuring is not possible without a systematicity ‐ a coherence of their entailments ‐ . Take, for example, game aspect of academic debate makes it rule-based, which highlights the learning of formal procedure of debate and downplays that of informal one. Take, for another example, game aspect entails a fighting aspect and the practice-based learning of debate aspect does so too through that practicing debate is doing debate and that doing debate is fighting. Considering that there is no explicit rule of game about how to fight and how to win, coherence requires the fighting aspect of game to go along with that of debate, which is stated at the 1st paragraph. Now, the game is loosely defined so as to give the best contributor of debate the victory of game.
More elaborate description as to what game or what fighting the academic debate is like is called theory argument. Although I understand from my experience that the Policy-making Paradigm is most coherent with the practical aspect of academic debate, I’m willing to listen to any structuring by other paradigms and theoretical arguments. No matter what you propose, however, you should keep academic debate systematic as a structured whole.
3. Argument assessment - a critic of argument -
Argument is for me like a path from the idea which we take for granted (starting point) to the idea you wish others to believe (goal). The listener’s mind is the pedestrian who walks along the path. To extend the analogy, the purpose of your constructing arguments (paths) is to let others’ mind (a pedestrian) to move toward the goal. So, a good argument must be a smooth path for our mind to walk along. On the contrary, a bad argument is a ragged path along which we feel psychologically difficult to go. Because, in this way, the quality of argument depends on its interactional property with listener’s mind rather than its inherent property, I strongly believe that decision making needs a feedback from the audience (or their mind). And, the one who fills this roll in an academic debate is nobody but a judge (or his mind). For this reason, I try to make an intuitive but fairly clear decision, rejecting a conventional assessment of the inherent property of argument. You have a right to call me a critic of argument.
Email address: email@example.com