OF COURSE AN “ISM” CAN BE A VALUE!!!

The Doctors have finally come to the point that we can no longer remain quiet about an argument we hear on a fairly regular basis. We understand where it comes from.  It is very easy to say “an ism can’t be a value”.  It sucks time from the debater that has to refute the argument.  However, there are judges – and debaters – who have begun to believe their own time suck.  So let us take a few moments to debunk this absurd argument.

Let’s begin with a definition.

A value is an idea or philosophy one uses to guide them in deciding the course of their actions.  Any theory or philosophy can be considered a value whether it ends in “ology” or “ism”.

Schroeder[1] explains that value theory in its broadest consideration encompasses all areas of philosophy that provide methods of evaluation.

The term “value theory” is used in at least three different ways in philosophy. In its broadest sense, “value theory” is a catch-all label used to encompass all branches of moral philosophy, social and political philosophy, aesthetics, and sometimes feminist philosophy and the philosophy of religion —whatever areas of philosophy are deemed to encompass some “evaluative” aspect.

This is consistent with definitions from philosophy dictionaries. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy[2] explains:

In its more narrow form, one of the chief questions of the theory of value is, What is desirable for its own sake?  One traditional sort of answer is hedonism.  Hedonism is roughly the view that (i) the only intrinsically good experiences or states of affairs are those containing  pain; (ii) all experiences or state of affairs that contain more pleasure than pain are intrinsically good and all experiences or states of affairs that contain more pain than pleasure are intrinsically bad…

Note that the value chosen as an example of value theory was an “ism”!  Isms like utilitarianism, constructivism, egalitarianism, and libertarianism (to name just a few) all provide the person who subscribes to their ideals a life style to be sought after.

But I know that there are some who will say “Hey that is value theory not “value!”  I have two answers to that.  First value theory explains how we arrive at values and what is valued.  But if you will not be satisfied look at a definition from a common source of definitions – Websters. Merriam-Webster[3] defines the noun “value” as: “something (as a principle or quality) intrinsically valuable or desirable <sought material values instead of human values— W. H. Jones”.

Obviously an “ism” can be intrinsically valuable.  Obviously, an “ism” can be a value.

Yet there are going to be die-hards out there that will continue to contend that “isms” can only serve as mechanisms by which decisions can be made and so can only serve as criteria in an LD debate.  But this conception of what a value is overlooks what a value does.  A value provides a set of beliefs or are predicated on a set of beliefs that provide mechanisms by which we make the decisions that guide our lives.  To contend that anything that provides a mechanism for deciding can only be a criterion, relegates all values to that position.  Anyone arguing that position simply destroys their own case since their own value cannot withstand such a definition.

Will this change the minds of those die-hards?  Probably not.  But it provides those who recognize that the “no ism can be a value” argument is merely a time suck with legitimate arguments for rejecting that view.

Lincoln Douglas debate has a lot of problems without allowing time sucks to become entrenched as an accepted truth.  We call on all of you who value LD debate to reject this crazy position.  Develop a quick and concise answer to this objection, expose it as a time suck, and explain to the judge that you will not waste any more time on this ridiculous argument.

An “ism” can be a value!!!

---

[1] Schroeder, Mark, (2008) “Value Theory”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2008/entries/value-theory/>.

[2] Audi, Robert. ed. (1999).  Value Theory.  The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.  New York: Cambridge University Press. 949.

[3] Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. (2012) http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/value

Hello world!

This is a blog about debate.  Mostly it is going to be about high school Lincoln-Douglas debate.  But, it will also discuss other forms when we feel like it.

The problem with Lincoln-Douglas debate is that we still haven’t figured out what L-D is.  In policy debate, we know that there are different approaches and we know what those approaches are.  Judges in policy may subscribe to one or more of several recognized paradigms.  The debater knows how to adapt to a games player or to a critic of argument.  One knows that issues such as topicality or DAs are going to be brought out.  True, there are different “styles” of debate depending on where in the country you are and the particular organization one debates in, but at the same time one knows what to expect at policy debate.  One knows what a policy is and so the debater at least knows what the debate is about.  Not so in Lincoln-Douglas debate.

High school L-D debate is supposed to be a philosophical debate in which values are discussed and advocated.  The problem is that the definition of what a value is varies with the judge.  What one judge sees as a value another will say does not qualify as a value.

This blog is going to discuss these problems in L-D and more.  You may not always agree.  But it is time for us to begin a discussion that will bring some sanity into this debate form.