Visiting Professor of Communication John Adams presented a paper at the Second International Conference on Argumentation, Rhetoric, Debate and the Pedagogy of Empowerment: Thinking and Speaking a Better World, April 11-13 at the University of Ljubljana in Slovenia. His paper was titled "Stasis, Debate, and Accountability."
According to Adams' abstract, "The ancient stasis concept provides a systematic way of approaching debate. It can be used to scan the stock lines of argument and make determinations as to how to frame a given policy, or other rhetorically-grounded position, toward criteria that are to the point—to develop pertinent arguments and to anticipate counter-arguments and prepare accordingly. Yet, in my observations of student debates, and in conversations with debaters, although the stock issues are ubiquitous in their discourses, they are not recognized for their heuristic value or consciously employed by in concerted acts of rhetorical invention. Rather, they function more like deeply cultured scripts that are unconsciously performed 'as needed' under their operative terms (e.g. the possible), rather than as engines of conscious forethought enabling preconceived argument-moves in anticipation of countermoves.
"As far as debate is a conversation-in-controversy, the ad hoc (as needed) and apparently habitual play of the stock lines of argument seems justified (it is nearly impossible to anticipate every counter-argument or consciously consider them during the play of debate's fairly rapid turn-over of conflicted positions). However, it would seem that a pre-debate scanning of the stock lines of argument in preparation for opening gambits, and in anticipation of possible counter-arguments, rebuttals, and rejoinders, would, at the very least, introduce greater degrees of reflection, forethought, and accountability into the production and judgment of debates. In addition, it would provide a technical vocabulary for 'talk about talk' that would make explicit the academic and historical foundations of debate's practice, opening the prospect for consciously and explicitly judging debates in accord with principles that underwrite their practice and aim toward rhetorical competence—effectiveness and appropriateness: the well-considered rationales of what to say and how to say it."
According to Adams' abstract, "The ancient stasis concept provides a systematic way of approaching debate. It can be used to scan the stock lines of argument and make determinations as to how to frame a given policy, or other rhetorically-grounded position, toward criteria that are to the point—to develop pertinent arguments and to anticipate counter-arguments and prepare accordingly. Yet, in my observations of student debates, and in conversations with debaters, although the stock issues are ubiquitous in their discourses, they are not recognized for their heuristic value or consciously employed by in concerted acts of rhetorical invention. Rather, they function more like deeply cultured scripts that are unconsciously performed 'as needed' under their operative terms (e.g. the possible), rather than as engines of conscious forethought enabling preconceived argument-moves in anticipation of countermoves.
"As far as debate is a conversation-in-controversy, the ad hoc (as needed) and apparently habitual play of the stock lines of argument seems justified (it is nearly impossible to anticipate every counter-argument or consciously consider them during the play of debate's fairly rapid turn-over of conflicted positions). However, it would seem that a pre-debate scanning of the stock lines of argument in preparation for opening gambits, and in anticipation of possible counter-arguments, rebuttals, and rejoinders, would, at the very least, introduce greater degrees of reflection, forethought, and accountability into the production and judgment of debates. In addition, it would provide a technical vocabulary for 'talk about talk' that would make explicit the academic and historical foundations of debate's practice, opening the prospect for consciously and explicitly judging debates in accord with principles that underwrite their practice and aim toward rhetorical competence—effectiveness and appropriateness: the well-considered rationales of what to say and how to say it."
