Debate as a Weapon of Mass Destruction

Abstract

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Acknowledgements Founded in 2005, the Schenley Park DAWG strives to generate rigorous scholarship addressing the role of argumentation and debate in society. First author Eric English led work on this DAWG essay, while the co-authors each contributed substantially in areas of conceptual design, research, and writing. Notes 1. Charles R. Koch, Letter to the Committee on Intercollegiate Debate and Discussion, 1 October 1954, Faculty papers, Karl R. Wallace, Series V. Communication Pedagogy, C. Miscellaneous Papers R–Z, Box 22, Group 40/11, Folder 49, Archives of the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Hereafter cited as “Wallace papers.” 2. Ronald Walter Greene and Darrin Hicks, “Lost Convictions: Debating Both Sides and the Ethical Self-fashioning of Liberal Citizens,” Cultural Studies 19 (2005): 103. 3. James MacGregor Burns, “Debate Over Collegiate Debates,” New York Times Magazine, 5 December 1954, 12. 4. See, for example, Herbert L. Cushing, Letter to Karl Wallace, 27 September 1954; Neal S. Gomon, Letter to Karl Wallace, 21 October 1954, Wallace papers, Folder 49. 5. Karl R. Wallace, Winston L. Brembeck, Glenn L. Jones, T. Earle Johnson, Lawrence E. Norton, Robert G. Gunderson and Austin J. Freeley, Committee on International Discussion and Debate statement, 29 November 1954, Wallace papers, Folder 49. 6. “Oppose Choice of Red China as Debate Topic,” Chicago Daily Tribune, 14 October 1954, part 2, 9. 7. J. Jefferey Auer, interview with Lindley J. Stiles, “Should Debaters be Allowed to Discuss Controversial Questions?” Stenographic transcription from “A Letter from the Dean,” weekly radio program broadcast by nearly twenty Virginia stations. Wallace papers, Folder 49. 8. George Lardner Jr., “Legal Scholars Criticize Wording of Bush Order: Accused Can Be Detained Indefinitely,” Washington Post, 3 December 2001, A10. 9. BBC News, “Cheney Says Iraq Debate Essential,” 21 November 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4457818.stm. 10. See Star Muir, “A Defense of the Ethics of Contemporary Debate,” Philosophy and Rhetoric, 26 (1993): 277–95. 11. Greene and Hicks, “Lost Convictions,” 121. 12. Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 US (2006). 13. Neal Kumar Katyal and Laurence H. Tribe, “Waging War, Deciding Guilt: Trying the Constitutionality of the Military Tribunals,” Yale Law Journal 111 (2002): 101–52. 14. Neal Katyal, quoted in “Alumni Making a Difference,” Loyola Academy Focus (Fall 2006). Additional informationNotes on contributorsGordon R. MitchellGordon Mitchell is Associate Professor of Communication at the University of PittsburghCarly WoodsEach of the other co-authors is a graduate student in the Department of Communication at the University of Pittsburgh. All are past or present Pitt debate coaches