What’s in a Name? Defending Forensics: A Response to Kimble’s “By Any Other Name”

Authors

Christopher P. Outzen, Minnesota State University, MankatoFollow
Daniel Cronn-Mills, Minnesota State University - MankatoFollow

Abstract

Our essay is a response to Kimble’s “By Any Other Name: On the Merits of Moving Beyond Forensics.” We argue forensics has not lost the battle for its name, since the battle does not necessarily exist. We contend changing the name is unnecessary since forensics is the most accurate label one may apply to inter-scholastic speaking and debating. Furthermore, changing the name would have considerable negative repercussions. Instead, the forensic community needs to return to its roots as educators and activists to enhance public understanding of the term to include forensic speaking and debate. We conclude the name forensics is by no means a perfect name, yet one worth defending.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

Recommended Citation

Outzen, Christopher P. and Cronn-Mills, Daniel (2012) "What’s in a Name? Defending Forensics: A Response to Kimble’s “By Any Other Name”," Speaker & Gavel: Vol. 49: Iss. 2, Article 4.
Available at: https://cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/speaker-gavel/vol49/iss2/4