[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Chud's Out of context Accusation
Can we say OVERREACTION?
here is the part I felt was cut in a way so as to misconstrue my argument:
I said:
> I think the reasons for coaches not cutting evidence presented by Dr.
> Church are incorrect. He first says that debaters using evidence cut by
> their coaches produces poor debates (he even cites an example of a team
> losing while running such evidence). This seems to be self-defeating. If
> you don't understand your evidence and have trouble reading it, you are
> likely to lose with it.
Church answered:
Chud feeds my argument quite clearly, because the debater who does her or
his own research is much more likely to understand the position.
Moreover, isn't more knowledge an important goal of debate and isn't
the debater who does his or her own research always learning more? To me
this is really clear.
I said:
>If a person CHOOSES to lose with their coach's
> evidence, shouldn't they have that choice?
my original post had the two "I saids" together, forming an argument Church
answered in two parts. Unfortunately his answers to the first part do not
addresses my CONCLUSION to the argument which was that CHOICE is the key to
evaluating the learning issue. So yes, all of my argument was quoted, but
not in the way I had intended the argument to be made. If this is
disappointing to Dr. Church, so be it.
adam chud
cornell university
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page