[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Flowing evidence....
> Tuna has mentioned several times that he thinks it is important to flow
> evidence.
> I consider myself a tag line judge. I am not interested in what evidence says
> unless that evidence is indicted. I think that if a debater says 'Impact -
> nuclear war killing all of humanity' that it is irrelevant what the card
> below that claim says unless it is disputed by their oppossition. When I
> don't flow evidence I don't risk making an argument for one side by saying
> 'Your evidence doesn't meet the tag.' If evidence is disputed it doesn't
> matter if I flowed it I just call for the card.
>
does this mean that the debaters can be as unclear as they want? will you
simply doc them on speaker points? would this also imply that i can read
as many short conclusionary cards that i possibly can in 8 minutes, since
there is no way that an affirmative could possibly have the time to both
indict all 80+ cards and also read better ev on some points?
hypothetical situation:
if the round is brought down to a simply impact calculus and one piece of
evidence is from the Betty Crocker cookbook (or Mead or Baily) and the
team is claiming that there would be a world war if we have a depression;
the other piece of evidence, also claiming a world war scenario, is about
80% thorough and reasoned, but the betty crocker team indicted it, and the
indict is unanswered... how do you vote? do you blindly vote for the team
of Mr/Mrs/Ms crocket and partner, or do you weigh the evidence in front
of you and vote the other way?
just a thought.
Follow-Ups:
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page