[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Flowing evidence....
The tag has to mean something. You can draw on your
understanding of the community's language to assess the meaning of the
tag, or you can include the evidence in figuring out what the tag means.
Remember "evidence" comes from the Greek word for silver, indicating
that evidence shines, like silver, upon the claim -- making clear what
had been murky. In the case of "Impact: Nuc war kills all of humanity,"
the communal understanding of the meaning is probably fine. But many
claims are such that the evidence tells you quite a lot about what the
claim must mean. "Proving" and "clarifying what is meant" are ultimately
inseparable. (I am reiterating a point I've made before to you. Hope
you don't mind.)
> 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 I believed in the notion of "more" or "less" intervention, I'd
say this: You are intervening MORE by ignoring evidence (except when it
is disputed). You are IMPOSING an interpretation on the tag, without
taking into account everything that has been said in the debate to
clarify the meaning of that tag. The debaters own words include
clarification of the tag, and you are willfully ignoring that
clarification in favor of whatever meaning YOU happen to think the tag,
by itself, should be given.
But since I don't believe in "more" or "less" intervention, but
only in better or worse interpretations of what the debaters say, I'll
put it this way: interpretations of a tag that take into account the
evidence are better than interpretations that don't.
When you make the better interpretation that results from taking
the evidence into account, you don't then say to the debaters: "Your
evidence doesn't meet the tag." (That would, as you suggest, violate
community norms by making you seem to be doing something called, "making
an argument for them.") Instead you say, "This is what I have to
understand your tag to mean, given the evidence you read to support it.
Thus interpreted, it fails to defeat your opponent."
I am not saying, however, that tags must always be interpreted as
meaning exactly what the evidence means. I'm only saying evidence is
often helpful in clarifying what a tag means. Sometimes my understanding
of the meaning of the language of the tag must override the meaning that
the evidence points toward -- that is, sometimes the card just flat
doesn't say what the tag does. In those cases, I'm with you: it's up to
the other side to say so. I regard such situations the same way I regard
completely unevidenced assertions.
So I'm with Tuna in that the evidence matters even when it isn't
directly disputed. But I differ from Tuna in that I look at a lot of
evidence after the round -- evidence I didn't or couldn't get while the
round was going on. In that respect, I'm with Tim: you can get it after
the round. (Although it is not my usual habit, on at least one occasion
after a round, after reading a number of cards, I asked the debaters,
"Any other cards you'd like to be sure I've read?" Some might object
that this puts the debaters in a position of having to make a strategic
choice in answering that question, and that the time for *their*
strategic choices ought to be over. . . . As I say, I haven't done it
> The more people know, the more likely it is that they will vote for Pick at
> least 20.
Unless ABCX is an option.
- Meredith Garmon, Fisk U.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page