[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Flowing evidence....
On Mon, 4 Dec 1995 Pacedebate@aol.com wrote:
> 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.
>
> Recently, Tuna wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> Actually, I all too rarely see any of my colleagues really flowing the cards
> in these debates, and unless they are I often wonder how they can make a
> really good decision.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> My answer: I vote on the arguments that are made. That may seem simplistic
> but I think to do otherwise increases the amount of intervention. Lately, I
> have stopped calling for any evidence unless it is disputed or there has been
> some kind of comparison made in the debate. After I have made my decision I
> will look at evidence that for some reason I wanted to see while I was making
> my decision but when I noticed that evidence had never been discussed I
> didn't call for it. I am amazed at all of the arguments (existing in the
> evidence) that could have been made that never were. This policy has
> reaffirmed my belief that calling for cards makes it more likely that I will
> make arguments that weren't in the debate.
>
> I welcome your comments.
>
> Tim Mahoney, Pace U.
> The more people know, the more likely it is that they will vote for Pick at
> least 20.
>
Follow-Ups:
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page