[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Random Thoughts on Reading Evidence

Times I read a lot of evidence

1) When the 2NR/2AR are largely "biblioraphies."  Often, many of the 
debaters stake the debate on particular cards that are being read.  If 
they do I will usually read them to see how good they are.  If the cards 
aren't very good I assign the arguments little to no risk.  If debaters 
want to stake the debate on cards that is fine with me. 

2) The debate is close in the sense that each side has won arguments of 
comparatively in terms of impact and apparent risk.  I'll often read the 
evidence and assign greater risk to the arguments that contain better 
evidence.



Times I don't read evidence

1)  When it is a crush.

2)  When it is disadvantagous.  Twice this year I called for a lot of 
evidence to help me make my decision and stopped about half way through 
because the evidence both teams gave me was incredibly wretched, making 
the decision even more difficult.

3) Low expectations of the community.  The ADA, for example, expects very 
quick decisions (< 10-15 minutes).  I avoid reading evidence there at all 
costs since people don't expect/want you to


I don't think it is bad to read evidence

1)  All of the debaters have had a visual reading of the critical cards 
in the round - why shouldn't the judge?

2) Saying you won't read a card unless debaters say it is bad encourages 
debaters to say things like "those ten cards they read don't support 
their argument, read them.."

3)  The evidence constitutes as much as what is "said" by the debaters 
than the non-evidenced parts of their speeches.

4)  Many implications can be drawn from a single card and cards are used 
for many things other than what they are originally tagged for.  As a 
judge you aren't listening for the unknown implications when the card is 
read.

5) If debaters know you will read the evidence after the round they are 
less likely to "sandbag" and more likely to cut more cards.

6) If a debater reads drastically overtagged evidence I don't think it is 
much differnt than lying.
Follow-Ups: References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page