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

flowing ev.....

In the past I have given leeway to debaters who read cards unclearly as long
as the tags were clear. I have stopped doing this. I routinely yell 'Clearer'
during a speech when I can't understand what a debater is saying. I think the
opposition has a right to hear the evidence when it is read and so I'm also
in favor of the team who isn't speaking saying 'Clearer' once or twice if
they can't understand what is being said. As long as they aren't overly
disruptive then they should be able to ask their opponents to be 'clearer'
during the speech.


Jason N. also writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
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?
>>>>>>>>>>>

You could try it but what you would be in big trouble when they  said 'Wow
they read 80 cards. They all suck. Compare my one piece of evidence it is
better than all of their's.' 
In fact this has happened. When lexis/nexis first started being used
throughout the country teams would read as many short conclusionary cards as
they could. It didn't take teams long to figure out that it was a better idea
to read good evidence as oppossed to reading a lot of it. 

Jason raises the following situation:
>>>>>>>>>>
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?
>>>>>>>>>>

I don't really have enough information to answer this question but here is my
general rule. If Team X reads a card and says 'Our card is better because of
Q' and Team Y has read counter ev but never argues why their evidence is
better then I will defer to Team X.

Meredith Garmon writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
 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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I try to understand what each team means by their tags. I think   that in
most situations this can be easily done. I do not need to read the evidence
to clarify the tag. A tag is an argument. Evidence is one means of support

for that argument. If the evidence isn't good support for the argument then
it is the opponents burden to say that. There are two reasons why I do this:
1) If team y makes the arg that 'the card is weak' then team x might choose
to read more evidence proving the claim true. 2) If team y turned the
scenario it is only fair for them to get the full weight of the impact
evidence. It would be bullshit for team x to then stand up and say read the
impact evidence it isn't that good so it doesn't matter than they turned it.
I don't think I'm imposing. I think debaters want what their tags say not
necessarily what their evidence says. That is the common understanding.

Tim Mahoney, Pace U.
The more people know the more likely it is that they will vote for Pick at
least 20.
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page