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

Re: Flowing evidence....


	I do not believe that as a critic  it is my job to decide which 
evidence is stronger. I think that this promotes midless reading of cards 
(something I see all too much of anyway). I flow the tag lines because 
otherwise I think you risk rejecting the cards (or at least decreasing 
their weight) even if there is no argument against it. I think that if 
we can get debaters to read the evidence and then tell the critic why the 
card does or does not support the claim then this encourages better debate.

	I think the examples people are giving about how the use of tag 
lines can be abused do not stand up in good rounds. You could not get 
away with reading Betty Crocker ev. or 80 conclusionary cards against a 
good team who does good research. If you have ten good cards then they 
should be able to beat the 80 conclusionary cards relatively easily 
because of the higher analysis. Also a good argument against 80 
conclusionary cards is that, "these cards are all conclusionary" and a 
good argument against Betty Crocker is that, "this ev. is from Betty 
Crocker"

-Mike Davis
Syracuse Debate
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page