[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
A Tag-Flowing Hypothetical Question
Team A reads a piece of evidence tagged "Increased Government Funding of
Infotech Trades Off with Private Funding." The text of the evidence says
this and makes other claims.
Team B answers the tagged claim.
In their final rebuttal, Team A extends this particular piece of evidence,
focusing on the text of the evidence where it says that "goverment funding
is made politically and tends to go to worthless programs that are already
being done in the private sector." Further, Team A claims that Team B has
failed to respond to this argument, which was made in constructives since
the evidence was read in constructives.
What do you do? Has Team B dropped the argument? Or, has Team A made a
new argument? Should we assume that "evidence" is only support for a
claim, and that the claim is designated by the tag?
--Jamey Dumas
Gonzaga
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page