Re: A Tag-Flowing Hypothetical Question

[Adri <broveraf@wfu.edu>]

I don't really think this example is an argument against flowing parts of 
the evidence.  The main reason I flow parts of the text is to make my 
life easier at the end of the debate because i have a better idea of what 
the cards say and may not need to call for them. But as for your example:

On Mon, 4 Dec 1995, James M. Dumas wrote:

> I agree with Carson -- generally flow tags and listen to evidence, only
> flowing the text in specific circumstances.  BUT, for those of us who think
> that the text is important beyond the tag, what do you do in the following
> situation:
> 
> 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.

Does the argument not included in the tag get extended or mentioned 
specifically in the block? If yes, then you give the team the argument 
because the 1AR had a chance to answer it, and if she/he did not, then it 
was dropped and any 2AR arguments would be new. If it was not explicitly 
mentioned in the block, then the 2NR argument may as well be new because 
you can't expect the aff to pick up on every argument in a card if they 
are not explicitly mentioned in the tag. That seems to be a fair standard 
because otherwise the aff (or neg) would have to spend the entirety of 
cx and prep reading the other teams ev to answer the hidden args.


Adrienne Brovero
Assistant Coach
Wake Forest Debate



> 
> 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
> 
>

---

References:

• A Tag-Flowing Hypothetical Question
• From: dumas@gonzaga.edu (James M. Dumas)

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Rogers' response
• Next by Date: Re: Flowing evidence....
• Prev by thread: A Tag-Flowing Hypothetical Question
• Next by thread: Re: A Tag-Flowing Hypothetical Question
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page