Re: Flowing evidence....

[Earl Croasmun <croasmun@luna.cas.usf.edu>]

On Mon, 4 Dec 1995, Steven Hunt wrote:

> In many instances, certainly not all, I think CEDA debate has 
> deteriorated to debates of running tag lines with very poor quality 
> evidence. People don't care much about the sources of their evidence in 
> terms of authors quality of source context etc. because they believe (not 
> without reason) that they won't be challenged on their evidence. 

Good point.  While I think judges should flow the source and gist of the 
evidence, I think it is far worse when DEBATERS flow (and respond to) tag 
lines rather than cards.  They hear just enough, in many instances (not 
all), to know which brief to pull or which prepared position to run.  The 
bell rings, and they salivate.

In fact, one reason why I flow evidence even when I don't expect it to be
debated about in the round is so that afterwards I can discuss possible
responses and indictments that COULD have been but WERE NOT used by the
debaters in the round. 

> Judges need to listen to evidence and how it meets tag lines and how it 
> meets claims vis a vis arguments. This is the essence of debate. Some of 
> this is being lost in rapid fire tag line battles. Some of this is being 
> lost in no comparisons of quality of evidence and of reasoning in support 
> of critical arguments. Battles of a flurry of "sources" mostly testimony
> of "questionable quality" does not a quality debate make.
> Debaters need to ck their sources and their evidence for quality
> Debates need to make sure evidence and tag lines are consistent avoiding 
> overclaims or misclaims.
> Debaters need to be sure reasoning and evidence fits their arguments esp. 
> critical arguments.
> QUALITY IN EVIDENCE AND REASONING AND CONSISTENCY AND PERTIENCE HELPS A 
> LOT IN HAVING REAL ARGUMENTS.
> Judges need to listen and flow carefully. They need to evaluate debaters 
> on their evidence and reasoning and insist that evidence fits tag lines 
> and that tag lines fit arguments or claims. This is part of being a good 
> judge. 
 
Nothing else to add.  I just thought your thoughts deserved being repeated.

---

References:

• Re: Flowing evidence....
• From: Steven Hunt <hunt@lclark.edu>

---

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

---

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