flowing ev - I've been converted.

[Pacedebate@aol.com]

1) Tuna wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
I do not feel it is interventionist for me to know that the card doesn't
match the tag. I wait for an argument about it, but when it comes I go for
it. Unless I flow the cards, I don't know whether the claim of tag-card not
matching are true .... Then I have to call for them because they are unknown
to me. When the debaters ask me to compare the evidence, I can do so without
having to reconstruct the debate if I have flowed the cards.
>>>>>>>>>
The risk of intervention is low and if I can seperate myself from other
arguments that 'I' think of then I can seperate myself from arguments 'I'
would make about the evidence. This was my main concern and Tuna is right. A
couple of other comments were important to me, also.

2) Brian McGee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
I can recall over a dozen cases in my six-plus years of judging when I was
offered a card that hadn't been read in the debate.  
>>>>>>>>>>>

Sad but true. Sounds like a zero speaker point ballot if it was
intentionally. I would also add that in a couple of rounds I have seen judges
call for evidence and the team that read the cards wasn't sure which ones
they had read so they had to consult with the oppossition to figure it out.
Sounds like a good reason to flow as much of the ev. as you can.

3) Earl Croasmun wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
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. 
>>>>>>>>>>>

This is an important job for a critic and if I listen to all the evidence
then I can do a better job after the debate doing this. My perception is that
Earl, Steve Hunt and others think I should listen carefully so I can make
arguments for the debaters that aren't made i.e. source qualification,
explanation, etc. I absolutely reject this idea however making my decision
based on arguments that were made and then during my oral critique pointing
out arguments tha could have been made seems like good judging.


Tim Mahoney, Pace U.
The more people know the more likely they are to vote for Pick at least 20.

---

• Prev by Date: Re: santa
• Next by Date: Re: A Tag-Flowing Hypothetical Question
• Prev by thread: evidence and flowing
• Next by thread: Re: flowing ev - I've been converted.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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