Re: A Tag-Flowing Hypothetical Question

["Jason A. Nordwick" <nordwick@uclink2.berkeley.edu>]

> 
> 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.
> 

well first of all, ws the extraction of the analysis done in the block? 
(i am assuming that team B affirmative).  if not then it is a new
argument.

if the extraction was made in the block, after the initial 1nc reading, 
then team B just made a mistake.

---

References:

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

---

• Prev by Date: flowing ev - I've been converted.
• Next by Date: serious, controversial issues
• Prev by thread: Re: 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