Re: A Tag-Flowing Hypothetical Question

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

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.
> 
> 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.

This can get into some fuzzy areas concerning new arguments/new cross-apps
in rebuttals (if the card was read in 1AC and then ignored, at least to
this aspect, in 2AC and 1AR), as well as a possible tangent on whether
evidence MAKES arguments or simply SUPPORTS arguments. 

But on a general level, this is a good example of why both debaters and 
judges should listen to the tag (for organizational and cueing value) and 
then flow the actual gist of what the card says.

---

References:

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

---

• Prev by Date: Lsat and ceda-l
• Next by Date: Re: Random Thoughts on Reading Evidence
• Prev by thread: Re: A Tag-Flowing Hypothetical Question
• Next by thread: flowing ev.....
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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