[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Random Thoughts on Reading Evidence
On Mon, 4 Dec 1995, Stefan Andre Bauschard wrote:
> I don't think it is bad to read evidence
> 1) All of the debaters have had a visual reading of the critical cards
> in the round - why shouldn't the judge?
If the other team had to visually scan the evidence in cross-ex or prep,
that would indicate that they are making up for not having heard it when
read. Well, they may have been conferring with their partner, or pulling
cards, or flowing their response to the previous point. Why would the
JUDGE be doing something else when the card is read into the round?
> 2) Saying you won't read a card unless debaters say it is bad encourages
> debaters to say things like "those ten cards they read don't support
> their argument, read them.."
That is not an argument on the part of the debater, but an abdication of
the burden to argue. THey should be giving a reason for their claim that
the card and the tag don't match. Something like "1AR extended the Moore
card as saying '10% of all mortality,' but the card actually said '10% of
all excess and unaccounted-for mortality,' which means it is merely 10%
of SOME UNKNOWN PERCENTAGE of all mortality. Thus no significance." If
the judge caught this distinction when the card was read, there is no
need to look at the ev after the round. Otherwise, the judge can glance
to confirm which representation was accurate, perhaps. But if judges
salivate each time the "read their card" bell goes off, they are giving
in to the temptation to make specific evidence indictments that the
debaters could not or would not do.
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page