[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
subscribe CEDA-L Re: flowing ev.....
On Mon, 4 Dec 1995 Pacedebate@aol.com wrote:
>
> You could try it but what you would be in big trouble when they said 'Wow
> they read 80 cards. They all suck. Compare my one piece of evidence it is
> better than all of their's.'
That is your idea of an indict of evidence? This is your way to evaluate
a round? I know that your idea of debate stresses non-intervention but
you are an evaluator of evidence as well. What happens when the team that
has been so thoroughly indicted says "I know you are but what am
I"...does this answer the indict?
I stress that I don't mean this in anyway to be harsh but it is just
interesting to me how your view has been taken to the extreme. Do you
look at the evidence if the argument that "these cards suck" is dropped?
To do so would be to violate your own judging style.
What do you do if "I know you are but what am I" is dropped? It just
seems to me that judges have an obligation to weigh the merits of
claims. I don't understand how you would be able to do that effectively
in the system that you create.
Greg
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page