[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Mr. Hopper, tell us about evidence...
Since we are involved in this discussion about presentation of evidence, I
was wondering if you could give us a comparison of how evidence is used in
CEDA vs. NDT.
Maxwell Schnurer has said that flowing, analyzing, and indicting evidence
seems to be more important in NDT.
Melissa Wade indicated to me that in NDT they use evidence in more complex
ways. For example, in CEDA you will have a simple argumentative building
block approach (simple tag line, card follows to support it, on to next
argumentative step, etc.), while in NDT evidence will function more as a
way to establish complex ideas and cards often have more than one
argumentative step in them. I hope I'm explaining this right.
Your opinion would be appreciated, since I understand you are now debating
in NDT.
Alfred C. Snider AKA Tuna
Edwin W. Lawrence Professor of Forensics, University of Vermont
Mail: Box 54225, UVM, Burlington, VT 05405-4225
Phone: 802-656-0097, Fax: 802-656-4275
DEBATE CENTRAL:
http://beluga.uvm.edu/debatecentral/dc.html
gopher://beluga.uvm.edu
LAWRENCE DEBATE UNION:
http://beluga.uvm.edu/debatecentral/ldu.html
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page