Re: flowing evidence etc.

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

On Wed, 6 Dec 1995, Maxwell D. Schnurer wrote:

> They tried this in Vermont HighSchool debate recently and it 
> has been a dismal failure.  the Varsity debates got worse (assertions and 
> guesses about evident abound, but little analysis about the actual cards 
> exist BECAUSE THEY CANT SEE THEM)

So WHY WASTE TIME READING THEM ALOUD??

Your point seems to be that some high school debaters in Vermont had 
problems either (a) reading evidence in a way that the content can be 
understood by listeners (without the remedial step of handing them the 
evidence later) or (b) listening to and comprehending evidence as it is 
read.  Maybe so.  But I believe that there is hope for these people.  
They can learn; they can improve.

---

Follow-Ups:

• Re: flowing evidence etc.
• From: Aaron R Klemz <Aaron.R.Klemz-1@tc.umn.edu>
• Re: flowing evidence etc.
• From: "Maxwell D. Schnurer" <mschnure@moose.uvm.edu>

References:

• Re: flowing evidence etc.
• From: "Maxwell D. Schnurer" <mschnure@moose.uvm.edu>

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Debaters as Judges
• Next by Date: synthesis
• Prev by thread: Re: flowing evidence etc.
• Next by thread: Re: flowing evidence etc.
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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