[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
The End of my RVI chatter
1. I don't shut off RVIs or any other argument I understand because I
don't like it. Some arguments make more or less sense, of course, but I
don't find RVIs beyond argument. I defend judges that do, because I think
they have poor theoretical grounding (in most cases), and because most of
them just aren't developed. If a judge is unlikely to vote on "RVI:
Timesuck", it is quite fair that both teams know this when making time
decisions later in the round.
2. Ground is one topicality issue. It is NOT the only one, and it is a
means of comparing INTERPRETATIONS instead of directly deciding who wins.
Ground abuse is a reason to prefer one interpretation, which then affects
topicality. This is why ground abuse doesn't logically reverse into a
voting issue against negatives.
3. The 'judicial analogy' (substantive or procedural, not both) is absurd.
If you want the whole hoo-rah, write me & I'll backchannel it.
Ermo
Follow-Ups:
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page