[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: clipping cards

CLIPPING CARDS

First, understand what a warrant is.  It is not a rationale.  
Authority is a warrant for a claim.  If a card is short and 
conclusionary and you cannot decide how the claim was decided, then 
most often you are dealing with an authoritative warrant.  Indict the 
source for expertise on the claim.  Ethics aside.  This seems a 
prudent response.  Of all the terms we study, warrant may be the most 
elusive.

Second, it is incorrect to assume evidence which is "clipped" is 
unethical.  If unread portions dispute the claim made by the portion 
that is read, then you have a legitimate grievance.  Moreover, it is 
too easy to assert unethical behavior in this instance.  The 
foundational problem rests in the way debate uses evidence to prove a 
claim and authors use rhetoric to construct an argument.  Anecdote 
has so little probative value in debate that articles are not 
optimally written for debate use.  I don't see an easy way out of 
this.

Third, our community has grown lazy, very lazy.  Judges don't attempt 
to flow evidence.  They generally flow taglines.  Long cards allow 
them to catch up with what's going on.  In some instances, I have 
judged with people (not colleagues) who have played computer 
solitaire, watches television, played MAGIC, etc., while judging 
(sic) a debate.  I make an effort to flow evidence, and it's a lot of 
work. "Clipped" evidence is troublesome for many judges and debaters 
because flowing is a lost art.

BUT debates are so fast.  THEN slow them down.  If a judge cannot 
record a round, speak up.  If a judge can, but a competitor cannot, 
then make an argument about it or practice your flowing skills.  I 
ponder to think how many out rounds I judged with spectating debate 
students who weren't flowing the debate.  What a waste!

BETTER -- I learned this from a debater from Oberlin (72).  In a 
spread, distill it down to essential features, and argue the nexus of 
the debate.  She was right.  This is also a lost art.  Line by line 
is not always necessary.

PERSONAL NOTE - Tara, I understand your frustration.  Everyone 
experiences it.  When a debater reads part of a card and claims s/he 
did otherwise, make an issue about it.  Until the community shakes 
the beast into submission, I'm afraid we will have fast, blippy, 
debates.
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page