[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Maxwell's spewing comment
>That's an interesting point but to tell the truth it seems to me that
>taking out weak links is not enough to win versus spewing. It would
>seem that the sheer weight of information that the judge feels they
>win 'on balance'. (Mike Marshall)
Micheal...I agree with you to an extent...however most of the reason debaters who spew
win is because the other team is unable to understand the arguments that the other team
is making and therefore don't respond properly to them, or else there is one good
argument among the many trivial ones and the opposing team misses it among the rubble.
Although I'm not immune to feeling disgruntled about loosing to such a team, I know
enough about what my future career will entails to take the losses with a grain of salt. As
one lay judge (a lawyer) commented at I.U.P.U.I.'s tournament a few weeks ago...if I did
[what the spew team she had just heard did] that in a courtroom I would be laughed right
out of it both by the judges and the jury. For me, at least, spewing and therefore winning
in some sense would be extremely detrimental, it just doesn't serve any purpose outside
of the debate atmosphere.
Kristina
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page