jumping off critiques

[CHWISE@honors.uoregon.edu]

well i'm glad all that got cleared up.  the intent of my original
post was to use Bill's arguments as support for how Lacey and I
argued our case, not to "swipe" at Bill's opinions on Topicality.

the point of my second post was to say that ground should be the
issue for determining topical re-interpretations of the resolution,
or whether or not we are on the chess board.  i would agree that we
just cannot argue anything because it is salient or an alternative
interpretation, just that presumption so often works in favor of
standard interpreations of topicality, even when you offer
justifications for your alternative.

so we do concur that one should listen in a non-biased fashion, which
would give the affirmative some leeway (as long as they defend their
interpretation) for running a critique on the affirmative.

that concludes my thoughts on the thread as well

christina wise

---

• Prev by Date: Reviving Dropped Arguments
• Next by Date: Re: results
• Prev by thread: Reviving Dropped Arguments
• Next by thread: FW: GOPHER> Latest Press Release from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (fwd)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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