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

Re: your mail

	Yup.  And when Mahoney decides that this utterance actually makes 
some sort of sense, then *he's* becoming an active participant in the 
round.  There is no way to avoid becoming an active participant in the 
round.  If anyone out there has actually been reading all my posts, then, 
to that person I am surely beginning to sound like a broken record: there 
is no such thing as "less intervention" or "more intervention."  Every 
judge inevitably always intervenes, and to an equal degree.  It's just 
that some judges understand better than others what the debaters' 
utterances actually mean.

> If the argument-or statement even-is that shallow, it should certainly 
> be very simple for the aff to answer. I DID NOT see the round-so I am 
> going completely off of the L discussion, but it seems that the aff is
> completely non-responsive. THEY should be making Garmon's arguments, not
> the critic. The decision to do so marginalizes negative discourse.

	Mahoney's account of the meaning of neg's utterance goes well 
beyond anything neg actually said.  It should have been very simple for 
the neg to provide that explanation.  NEG should be making Mahoney's 
arguments, not the critic.  By doing it for them, Mahoney has 
marginalized discourse just as much as Garmon has. 
 
> I, as a debater, would be extremely unhappy (maybe pissed is the right word)
> if I am going for a clean dropped voter in 2NR-regardless of the level of
> analysis on the initial argument-and it is ignored because it doesn't
> meet some mystical level of analysis that I could have no way of knowing.

	I feel fairly confident that the process of "going for" a clean 
dropped voter will entail just a tad more explanation than has been 
attributed to the neg on this L discussion.

> I am not backseat judging-I wasn't in the round, and it sounds like a 
> tough call.  I do, however, disagree immensely with Garmon's path to
> her decision. A debater can't drop arguments labelled voters, just like 
> you can't drop arguments labelled turns, regardless of how easily dismissed
> they may be.

	As I recall, the neg utterance is question was something like,
"Aff saying the word 'perm' dejustifies the resolution, so we win."

Is that an argument?  Is that labelling it a voter?  I agree that 
"debaters can't drop arguments labelled voters" but if you think the 
utterance in question is either, then you are intervening an awful lot -- 
imposing a tremendous amount of meaning.

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