[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: least intervention
The #2 and #3 judges have, of course, failed in their
obligations. I think, however, that this failure is misnamed if it is
called "intervention." The failure is a failure to understand what #1
understands: the words tell us that neg wins on T.
Look. If you want to use "intervention" as just a short-hand way of
saying "the judge misinterpreted the meaning of something a debater
said", then, fine, "more" intervention can exist just insofar as a more
inaccurate interpretation can exist. But few people throwing around the
word "intervention" are using it that way. Instead of as a short-hand
way of pointing to the centrality of correctly understanding meaning,
most people use "intervention" to obscure the importance of correctly
understanding meaning.
Just remember, if you want to use "intervened" to be synonymous
with "misinterpreted," then your burden, if you want to accuse a judge of
intervening, is to show where the misinterpretation occurred. Some
people wave "intervention" around as if it were a way to indict judges
without shouldering that burden.
- Meredith Garmon / Fisk U.
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page