A new question regarding evidence.
Fri Feb 20 11:02:08 CST 1998
On Fri, 20 Feb 1998, Scott Luchetti wrote:
> That would make sense in most situations, however, in this case, I had cut
> the above part of the article as another card, which discusses the Iraq
> situation as a reason Russia would not ratify START II.
It's called a PHOTOCOPIER. Copy the other card so you can use
the top paragraph as a separate card when you wish.
> I guess I cold
> just refer back to that card to establish context, but what if that card
> acts as a double turn somewhere else in the round (I' can't think of a good
> example now). The article mentions two separate reasons why Russia might
> not ratify START II, so I don't think it would be unethical to read the
> card that benefits my arguement and not read the one that hurts me, meaning
> the only way to establish context would be to put the bracketed words in
> the card.
Then the card is not really as good as you think it is now is
it. You can't make the ev say something that it doesn't without treading
on ethincally unstable ground. Do more research to find the ev to
support your DA idea. If no ev exists to support it in the way you want,
then don't run the DA!
Frome the "Long-card" school
More information about the Mailman