[eDebate] Totally Tangential Reply To Branson (resend)
Tue Mar 6 15:50:20 CST 2007
It seems completely arbitrary and inconsistent to say on the one hand that
judges should not consider contextual claims in evidence that is presented
to them (but not read), while on the other hand saying judges should
consider things like source and author quality (which also are frequently
not read in debates).
If author qualifications and souce quality convey some valuable meaning that
should be extracted by the judges and used to evaluate competing arguments,
then why doesn't context?
My point is not that we should allow teams to assert the bare bones of
evidence and give them credit for reading all of it. My point is that
intervention begets more intervention. You can't distinguish one act from
the other. If an argument about author qualification isn't in the debate, it
shouldn't be in your decision calculous. Just like an unread warrant should
not enter into your decision. Read the context of the evidence to give
the teams tips on how the evidence could be more persuasively argued or
indicted, or point out highly (un)qualified evidence to both teams in the
post-round discussion. But leave those arguments for the debaters to make
When judges in the community start deciding what counts as a valid evidence
source, I can easily see evidence from the heritage foundation being lumped
in with the bloggers as lacking credibility. It is an invitation to judges
to enforce their political bias with the ballot.
Do subjective decisions get handed down all the time? Yes. Is true
objectivity impossible to achieve? Yes. Does that mean we should abandon our
attempts to be objective and revel in our subjectivity? No.
Mortgage rates as low as 4.625% - Refinance $150,000 loan for $579 a month.
More information about the Mailman