[eDebate] Maybe judges should intervene

Josh Hoe jbhdb8
Tue Mar 6 16:40:20 CST 2007


My permutation to this is to intervene in the sense that you can compare a
MORE true logic argument to take out an EVIDENCED quack.  Or you can
consider unqualified evidence inferior to qualified evidence.  But I agree
with the intervention and political bent are inevitable part,

Josh


On 3/6/07, scottelliott at grandecom.net <scottelliott at grandecom.net> wrote:
>
> Maybe judges should intervene. Intervention occurs in every round at some
> level.
> The judge has to intervene.The question is to what extent. Politcal bias,
> no.
> But as an educator in argumentation, I suggest that judges should
> intervene to
> not vote for questionable evidence. Especially in the age when anyone can
> write
> anything on a blog, it is imperative that judges dismiss "evidence" from
> blogs,
> when the opposing side says "this evidence sucks, look at it"  The side
> advocating the evidence should have the burden to demonstrate that the
> source
> has some level of credibility. What level is situational determined.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20070306/2007348d/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list