Thu Jun 25 16:29:01 CDT 2009
If I were debating in the present, I would downsize my tubs and have a high
percent of my files paperless. Whether to expect others to do so is a
Thus, while I agree with Tripp and Jennings that this suggestion is a form
of middle ground, I might have missed the post about why squads who aren't
yet planning to move to paperless NEED to make moves to 'meet in the
middle'. Are there advocates of paperless making arguments that other squads
have an affirmative duty (not merely an invitation) to follow the trend?
p.s. I think it's fine to request that judges be supportive of paperless and
not backlash. I'm asking instead if paperless advocates feel that actually
transitioning to paperless is some sort of a duty or expectation.
On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Tripp Rebrovick <trebrovick at comcast.net>wrote:
> I want to echo what Jennings said:
> I would never be able to read cards off of a computer effectively (for
> example, I can't even imagine giving a 2ac against 9 off on a computer when
> the decision of what cards to read and how many is made on the fly), but
> just printing out the speech before you start seems completely easy.
> For each tournament, a team would need: a) one printer, b) no more than one
> ream of paper, c) maybe one small expando to put a 1ac and some 1nc shells
> (stuff that would be printed out several times anyway). That's about it.
> It seems like a perfectly reasonable middle ground, and solves the biggest
> "in-round" debate concerns like the one's Jennings' mentioned (marking
> evidence, cross-x about un-underlined parts of the card, and it also
> prevents teams from looking ahead) but it ALSO solves the problem of a major
> meltdown of the computer *during *the speech.
> Also: there is no need for a viewing computer (and that money could be
> saved to buy the printer), and, perhaps, only one computer would be needed
> per team, if that was necessary. Sure, sometimes both partners might really
> need the computer, but that seems true of files anyway, and obviously it
> would be a team preference.
> Sure it's not entirely paperless, but it's a pretty big step.
> My thoughts,
> On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Jennings, Andrew Joseph <ajhawk2 at ku.edu>wrote:
>> I always wondered why teams who were reluctant to switch couldn't just
>> print off what they were going to read prior to their speech. It solves the
>> whole marking cards problem and makse sure no dinglehead would cheat and
>> look at a new advantage before the other team read it. Obvi teams could
>> still just read it off the computer if they wanted to- maybe just a way to
>> get other teams on board for this.
>> eDebate mailing list
>> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman