[eDebate] questions about evidence

Richard A. Garner richardgarner
Tue May 12 14:35:53 CDT 2009


1. People should indict evidence more, and good debaters who do it well are
often rewarded. Yes it's hard, but ... debate. If you can beat a card with
two words ("blog comment"), that's a model of efficiency.

2. None of these speak to the question of deception/intent/fabrication. As
long as this information is foregrounded, you can cut cards from anything
published. People read the Bearden card all the time, as it were. Another
example, related to #1: people read cards from the Wake Forest camp handbook
all the time, too (and those cards are much better than Bearden, by the
way), and because we know what their purpose is and from what context they
come, we can make judgments ourselves.

Answers below:

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Halli Tripe <hallitripe at gmail.com> wrote:

> is it ok to cut cards from the comments section of an article?  if so,
> how do you cite those cards?  the name of the website or publication?
> the 'name' of the commenter?
>

Yes, but why would you?

is it ok to find cards in another language, put them through a
> translator, and then read them (in english) during the round?


Interesting question. My ultimate answer: yes, but evidence indicts
regarding translation would be dispositive in interpreting the evidence, so
again: why would you? All someone has to say is: "How do you know that it
translated all the negatives correctly?"


> is it ok to remove large sections of an article and make some sort of
> notation like "she continues.." in the middle of the card?


Yes, and this is a community norm and has been for years. But not so that
the intent of the card changes (and obviously not such that the integrity of
paragraphs are compromised).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090512/65ad2e69/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list