[eDebate] questions about evidence

Halli Tripe hallitripe
Tue May 12 15:05:13 CDT 2009

just to be clear ..... i am in NO WAY saying that these are analogous
to the skarb situation.  not even close.

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Richard A. Garner
<richardgarner at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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).

More information about the Mailman mailing list