[eDebate] 5 point font

Richard A. Garner richardgarner
Thu May 14 12:24:07 CDT 2009


More moderate Russell/Kade:

1. In paragraph with underlined evidence: standard 8pt, minimum 6pt.
2. In paragraph without underlining: better small than not there at all.

I also think that this might be an age/ability issue. I have no problem
reading 4pt font ... if I need to, and thus would prefer that to nothing.
Debaters should be prepared to accommodate those who have trouble reading
smaller fonts.

I also wouldn't call it cheating, unless debaters were doing it
intentionally to make their cards look better at first glance. I haven't
come across too much of that, i.e., font reduction inconsistent with rest of
cards, etc.

RG

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Jason Russell <jasonlrussell1 at gmail.com>wrote:

> I'm with Kade. This is a functional ellipses. I came very close to adding
> to my philosophy last year that I would simply disregard any evidence using
> this tactic. It saves almost no space over 8-9 and intentionally obscures
> context. Stop cheating.
>
> J
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090514/3379f046/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list