[eDebate] 5 point font abuse

Josh jbhdb8
Thu May 14 15:18:51 CDT 2009


Hey Will,

As funny as this is, it totally begs the question.  Read a ten word card,
read a 50 word card, debaters and judges should be able to read the context
around what you highlight.  I am not sure what argument you make here that
suggests that a bad idea?

I cannot tell you the 100s of times I have looked up evidence - read all the
miniature font expanded around the words that are highlighted - and realize
there are like 100 arguments against the cards that I would NEVER have seen
but for making the font normal.

What argument do you have for this practice?

Hope you are well, nukes should be fun!

Josh

On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 3:46 PM, <repkowil at msu.edu> wrote:

> The real probem is that we "cut" evidence at all.
>
> Unless all plausible context is provided, we should safely assume that
> parties must be cheating -- especially Minnesota.
>
> >From this point forward, each card read should:
>
> a) include the entire book or novelette in Abelkopian 22 point font.
>
> Teams are required to enter all of this into the record of the debate. Each
> card should be a minimum of 9 pages long -- if the article happens to be
> shorter than that, a larger font size will be permitted to fulfill the 9
> page requirement (which is an important requirement).
>
> b) include all articles ever written by said author
>
> ... again... for the sake complete context. The more irrelevant information
> provided (in large font) we provide, the easier it will be for the negative
> to sort through in their 10 minutes of prep time.
>
> c) include a sworn affidavit from the author that they have reviewed your
> 2AC block and agree with it.
>
> ... the author you consult may or may not be a real person... that is
> optional at this time... This may be changed at the (evil) Wake Forest
> Summer Conference.
>
> Remedies involve a sliding scale:
>
> a) 7 point font -- rapid beheading of the 2A and-or 2N. Either one --
> deterrence.
> b) 6 point font -- violating parties will be forced to read all edebate
> posts
> c) 5 point font -- stoning (large stones only -- for visual uniformity)
> d) excerpting in context with citation footnoted -- formal accusations that
> the offending party is engaging in practice that too closely resembles every
> academic paper ever written.
>
> small font = irritating... fair enough... It can be discussed and
> improved...
>
> ...cheating ?... I think the author may have joking... but, if not, let's
> back it up like Percy...
>
> -- Will
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/a87c15d5/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list