[eDebate] 5 point font: pffft

tcram tcram
Fri May 15 13:04:38 CDT 2009

Yea, we definitely shouldn't allow a practice that saves a tub worth of space per team even by mid-semester.  Because it doesn't cost 50 dollars each way to fly a tub these days.  And no squads try to travel multiple teams.  And its definitely not true that some squads are so regionally distant that they have to fly to ever major national.  Nor are there multiple tournaments in a year.  And its definitely not true that costs for everything from food to hotels and gas have risen astronomically; it's never been a cheaper time to be alive!  The costs simply don't add up.  That was my bad.

On second thought, resource-strapped teams should incur greater costs (sometimes on the order of a couple thousand dollars over the course of a year) because 5 point font makes 3 judges in the community grumpy?  That all strikes me as kind of stupid.  Maybe I never accessed this glorious realm of 'god debate' that you speak of, but it seems that biggest contributor to debate itself is the ability of 'dollars' to transport 'debaters' to 'tournaments' so that they may 'debate.'  If the choice is between more kids speaking to judges at more tournaments or letting you pursue the realm of transcendent truth through context clues, I pick the former.

But I'm obviously a miserable cheater trying to cover my ass, so I should obviously be disregarded.

-----Original Message-----
From: edebate-bounces at www.ndtceda.com on behalf of Jason Russell
Sent: Fri 5/15/2009 8:57 AM
To: edebate at ndtceda.com
Subject: [eDebate] 5 point font: pffft
The lady doth protest too much. Of course 5 point font is meant to save that
1/10th of a piece of paper, but it simultaneously serves the purpose of
making large parts of evidence unreadable for context. The academic analogy
does not hold because professors/other academics have as much time as they'd
like to judge the veracity of your ellipsed work, but debaters in a debate
round, and even judges, do not. The rest of the "arguments" about this
proposition amount to mocking the "logical conclusions" of regulating font
sizes; I don't see how these hilarious jokes do anything to aid the
conversation about the importance of open context. For the most part,
ellipsing evidence, cutting single sentences out of paragraphs or sections
from paragraphs, or otherwise removing evidence from its logical minimum
context is considered anathema to god debate. I'm not sure why we consider
the practice of making the context wholly unreadable to at least portions of
the community ok. 5 point font looks essentially like a solid line to me. I
could decipher it as a judge; I'd never have the time as a debater. Reducing
un-underlined portions of cards for your ease in file size management should
give way to the greater goal of debate fairness and education. Over the
course of the year, using 8 point vs 5 point font would add, what, 100 pages
to your files? C'mon.


More information about the Mailman mailing list