Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'that'.
Found 2 results
... but it's been cut in a way antithetical to what the card actually says. Shame on you, Kentucky. Shame on you. (It's the 2NC AT: Perm card.) Kentucky-Bannister-Trufanov-Neg-Clay-Round3.docx
So, if you haven't listened to the latest episode of the debatercast you totally should. It's a really fascinating interview and Jeffrey Lewis is just the best. But I've been thinking about a part of the interview a lot since then. In the discussion Jeffrey Lewis is broadly negative towards politics disads and then discusses the winners win Norm Ornstein card, and mentions that Ornstein no longer believes that argument to be true. If that's correct, is it okay to keep reading the Ornstein card? My original thought was "of course" and that what the debater is defending is the argument (claim-warrant-impact) in the card and not the author. BUT that begs the question as to why read the card then? If the argument in it is good on its own merits the structure of the card is unnecessary _except_ if the debater is trying to add extra weight to the argument by using the authority of an expert's opinion. If that's true, and it's also known that the author now no longer believes in that argument, then reading for card from that author seems disingenuous at best and outright dishonest at worst. I think this would be an interesting discussion, and I'm curious what the rest of the community thinks about this.