Skip to content
January 13, 2014 / compassioninpolitics

How should you deal with misrepresentations of evidence in debate?

The following is an answer to a question about a particular evidence challenge in a debate regarding “frog” and “species” evidence.

Here ya go……I’ve included a link to the original thread at the bottom.

“I can’t see this as a theory issue as Edgehopper point out above.

Its pretty unfair for you to infer their motive or the motive of the people who cut the cards definitively. All you realistically have is a hunch of some sort.
It “seems that they meant to do X or Y” seems much more appropriate.

I’m not sure we have the full context of the round, but more importantly WHY this distinction made a big difference. This seems like:
1) an overtag
2) a tag which is inferred from the evidence

For instance, its common to reason from example to a larger point. For instance “Hawaii historical/empirical solvency proves the US policy could solve too.”
Sometimes its a legitimate move, sometimes less so.

In fact, specifically about the future…..pretty much all you can do is infer:
1) infer that what they did last time, they will do again (or something pretty similar)
2) infer they will act like a rational actor
3) infer that they will continue doing what they are doing now.
There are just levels of credibility or confidence in those various inferences (and the probabilities thereof)

You could argue that 99% of hege debates are of this variety (or almost similar). You tradeoff with our hege in Asia–ergo the whole thing topples.

What I’m missing is how this evidence affected the debate. What difference would it have made?

When are ethics challenges legitimate? Or when might they be legitimate?
1) they leave out absolutely critical evidence un-underlined
2) they quote someone out of context–going the opposite way (this doesn’t include the “some opponents say X, Y, Z”–because they are arguably still making that argument–this certainly gets into a gray area)
But….realistically the best way to make these arguments work….is just to make that a reason to prefer your evidence or argument–not as an independent voter/theory argument.”

(link)

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: