<< Hmm, when I judged debate, I was specifically required to not judge the debators against what I knew. For example, if I knew of data that falsified one of the affirmatives key points, and the negative did not bring it up, then the affirmative won that point.
<<After you brought the data up, if I were to continue the debate, I certainly would need to acknowledge the data or let you score points. <<Now, a good debator would know the counter arguements and the data that support them and be ready to discuss them in detail. But, I don't think most debators bring up the minuses for their position. >> I wasn't thinking in terms of formal debate teams, which I never participated in. I had in mind something closer to the model of academic writing (for example), which *does* require that you acknowledge evidence that does not support your thesis. One of the signs of a hack writer or a tub-thumper is ignoring or, worse, suppressing contradictory evidence. Tom Beck "I always knew I'd see the first man on the Moon. I didn't realize I'd also see the last." - Jerry Pournelle
