Drawing a contrary conclusion from passages accurately interpreted does not constitute misrepresentation.
- The electronic files to which other debaters would be denied access are not published. However, files and documents which other debaters may access, even if they have no subscribe to a commercial service to do so, satisfy the publication rule.
- The advent of the Internet has created a new form of publication – electronic documents like this e-medinews. Electronic documents are accepted as published if they are accessible by the general public.
- The portion of a document read as evidence cannot be taken out of context. When a document is cut in a manner which lends the quoted passage a meaning other than what would be derived from a more complete reading, you are misrepresenting the document. This does not mean, however, that you are responsible for drawing the same conclusions from information as the author of the document.
- One paragraph or even one part of a paragraph may be all that is necessary to substantiate the point a doctor want to make in a court room. Reading the remainder of the document, even if it establishes a context for the evidence, is unnecessary and time consuming. The document must potentially be available to any debater researching the topic or lawyer/interested party of cross examination side
- Drawing a contrary conclusion from passages accurately interpreted does not constitute misrepresentation. The fact that the author of the document reached a different conclusion from the information argues – perhaps persuasively – against your conclusion. However, you have not misused the evidence.
- Read the used evidence literature verbatim in the court of law. Documents must be presented in the words of the author. When you paraphrase evidence, you argue in a circle. A document obviously will seem to support your point if you are allowed to read into the record only what you think it says.
No comments:
Post a Comment