homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Fri Feb 23, 2018 3:29 pm
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Goal Criterion cases
PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 3:22 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2010 8:32 pm
Posts: 3
Home Schooled: Yes
I am new to doing Goal Criterion cases. How would you guys say that they should be run?
thanks


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Goal Criterion cases
PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 3:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2889
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
All you do is add a criterion saying what should and shouldn't be considered.

And then you focus all of your arguments around that.

But in general, I would not run one-- it limits the debate round unfairly to the negative, and a sharp negative will kill it.

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Goal Criterion cases
PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 3:30 am 
Offline
A bribe? A BRIBE? Psh. Try again.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 2:27 am
Posts: 485
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: My avatar is best appreciated in a new window. Yeah... Joseph? :P
Anthony speaks words of truth.

Plus. If you are running your CFL's case still... don't use goals criterion. A comp ad or Justifications style case would work much better.

_________________
Marshall Yaklin
Region IV !!!


¶█╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬0=0█|]{████████████████████████████████████████████)


FRANK wrote:
No, don't call him plumpy'man, call him
McSqueak/Pipsey
or McFreak/Tipsey


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Goal Criterion cases
PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 3:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 9:26 pm
Posts: 928
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Wisconsin - R6 Alum
Only in LD ;)

[Seriously now] If you're going to run one, have a reason for your goal/criterion, and be willing to defend it, rather than just accepting net-benefits when the negative offers it as a counter criterion. If you can do that, the structure provides you with a solid foundation for impact calculus, and a means to turn it in your favor. If you're doing it hoping that people will miss it, and then you can bring it up in the rebuttals to spike out of DA's, well, forget it.

If you're going neg against one, either see if you have disads that turn the criterion against the aff, or propose a counter-criterion that better matches your DA's. Of course, you're going to have to defend that, too. Or you could just take the simple approach and argue that net-benefits is the fairest way to weigh the round. (Personally, I'd like to see goal/criterion clash in policy debate sometimes, but I understand that most people aren't willing to do it. Oh well.)

(BTW, doesn't this fit better in debate strategy?)

_________________
~Joshua
But there is one thing that is infinitely more absurd and unpractical than burning a man for his philosophy.
This is the habit of saying that his philosophy does not matter.
~G.K. Chesteron, Heretics


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Goal Criterion cases
PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:23 am
Posts: 1300
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning
Joshua speaks words of truth :)

_________________
Middlebury Class of '15


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Goal Criterion cases
PostPosted: Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:22 am
Posts: 374
Home Schooled: Yes
I would definitely run a comp ad case over a goals criterion case.

_________________
"Apply yourself both now and in the next life. Without effort, you cannot be prosperous. Though the land be good, You cannot have an abundant crop without cultivation." - Plato


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Goal Criterion cases
PostPosted: Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
randomboy96 wrote:
I would definitely run a comp ad case over a goals criterion case.

But, of course, sometimes comp/ad doesn't really work. One of my students sent me a case as a comp/ad and my first comment was to make it a g/c. It didn't work as a comp/ad, since it was ideologically driven.

However, in general, comp/ad is preferrable. It's easier to win, since you don't actually have to solve anything.

_________________
-Bryan
Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

Google it, we're the second link that pops up. We're pretty proud of that.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Goal Criterion cases
PostPosted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:43 pm 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
DB8R0X wrote:
Anthony speaks words of truth.

Plus. If you are running your CFL's case still... don't use goals criterion. A comp ad or Justifications style case would work much better.

Justifications stlye pwns. Just sayin.

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Goal Criterion cases
PostPosted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 10:51 pm 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2955
Home Schooled: Yes
thehomeschooler wrote:
Justifications stlye pwns. Just sayin.
Like this?

Intro
Background/Inherency
Plan
Justification 1
Justification 2
Justification 3
Justification 4
etc.

It pwns. Just sayin. :)

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Goal Criterion cases
PostPosted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 11:04 pm 
Offline
The Great White Sharc
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:58 pm
Posts: 4769
Home Schooled: Yes
That's not really a style of case, it's just removing debate terminology.

_________________
Marc Davis

I currently help coach at TACT in Region X.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Goal Criterion cases
PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 4:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 11:02 pm
Posts: 510
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Is that really any of your business? Why else do you need to know?
Uggh. I can't stand goals/criterion. I like the basic harms/advs case. Under a parametric view, a g/c case could be non T but claimed to be T. Do you all track?

_________________
Olivia de la Pena
Mark 8:36
Region IX ROX!

God's Gorgeous Princess

lucky13 wrote:
boys are gross!


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Goal Criterion cases
PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 4:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:05 pm
Posts: 208
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The state of maryland, and sometimes the state of confusion.
No. :P Please explain. Why could a g/c be non-T? :?


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Goal Criterion cases
PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 4:33 pm 
Offline
T-Rothasaurus
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:48 am
Posts: 3114
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Washington
EliasG. wrote:
No. :P Please explain. Why could a g/c be non-T? :?

You run a goal of "Improved Public Health" (a non-topical goal) with a case of Repealing the Grandfathering loophole. (An apparently topical case) but you don't have to have to win any of your Environmental arguments to win the round. (I think that's what she's talking about)

_________________
"The north remembers, Lord Davos. The north remembers, and the mummer's farce is almost done." - Wyman Manderly


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Goal Criterion cases
PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 4:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:05 pm
Posts: 208
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The state of maryland, and sometimes the state of confusion.
And... what's the problem? It's an environmental policy and that's what the affirmative team is supposed be reforming. I really don't see the problem.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Goal Criterion cases
PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 7:58 pm 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2955
Home Schooled: Yes
A goal isn't topical or non-topical; the plan text itself is topical or non-topical.

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Goal Criterion cases
PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 11:02 pm
Posts: 510
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Is that really any of your business? Why else do you need to know?
David Roth wrote:
EliasG. wrote:
No. :P Please explain. Why could a g/c be non-T? :?

You run a goal of "Improved Public Health" (a non-topical goal) with a case of Repealing the Grandfathering loophole. (An apparently topical case) but you don't have to have to win any of your Environmental arguments to win the round. (I think that's what she's talking about)


Yesh, that's what I was saying.

Halogen wrote:
A goal isn't topical or non-topical; the plan text itself is topical or non-topical.


I know that. You can have a goal that makes the case topical when it isn't.

_________________
Olivia de la Pena
Mark 8:36
Region IX ROX!

God's Gorgeous Princess

lucky13 wrote:
boys are gross!


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Goal Criterion cases
PostPosted: Sat Jul 03, 2010 10:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:05 pm
Posts: 208
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The state of maryland, and sometimes the state of confusion.
run_with_God wrote:
I know that. You can have a goal that makes the case topical when it isn't.

Um... no? Can you please give an example?


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Goal Criterion cases
PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 7:15 pm 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
Halogen wrote:
thehomeschooler wrote:
Justifications stlye pwns. Just sayin.
Like this?

Intro
Background/Inherency
Plan
Justification 1
Justification 2
Justification 3
Justification 4
etc.

It pwns. Just sayin. :)

Yup. That's how I write my 1ACs now :) (unless it really doesn't work). It works amazingly well for the PNTR/Jackson-Vanik Graduation case :D

013 wrote:
That's not really a style of case, it's just removing debate terminology.

Actually, it's different in how it groups harms and solvency together. It basically does harm 1, then harm 1 solvency, then harm 2, then harm 2 solvency, etc. At least, that's what it usually does. I've heard some judges say that it's also a little easier to understand/follow :)

David Roth wrote:
You run a goal of "Improved Public Health" (a non-topical goal) with a case of Repealing the Grandfathering loophole. (An apparently topical case) but you don't have to have to win any of your Environmental arguments to win the round. (I think that's what she's talking about)

That has absolutely nothing to do with Topicality. I hate it when people say your advantages/justifications have to deal with the resolution -- rather than your plan text. I lost a round on that (which decided whether I broke at regionals), and it really ticked me off.

Just to clarify something: WHATEVER YOU DISCUSS IN THE ROUND (as aff) DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE RESOLUTION. The actual plan text is the only thing that has to fall under the rez. Why? Because rez states that aff must affirm that X must do Y. Once you do that (in the plan text), you are topical, and your reasons for X doing Y can be anything you want.

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Goal Criterion cases
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 11:02 pm
Posts: 510
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Is that really any of your business? Why else do you need to know?
thehomeschooler wrote:
Halogen wrote:
thehomeschooler wrote:
Justifications stlye pwns. Just sayin.
Like this?

Intro
Background/Inherency
Plan
Justification 1
Justification 2
Justification 3
Justification 4
etc.

It pwns. Just sayin. :)

Yup. That's how I write my 1ACs now :) (unless it really doesn't work). It works amazingly well for the PNTR/Jackson-Vanik Graduation case :D

013 wrote:
That's not really a style of case, it's just removing debate terminology.

Actually, it's different in how it groups harms and solvency together. It basically does harm 1, then harm 1 solvency, then harm 2, then harm 2 solvency, etc. At least, that's what it usually does. I've heard some judges say that it's also a little easier to understand/follow :)

David Roth wrote:
You run a goal of "Improved Public Health" (a non-topical goal) with a case of Repealing the Grandfathering loophole. (An apparently topical case) but you don't have to have to win any of your Environmental arguments to win the round. (I think that's what she's talking about)

That has absolutely nothing to do with Topicality. I hate it when people say your advantages/justifications have to deal with the resolution -- rather than your plan text. I lost a round on that (which decided whether I broke at regionals), and it really ticked me off.

Just to clarify something: WHATEVER YOU DISCUSS IN THE ROUND (as aff) DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE RESOLUTION. The actual plan text is the only thing that has to fall under the rez. Why? Because rez states that aff must affirm that X must do Y. Once you do that (in the plan text), you are topical, and your reasons for X doing Y can be anything you want.


The problem with a justifications case is that it's not completely laid out well. It seems very piecemeal. We formatted our case as a justifications and we did better with the harms/advs. It naturally makes more sense in the judge's mind than a justifications. It's easier for neg to refute justifications cases.

_________________
Olivia de la Pena
Mark 8:36
Region IX ROX!

God's Gorgeous Princess

lucky13 wrote:
boys are gross!


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Goal Criterion cases
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 12:36 am 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
run_with_God wrote:
The problem with a justifications case is that it's not completely laid out well. It seems very piecemeal. We formatted our case as a justifications and we did better with the harms/advs. It naturally makes more sense in the judge's mind than a justifications.

I would beg to differ on that point. You can keep the judge captivated by quickly presenting the background and the plan, and then answer the questions that pop into his/her head by giving him/her reasons to adopt that plan. In my opinion, it's a lot more simple -- which makes it even easier for a judge to understand. There are just a ton of reasons to prefer a good justification-format case. Granted, not all cases work with this format, but for the ones that do it works really well.

::EDIT:: In addition, I think justification style is more logical. Think of it this way: In the background section, it presents the current system, and the failure with that system (while not going into a lot of detail on the impacts of the failure). Next, it presents a plan to address the failure. Then, it justifies the plan. If the justifications are laid out well, the case flows very logically -- and the justifications can be used to spike out/turn negative arguments. At the end, the judge has the whole picture laid out very nicely.

run_with_God wrote:
It's easier for neg to refute justifications cases.

Mmmmm, possibly. That may be because they're simpler. However, justification cases are easier to defend as well. They keep the round narrow and focused -- which makes points easy to address. Take it from someone who debated a justification-style case all year and only lost one aff (with the partner he went to nats with).

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited