homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Wed Nov 22, 2017 4:38 am
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.  [ 25 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:05 am 
Offline
melancholy milkshakes. no straws.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:31 pm
Posts: 3986
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Hinnom, TX
Flash of light wrote:
Danny wrote:
3. Can I respond to args my partner dropped?

I just want to respond to this, because it's something of a personal issue to me.

I'm disappointed that some people's replies to this are 'Yeah, you can usually get away with it'. New arguments or responses (which is what bringing up a dropped issue in the 2AR is) is abusive, and if an affirmative team did it while I was judging them, I would vote them down for that alone. 2AR abuse is very serious issue, and I feel that the NCFCA and Stoa are far too permissive about it, as far as the culture goes.

Addressing the arguments is better than concession. You have nothing to lose by addressing dropped arguments unless you get judged by someone is a big stickler about those kinds of things. That's why you ask for judging philosophies.

It's not abusive to address really dumb arguments or arguments that have really simple responses, like if they don't even apply to your case. Rather, I'd say it would be abusive to give Neg a win on an argument if it's a terrible argument simply because Aff dropped it. Judging should be based on a paradigm that answers the question "is Aff's plan a good idea or is it not?" If it is, despite dropped stupid arguments, Aff should win. SImply because Aff drops X argument doesn't make their plan a bad idea, unless it's a really important argument.

_________________
Joe Hughey
joehughey24@gmail.com

Two roads diverged in a wood and I -
I took the one less traveled
And that has made all the difference


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:19 am 
Offline
Hot Ta-Molly
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:19 am
Posts: 1325
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Steubenville, OH
Dropped arguments matter as much as their impact matters. If you drop a tiny significance argument saying your harm isn't as big as you claim, you shouldn't lose on that. Why? Because the benefits are still on your side. If you drop a 100% takeout solvency, you could or could not lose depending on the risk/disadvantages to your plan. If you drop a DA, especially one that could outweigh your whole case, prepare to die.

If you're aff, try not to drop arguments in your 1AR, or if you absolutely have to, drop arguments that should not affect you. If you're neg, and aff drops something in their 1AR, show why you win on that dropped argument. Point out aff had the burden of rebuttal to that argument, but since they dropped it, they have forfeited their response. Therefore, since omission is admission, and so agree with you, neg should win.

_________________
~Molly

"Isn't it bewildering…that everything is so beautiful, despite all the horrors that exist?" -Sophie Scholl

Life Posterz


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 1394
Home Schooled: Yes
lookingforangels wrote:
Flash of light wrote:
Danny wrote:
3. Can I respond to args my partner dropped?

I just want to respond to this, because it's something of a personal issue to me.

I'm disappointed that some people's replies to this are 'Yeah, you can usually get away with it'. New arguments or responses (which is what bringing up a dropped issue in the 2AR is) is abusive, and if an affirmative team did it while I was judging them, I would vote them down for that alone. 2AR abuse is very serious issue, and I feel that the NCFCA and Stoa are far too permissive about it, as far as the culture goes.

Addressing the arguments is better than concession. You have nothing to lose by addressing dropped arguments unless you get judged by someone is a big stickler about those kinds of things. That's why you ask for judging philosophies.

It's not abusive to address really dumb arguments or arguments that have really simple responses, like if they don't even apply to your case. Rather, I'd say it would be abusive to give Neg a win on an argument if it's a terrible argument simply because Aff dropped it. Judging should be based on a paradigm that answers the question "is Aff's plan a good idea or is it not?" If it is, despite dropped stupid arguments, Aff should win. SImply because Aff drops X argument doesn't make their plan a bad idea, unless it's a really important argument.


If they were dumb arguments, you probably should have responded to them earlier. Because, hey, a lot of arguments sound really dumb until the rebuttals. Then, suddenly, they sound really stellar ;)

_________________
Andrew Min
ahmin@princeton.edu
Arete Speech & Debate, NCFCA, Class of 2011


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:26 am 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2955
Home Schooled: Yes
Once an argument is conceded in the rebuttals, it becomes true. That doesn't make it important.

For example, if the 2NC runs a DA which lacks an impact, and the 1AR drops it, and the 2NR makes a big stink about how it was dropped, the 2AR can still say "we totally concede that we link to the DA, but that doesn't make our plan any worse of an idea because the DA has no impacts." If the 2NR tried to preempt a response like that, then the 2AR can just say "the DA was run in the 2NC, so if we in the 1AR pointed out its lack of impact, our opponents could not have argued a new impact in the 2NR, anyways. It doesn't matter that they don't have a 3NR."

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 12:32 am
Posts: 588
Home Schooled: Yes
I don't think neg should get an automatic win because the aff dropped arguments, but they should at least win those arguments. Thus, the significance of the drop depends on the significance of the argument.

It seems (to me) that the "rule" is there to prevent the 1AR from splitting up the arguments, addressing half of them, and telling the judge that his partner will address the other half (I've seen that happen before). That completely removes the neg's advantage in the block and undermines the neg's ability to truly debate the case. If the neg splits the block instead of shell and extending, you could end up with arguments brought up by the 2NC never getting an aff response until the 2AR. Don't even try to tell me that's good for debate. ;)

lookingforangels wrote:
Addressing the arguments is better than concession. You have nothing to lose by addressing dropped arguments unless you get judged by someone is a big stickler about those kinds of things. That's why you ask for judging philosophies.
I really disagree here, primarily because I know what it's like to be on the receiving end of such a strategy. My philosophy is 1) don't drop an argument in the first place, and 2) if you drop something, concede it and outweigh it. Thus, it helps to address the strongest stuff first (DA's, T, K's, other offense) so if you drop something it will be a defensive point that can be outweighed.

_________________
STRATFOR wrote:
Unlike the normal situation in civilized societies, there is no clear distinction in Russia between criminal enterprises and the government.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:21 pm
Posts: 806
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Running the opposite way
lookingforangels wrote:
Flash of light wrote:
Danny wrote:
3. Can I respond to args my partner dropped?

I just want to respond to this, because it's something of a personal issue to me.

I'm disappointed that some people's replies to this are 'Yeah, you can usually get away with it'. New arguments or responses (which is what bringing up a dropped issue in the 2AR is) is abusive, and if an affirmative team did it while I was judging them, I would vote them down for that alone. 2AR abuse is very serious issue, and I feel that the NCFCA and Stoa are far too permissive about it, as far as the culture goes.

Addressing the arguments is better than concession. You have nothing to lose by addressing dropped arguments unless you get judged by someone is a big stickler about those kinds of things. That's why you ask for judging philosophies.

It's not abusive to address really dumb arguments or arguments that have really simple responses, like if they don't even apply to your case. Rather, I'd say it would be abusive to give Neg a win on an argument if it's a terrible argument simply because Aff dropped it. Judging should be based on a paradigm that answers the question "is Aff's plan a good idea or is it not?" If it is, despite dropped stupid arguments, Aff should win. SImply because Aff drops X argument doesn't make their plan a bad idea, unless it's a really important argument.

I think it's really, really abusive to respond to dropped arguments in the 2AR. It doesn't matter if "you have nothing to lose." It's still not ok to wait until the 2AR, when the negative team cannot respond to your responses, to respond to an argument. I have seen aff's very deliberately not address an argument until the last speech. They'll give what sounds like a reasonable response, the judge buys it, and they win. Sure, you'll win rounds by addressing arguments for the first time in the 2AR, but I'd rather lose the round because I didn't address an argument then win a round because I made an argument that the negative team didn't even have a chance to respond to. Debate isn't about winning.

Also, you mentioned that it's ok to respond to "dumb" arguments or arguments that have "simple" responses. Who defines what's "dumb" and "simple"? Just because you think an argument is dumb doesn't mean that it is. I've won rounds on arguments that the affirmative team obviously thought were "dumb." I didn't think they were dumb and neither did the judge. Under your interpretation, there's no way to draw any sort of clear line.

Finally, the paradigm you mentioned is anything but ideal. Under that paradigm, the judge would be allowed to vote based off of personal experience or things he'd heard outside of a round, because he might no that the plan is or is not a good idea regardless of what was argued. I think judges should vote only on the arguments and responses brought up fairly in a round. I don't regard new responses in the last speech to be fair at all.

_________________
"Don't waste your life making yourself look good. Spend your life making God look good."
--John Piper


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 5:37 am
Posts: 767
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 2, Washington
Dropped arguments make me laugh.

Community judges could probably care less. If the opposing team dropped an argument that really kills your case and you pound them on that without really addressing their points, the judge isn't going to like that. They're practical. They won't go for who's winning the debate but rather what side they believe more, based on what has been said. Just take the time to address the argument, then point out it's dropped. But I would not go as far as to say that they can not bring it back up. (Unless it's the 2NR and you don't want them to bring it up in their 2AR.)

_________________
Potent Speaking: the only debate website exclusively dedicated to speaking tips. http://potentspeaking.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:44 pm 
Offline
melancholy milkshakes. no straws.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:31 pm
Posts: 3986
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Hinnom, TX
andrewmin wrote:
lookingforangels wrote:
If they were dumb arguments, you probably should have responded to them earlier. Because, hey, a lot of arguments sound really dumb until the rebuttals. Then, suddenly, they sound really stellar ;)

That is what I like to call of a perfect world scenario ;)

OppositeWay wrote:
I think it's really, really abusive to respond to dropped arguments in the 2AR. It doesn't matter if "you have nothing to lose." It's still not ok to wait until the 2AR, when the negative team cannot respond to your responses, to respond to an argument. I have seen aff's very deliberately not address an argument until the last speech. They'll give what sounds like a reasonable response, the judge buys it, and they win. Sure, you'll win rounds by addressing arguments for the first time in the 2AR, but I'd rather lose the round because I didn't address an argument then win a round because I made an argument that the negative team didn't even have a chance to respond to. Debate isn't about winning.

No, it's not. I would turn your statement around and say that forcing Aff to concede a terrible argument and then lose because of it should be considered more abusive. Debate should be judged not on dropped arguments, but based on a paradigm that if Aff's case is a good idea, it should win, and if it isn't it should lose. If X Neg dropped argument hardly even applies to the case or if it's a funding DA (ahhhhhhhhhh), then guess what. Aff's case is still better than the SQ and it should win.

OppositeWay wrote:
Also, you mentioned that it's ok to respond to "dumb" arguments or arguments that have "simple" responses. Who defines what's "dumb" and "simple"? Just because you think an argument is dumb doesn't mean that it is. I've won rounds on arguments that the affirmative team obviously thought were "dumb." I didn't think they were dumb and neither did the judge. Under your interpretation, there's no way to draw any sort of clear line.

If it doesn't apply or if it doesn't outweigh. A funding DA is what I would call a dumb argument. We don't need to draw a clear line. I'm not writing up a bill. All dropped arguments can be addressed in the 2AR, but if the argument is a very important DA that actually applies and would kill all the spiders in Germany, the legitimacy of responding to it in the 2AR is significantly lessened, and Neg really should press in the 2R that AFF can't respond to it, because it is a weighing issue. Why do I say this? Because most DAs will actually help determine whether Aff's case is a good idea or a bad idea, and they are weighing arguments. Funding DAs are not, because they don't determine anything but Neg's desperation, and it's more legitimate to respond arguments like that in the 2AR.

Oh and by the way, a clear line can't really be drawn because there are hundreds of "dumb arguments" against every case. But I suppose you could generically define a dumb argument as one which doesn't impact the round. It either doesn't apply or is such a small DA that it doesn't outweigh Aff's advantages. Solvency arguments should never be considered dumb or unimportant unless they don't apply to the 1AC.

If you drop the important arguments, you deserve everything you get. If you drop tiny arguments that don't make much of a difference, slap your wrist and go forward.

OppositeWay wrote:
Finally, the paradigm you mentioned is anything but ideal. Under that paradigm, the judge would be allowed to vote based off of personal experience or things he'd heard outside of a round, because he might no that the plan is or is not a good idea regardless of what was argued. I think judges should vote only on the arguments and responses brought up fairly in a round. I don't regard new responses in the last speech to be fair at all.

You misunderstood my framework. What I meant to say is if the Aff's case is a good or bad idea based on what's said in the round. That last part was a give-in for me.

Dropped arguments should be carefully considered of course, but no one should focus the whole round based on one or two arguments unless it was a very close round. Focusing too much on dropped arguments misses the big picture and blurs what the debate round is all about. The big picture is comparative advantage, and if Aff does make the SQ better they should win, even if they dropped an argument and readdressed it in the 2AR.

_________________
Joe Hughey
joehughey24@gmail.com

Two roads diverged in a wood and I -
I took the one less traveled
And that has made all the difference


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:17 pm
Posts: 1547
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Researching...
Quote:
No, it's not. I would turn your statement around and say that forcing Aff to concede a terrible argument and then lose because of it should be considered more abusive. Debate should be judged not on dropped arguments, but based on a paradigm that if Aff's case is a good idea, it should win, and if it isn't it should lose. If X Neg dropped argument hardly even applies to the case or if it's a funding DA (ahhhhhhhhhh), then guess what. Aff's case is still better than the SQ and it should win.


I think there's a slight problem between what you're saying and what Nathan is saying.

Joseph - "I would turn your statement around and say that forcing Aff to concede a terrible argument and then lose because of it should be considered more abusive"

But you're first of all, the timing. Nathan - "It's still not ok to wait until the 2AR"
And secondly, you're missing the fact that concession =/= importance. Jordan - "Once an argument is conceded in the rebuttals, it becomes true. That doesn't make it important."

Quote:
Debate should be judged not on dropped arguments, but based on a paradigm that if Aff's case is a good idea, it should win, and if it isn't it should lose.


Ok. But dropped arguments obviously would play into that. If you're saying 'x' is a bad idea, and there's no response to it, then there is a problem there. Waiting until the very last speech, waiting to the point where the Negative cannot raise an objection is, in my opinion, abusive and unfair. You're exploiting the time constraints (time constraints that wouldn't exist in real life) in order to evade a Negative's argument.

Quote:
If X Neg dropped argument hardly even applies to the case or if it's a funding DA (ahhhhhhhhhh), then guess what. Aff's case is still better than the SQ and it should win.


Yes, I would agree with this. But this isn't refutation, it's weighing. You're accepting the argument as true, but not important.

Quote:
If it doesn't apply or if it doesn't outweigh.


Then why don't you just say so? It doesn't really take that long, and it'll shut down the argument for the rest of the round (assuming your argument is correct).

Quote:
A funding DA is what I would call a dumb argument.


There would be plenty of people that would disagree. So who would be right, in-round? What about those teams that have won on funding DAs? Is that just an anomaly? Are you willing to lose rounds on anomalies because of a misconception you hold?

Quote:
Because most DAs will actually help determine whether Aff's case is a good idea or a bad idea, and they are weighing arguments. Funding DAs are not, because they don't determine anything but Neg's desperation, and it's more legitimate to respond arguments like that in the 2AR.


Are you saying Funding DAs or illegit? Or funding solvency or Kritiks? Because if you're cutting from an NGO's funding, I can see how pointing out the importance that the NGO has being a reason why the plan would be a bad idea.

Or GFRs ifffff you can show where the money would be cut from. And why that specifically would be a bad thing.

Quote:
Oh and by the way, a clear line can't really be drawn because there are hundreds of "dumb arguments" against every case. But I suppose you could generically define a dumb argument as one which doesn't impact the round. It either doesn't apply or is such a small DA that it doesn't outweigh Aff's advantages. Solvency arguments should never be considered dumb or unimportant unless they don't apply to the 1AC.


I think Affirmatives and Negatives will almost always be in opposite camps when determining which arguments are "dumb."

Quote:
You misunderstood my framework. What I meant to say is if the Aff's case is a good or bad idea based on what's said in the round. That last part was a give-in for me.


And dropped arguments are definitely in-round. Therefore, they deserve just as much recognition (if not refutation) as any other argument. Especially if you can lose on them.

My position

Delta_FC wrote:
Quote:
3. Can I respond to args my partner dropped?


I would say no. It upsets me when arguments are dropped, and then picked up the 2AR. It skews strategy (dropped weighing) and the time restrictions placed upon the Aff.

However, there is one way that you can "address" (not respond) to argument dropped: Bite them. Say, "yeah we dropped them, but 'x' is more important, [and that means we win]." I've had my 1AR partner drop non-important arguments on purpose several times this year. If the Neg doesn't address them, then they're washed out, and that's fine with me. If the Neg spends his time pointing out they were dropped and I can't respond to them, I accept their limitations, and then show how even though I can't respond to them (and won't) we should still win because they're not important.


Delta_FC

_________________
Cartman wrote:
Josh R.

Dawn wrote:
Josh R

Yes?
+X wrote:
Hm. Eminem/MNM would mean Delta F_C... oF course

Join the epidemic
Variola Eradication, Geneva, May 2011


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 5:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:06 pm
Posts: 1058
Home Schooled: No
Location: Texas
The Bottomline is they matter as much as the judge thinks they do: if the judge really liked the argument and the other team did not respond you are in trouble; if the judge did not like the argument, thought it had no impact and was not going to weigh in his RFD calculus it does not matter and you might get a "won the point but not the round" comment on your ballot

The debaters problem is you don't know what the judge is thinking so your best course is not to drop arguments


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 1394
Home Schooled: Yes
lookingforangels wrote:
andrewmin wrote:
lookingforangels wrote:
If they were dumb arguments, you probably should have responded to them earlier. Because, hey, a lot of arguments sound really dumb until the rebuttals. Then, suddenly, they sound really stellar ;)

That is what I like to call of a perfect world scenario ;)


If you can't respond to it in the 1AR, then that's your fault :)

I've been the 1AR with a case that gets spread like no other. I think, tbh, you just have to learn how to address everything. If not, strategically concede it and weigh.

I saw one outround where a team dropped their entire case in the 1AR. The NEG got up, pointed out the drop, and also (IMHO) beat the AFF's 1AR analysis on their DA. The 2AR got up, resurrected the case from the dead with completely new (and, from what both I and the NEG thought, bogus) arguments, and won. Is that right?

_________________
Andrew Min
ahmin@princeton.edu
Arete Speech & Debate, NCFCA, Class of 2011


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:39 pm 
Offline
melancholy milkshakes. no straws.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:31 pm
Posts: 3986
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Hinnom, TX
andrewmin wrote:
I've been the 1AR with a case that gets spread like no other. I think, tbh, you just have to learn how to address everything. If not, strategically concede it and weigh.

I think there has been confusion about what exactly I mean by "responding and addressing" dropped arguments. The way I see it, weighing is the same as addressing an argument because you are directly refuting the argument and showing how it's not important to the round because your advantages/justifications outweigh them.

I do not think dropped arguments should be refuted with evidence in the 2AR. That's abusive, because evidence can be attacked on all sides, and Neg should be able to make that response. They can't if it's brought up in the last speech.

andrewmin wrote:
I saw one outround where a team dropped their entire case in the 1AR. The NEG got up, pointed out the drop, and also (IMHO) beat the AFF's 1AR analysis on their DA. The 2AR got up, resurrected the case from the dead with completely new (and, from what both I and the NEG thought, bogus) arguments, and won. Is that right?

One part of me says that's terribly abusive, but the other part of me wonders what would Aff have said in the 2AR? Are they simply supposed to concede the round? No.

And what do you mean by "dropping the entire case?" I usually don't refer back to the 1AC until the 2AR, absent a few isolated responses I make in the 2AC that reference 1AC cards.

_________________
Joe Hughey
joehughey24@gmail.com

Two roads diverged in a wood and I -
I took the one less traveled
And that has made all the difference


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 1394
Home Schooled: Yes
lookingforangels wrote:
andrewmin wrote:
I've been the 1AR with a case that gets spread like no other. I think, tbh, you just have to learn how to address everything. If not, strategically concede it and weigh.

I think there has been confusion about what exactly I mean by "responding and addressing" dropped arguments. The way I see it, weighing is the same as addressing an argument because you are directly refuting the argument and showing how it's not important to the round because your advantages/justifications outweigh them.

I do not think dropped arguments should be refuted with evidence in the 2AR. That's abusive, because evidence can be attacked on all sides, and Neg should be able to make that response. They can't if it's brought up in the last speech.


I can see weighing in the 2AR (though I haven't made up my mind either way, tbh). Yeah, new evidence responses was what I was after.

Quote:
andrewmin wrote:
I saw one outround where a team dropped their entire case in the 1AR. The NEG got up, pointed out the drop, and also (IMHO) beat the AFF's 1AR analysis on their DA. The 2AR got up, resurrected the case from the dead with completely new (and, from what both I and the NEG thought, bogus) arguments, and won. Is that right?

One part of me says that's terribly abusive, but the other part of me wonders what would Aff have said in the 2AR? Are they simply supposed to concede the round? No.

And what do you mean by "dropping the entire case?" I usually don't refer back to the 1AC until the 2AR, absent a few isolated responses I make in the 2AC that reference 1AC cards.


To me... while they shouldn't have come out and actually explicitly conceded, I think they should have just gone back and pounded the DA into the ground. Or something. If you're losing, you shouldn't cheat to get back in.

1NC: Your three advantages are bogus
2AC: Response, defending advantages
1NR: Counterreponse, still believes the advantages don't stand
1AR: dead silence
2NR: They completely dropped all three harms
2AR: ZOMBIESSS

_________________
Andrew Min
ahmin@princeton.edu
Arete Speech & Debate, NCFCA, Class of 2011


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:59 pm 
Offline
melancholy milkshakes. no straws.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:31 pm
Posts: 3986
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Hinnom, TX
andrewmin wrote:
To me... while they shouldn't have come out and actually explicitly conceded, I think they should have just gone back and pounded the DA into the ground. Or something. If you're losing, you shouldn't cheat to get back in.

Then what should they do? I understand where everyone is coming from on the abusiveness argument, but honestly, refusing to address arguments is essentially conceding, and if their terribly important arguments, you're pretty much screwed. From what I've seen so far, if a team drops important arguments (like DAs maybe?), the only alternative that I've seen is to give up the arguments and very probably the whole round. That's not a valid alternative for me.

andrewmin wrote:
1NC: Your three advantages are bogus
2AC: Response, defending advantages
1NR: Counterreponse, still believes the advantages don't stand
1AR: dead silence
2NR: They completely dropped all three harms
2AR: ZOMBIESSS

That's abusive. Their timing in the 1AR must have been a mess, but again I ask, what else can they do? What are the alternatives?

_________________
Joe Hughey
joehughey24@gmail.com

Two roads diverged in a wood and I -
I took the one less traveled
And that has made all the difference


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 6:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 1394
Home Schooled: Yes
lookingforangels wrote:
andrewmin wrote:
To me... while they shouldn't have come out and actually explicitly conceded, I think they should have just gone back and pounded the DA into the ground. Or something. If you're losing, you shouldn't cheat to get back in.

Then what should they do? I understand where everyone is coming from on the abusiveness argument, but honestly, refusing to address arguments is essentially conceding, and if their terribly important arguments, you're pretty much screwed. From what I've seen so far, if a team drops important arguments (like DAs maybe?), the only alternative that I've seen is to give up the arguments and very probably the whole round. That's not a valid alternative for me.


Here's the thing. If you're losing, should you lie? Obviously not. Why? It's unethical, and being ethical is (to me) more important than winning. So if bringing up new arguments in the 2AR is abusive, you shouldn't do it, _even if you'll lose_. That's why you need to make sure whoever is doing the 1AR is really good at time management and knows the responses backwards and forwards.

lookingforangels wrote:
andrewmin wrote:
1NC: Your three advantages are bogus
2AC: Response, defending advantages
1NR: Counterreponse, still believes the advantages don't stand
1AR: dead silence
2NR: They completely dropped all three harms
2AR: ZOMBIESSS

That's abusive. Their timing in the 1AR must have been a mess, but again I ask, what else can they do? What are the alternatives?


The funny thing was, the 2NC only had ONE disadvantage (literally spent 8 minutes on one DA). The 1AR spent the entire time harping on the one disadvantage. The lack of refutation wasn't a result of some unethical NEG spread. It was just crummy time management. Also, they could have at least weighed ("the DA is non-existent as we've adequately proved, and as long as there's a chance of success, vote for us!").

Of course, they could have also lied and read falsified evidence and stuff and it would have helped them win. But, obviously, those are wrong :). It's my contention that it's just as wrong to read new responses. There are exceptions (if it's a new debater who doesn't know better, a debater who thought they addressed the argument but didn't, etc). But in this case, it seemed pretty egregious.

That said, idk if it's a crime that should be penalized by DQ or a tournament staff's reversal of the judge's decision. There really isn't any rule against it, from what I've seen. And I think keeping NCFCA out of debate theory is a good thing ;). However, if I were judging... I think this is one legitimate instance where I would intervene (I'd probably state that up front in my philosophy). Because, well... the NEG doesn't get a chance to. Like many of you noted, that doesn't mean I'll automatically give the NEG the win; I'll just assume it's true.

_________________
Andrew Min
ahmin@princeton.edu
Arete Speech & Debate, NCFCA, Class of 2011


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 6:57 pm 
Offline
melancholy milkshakes. no straws.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:31 pm
Posts: 3986
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Hinnom, TX
andrewmin wrote:
Also, they could have at least weighed ("the DA is non-existent as we've adequately proved, and as long as there's a chance of success, vote for us!").

That's what I'm saying. Direct, evidence refutation of a dropped argument in the 2AR is terribly abusive, but an argument should never be totally dropped, and weighing arguments is never the same as dropping the argument, even if it is concession, because the focus is still on the big picture rather than one argument that Aff tries to show is unimportant without evidence.

I'm not sure if we're disagreeing anymore

_________________
Joe Hughey
joehughey24@gmail.com

Two roads diverged in a wood and I -
I took the one less traveled
And that has made all the difference


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 11:15 pm 
Offline
Hot Ta-Molly
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:19 am
Posts: 1325
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Steubenville, OH
andrewmin wrote:
Of course, they could have also lied and read falsified evidence and stuff and it would have helped them win. But, obviously, those are wrong :). It's my contention that it's just as wrong to read new responses. There are exceptions (if it's a new debater who doesn't know better, a debater who thought they addressed the argument but didn't, etc). But in this case, it seemed pretty egregious.

That said, idk if it's a crime that should be penalized by DQ or a tournament staff's reversal of the judge's decision. There really isn't any rule against it, from what I've seen. And I think keeping NCFCA out of debate theory is a good thing ;). However, if I were judging... I think this is one legitimate instance where I would intervene (I'd probably state that up front in my philosophy). Because, well... the NEG doesn't get a chance to. Like many of you noted, that doesn't mean I'll automatically give the NEG the win; I'll just assume it's true.
You bring up an interesting point here. In outrounds last tournament, Neg pointed out that our advantage was essentially mistagged. One of our parent judges gave my partner and I lower speaks for it, but gave us the ballot because we had still won the round, and he pointed out on the ballot that the mistag was not malicious. We didn't know that at the time, but we did know our advantage was messed up, so we retagged it. This is probably what I would do if I were judging a round where the 2A responds to an obviously dropped arg, especially if it's a new response.

And if you're in a round like this, don't assume the 2A is out to get you or means any harm. Because he probably doesn't, may be young, untaught on the issue, thinks it's acceptable debate theory, or maybe doesn't even realize he's doing it.

_________________
~Molly

"Isn't it bewildering…that everything is so beautiful, despite all the horrors that exist?" -Sophie Scholl

Life Posterz


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 1:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
If you're debating in college and you're aff, the basic understanding is:
If you drop an offensive argument (straight turn or DA) or standard and voter on T, you lose. Assuming the neg knows what they're doing.

Dropped arguments are super important. If you drop something until the rebuttals (unless its new in the block), you 100% lose that position. You can weigh case against it in the rebuttals, but you can't refute it.

_________________
-Bryan
Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 2:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 6:38 pm
Posts: 784
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Insied ur interwebz
"Dropped Arguments. How important are they?"

Very. Don't do it.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 01, 2011 3:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:17 pm
Posts: 1547
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Researching...
It's that kind of blatant generalization that doesn't add to the discussion.

At least give a reason to subscribe to your claim. I already pointed out how it can be strategic to drop arguments (I've already done that plenty of times).

Dropping arguments is not necessarily bad.

Delta_FC

_________________
Cartman wrote:
Josh R.

Dawn wrote:
Josh R

Yes?
+X wrote:
Hm. Eminem/MNM would mean Delta F_C... oF course

Join the epidemic
Variola Eradication, Geneva, May 2011


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 25 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited