homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Mon Dec 11, 2017 3:13 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




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 2:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 3:24 am
Posts: 769
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Alabama
If there really are so many judges biased against topical cps (not saying thats untrue, I lost a chance at nats one year because I ran one), I think the solution is not to run them even less and ensure their permanent demise, but to try our best to make them more accepted (If you believe in their merit, which I very strongly do.)

Example: I'm making sure to teach the parents of the debaters I coach to keep an open mind to topical cps, even if they don't like them.

_________________
- Brennan Herring (Team Policy Coach, Catalyst Speech and Debate)

Ethos is also pretty cool, you should check it out.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 2:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 5:37 am
Posts: 767
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 2, Washington
I agree it would be good if there were more widespread adoption of topical CP's. But I don't think jeopardizing rounds over it, hoping your judge will change their mind, is a good approach.

If a judge doesn't like a topical CP, he/she won't change their mind based on you running one, in all likelihood.

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


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 3:29 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
Oh, the good old days when it was me and MSD against the rest of HSD.

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


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Feb 16, 2016 5:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 652
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
Since this got brought back up, what do people think of inoculating for it in the first Cross-ex? By that I mean something like asking:
- Have you proven the entire resolution as an Aff? Therefore, is it neg's duty to negate the entire resolution or just your case?
- Are there rules in debate?
- Is it the Affirmative team's job to provide the judges with the best solution to the problem they identified?

I'm trying to find a less-stilted way of asking the questions. Nevertheless, while it basically gives away your strategy before the 1NC there isn't really a different way to answer the questions above apart from (No & No, No, Yes- if the Aff replies differently then you pursue them down a line of questioning until they do).

If you put it in that light then you force Aff to agree with you from the beginning of the round, so if the Judge disagrees with the Theory of the round he still has to vote a certain way because all the debaters agreed at the beginning of the round that this was how it should be.

From a very basic perspective debate is about winning and losing and two teams putting on a show. Whichever team out-maneuvers or out-thinks their opponents should win the round. Thus, if Aff proposes an awful case and Neg says that they have a better idea that is topical, then Neg should win the round on the virtues of their counter-plan.

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2016 6:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:34 pm
Posts: 479
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Tallahassee, FL
It's an ill-conceived idea someone had to get out of writing negative briefs. Makes sense, but it's about as legitimate as tying up the Aff, duct taping their mouths and winning all your arguments "because they weren't responded to". You wanted to do policy debate? Put half as much effort into formulating legitimate Neg strategies and evidence as you do arguing in favor of this hot garbage and you'll do just fine.

_________________
Timothy

Drew wrote:
GumboSoup wrote:
Dads ftw.
Tim is your dad?

http://twitch.tv/dutchwaffles
Usually streaming around 8 PM EST weeknights and unpredictably on weekends. Come on by and say hi sometime!


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Wed Feb 17, 2016 1:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1377
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
Voice of Reason wrote:
From a very basic perspective debate is about winning and losing and two teams putting on a show.

No it's not, otherwise the better speakers would win every time. NCFCA debate is about respectful argumentation that explores the depths of policy ideas and whether it should be enacted or not.

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 4:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
There's no rule change for CPs, it's the same as ever. Mrs. Hudson said so. ;)

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Thu Feb 18, 2016 4:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 12:21 am
Posts: 35
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Running
Masked Midnight wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Voice of Reason wrote:
From a very basic perspective debate is about winning and losing and two teams putting on a show.

No it's not, otherwise the better speakers would win every time. NCFCA debate is about respectful argumentation that explores the depths of policy ideas and whether it should be enacted or not.
In outrounds, it becomes more about performance than argumentation. Ask Julia. ;)

I agree to an extent. Some tournaments are more about show, some are more about arguments. It really depends on the location of the tournament/judge pools. I've had it both ways.

Most debaters that break get speaker awards. Occasionally, it's the other way around, but as a general rule, I'd say ~70% of the time, both partners of quarterfinal teams (and up) dominate speaks.

_________________
Region VII - AL
Poythress B/Poythress P (Criminal Justice) 2012
Hurst B/Poythress P - (United Nations) 2013
Poythress B/Poythress P - (Election Law) 2014
Poythress B/Poythress P - (Middle East) 2015
Hudson W/Poythress P - (Court Reform) 2016
Poythress P/Roberts J - (China) 2017


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 3:35 am 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
Sharkfin wrote:
I ran eight or nine or so during my time... I think I ended up winning all but one.
I think that one was me... fun times. :) Also, holy cow I'm old.

Judge reception to topical CPs will always be... mixed.
Topical CPs actually win more often than they probably should, mostly not because the Neg mounts a particularly good defense, but rather because the judge doesn't really understand what's going on and goes with whichever plan sounds better. As a coach, I can't in good conscience advise teams to run topical CPs just to capitalize on judges' ignorance, but if you genuinely believe in them, you're prepared to mount a good defense, and you're OK with having a lot of unpredictable rounds and/or frustrated opponents - have at it! You might just win.

I have some notoriety in this issue because of my mildly notable blog post about parametrics; strangely, though, as a judge, I have no problem with topical counterplans. I'll probably be more naturally sympathetic to a well-reasoned defense of rezcentrism than a well-reasoned defense of a topical CP, but either is a good show if you argue it well.

I think I've also gotten more ambivalent about the whole issue over the years. I still think rezcentrism is a more elegant and theoretically coherent framework, but honestly, viewing the debate from a purely team-versus-team, plan-versus-plan framework usually works fine. (I still think parametrics is stupid, though. It's a bizarre compromise solution to a nonexistent problem that accomplishes nothing except to give smug second-years a way to confuse novices. If you're going to run a topical CP, at least have the decency not to pretend you're still debating for and against the resolution. :P)

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:14 pm
Posts: 51
Home Schooled: Yes
Peter_Policy wrote:
Masked Midnight wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Voice of Reason wrote:
From a very basic perspective debate is about winning and losing and two teams putting on a show.

No it's not, otherwise the better speakers would win every time. NCFCA debate is about respectful argumentation that explores the depths of policy ideas and whether it should be enacted or not.
In outrounds, it becomes more about performance than argumentation. Ask Julia. ;)

I agree to an extent. Some tournaments are more about show, some are more about arguments. It really depends on the location of the tournament/judge pools. I've had it both ways.

Most debaters that break get speaker awards. Occasionally, it's the other way around, but as a general rule, I'd say ~70% of the time, both partners of quarterfinal teams (and up) dominate speaks.


I'm a first-year debater, first year in fact in NCFCA, first year even heard of it, but in the short amount of time I've been in it I've come to see it as more of an academic search for truth. The judge is trying to decide if the resolution is true or not, using only the information presented to him within the round.
I would like to know if I'm right or wrong in that, so could someone who's done this a lot tell me?

_________________
- Joshua Beckman
Region X

Beckman/Hopkins 2015-2016
LD 2016-2017
Ellerslie Discipleship Training Summer 2017
http://www.ellerslie.com


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:17 pm
Posts: 59
Home Schooled: Yes
sons_of_thunder wrote:
I'm a first-year debater, first year in fact in NCFCA, first year even heard of it, but in the short amount of time I've been in it I've come to see it as more of an academic search for truth. The judge is trying to decide if the resolution is true or not, using only the information presented to him within the round.
I would like to know if I'm right or wrong in that, so could someone who's done this a lot tell me?


This should be the way all rounds a judged but unfortunately reality is sometimes less than it should be. Overall judges should make impartial decisions and judge orientation does a very good job of explaining this to all judges. Every once and awhile judges will based solely on speaker points but more often than not they vote on arguments. As for good speakers winning (congrats Ben Vincent/Ginga Ninja) it more has to do with their effective communication and arguments. Delivery is just one of six point categories. C/X, Refutation, Support, Persuasive Arguments, and Organization have a lot more to do with whether you win or lose. So yes there is correlation between speaks and winning because there should be. If this were only a clash of arguments there would be no relation but we are a communication league. It's about the arguments and their presentation. Just my thoughts :)

_________________
Hammy wrote:
Noah is right


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:14 pm
Posts: 51
Home Schooled: Yes
Thanks. I see what you mean. Although, there have been rounds where my partner and I have won rounds where we placed 3rd and 4th in speaker points. So I sense that it's deeper than that, and from what I've been told, speaker points are separate from the actual decision.
Thank you for replying. I'm just trying to figure it all out, you know? :D

_________________
- Joshua Beckman
Region X

Beckman/Hopkins 2015-2016
LD 2016-2017
Ellerslie Discipleship Training Summer 2017
http://www.ellerslie.com


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:17 pm
Posts: 59
Home Schooled: Yes
sons_of_thunder wrote:
Thanks. I see what you mean. Although, there have been rounds where my partner and I have won rounds where we placed 3rd and 4th in speaker points. So I sense that it's deeper than that, and from what I've been told, speaker points are separate from the actual decision.
Thank you for replying. I'm just trying to figure it all out, you know? :D

I understand completely, and my partner and I have won rounds where are speaker points were lower as well it's just when you listen to who broke and who got speaker points the same names are called a lot ;)

_________________
Hammy wrote:
Noah is right


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Mon Mar 14, 2016 7:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:14 pm
Posts: 51
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
I understand completely, and my partner and I have won rounds where are speaker points were lower as well it's just when you listen to who broke and who got speaker points the same names are called a lot ;)


Agreed. Sometimes it just sort of seems like a popularity contest. :) But I like to think that a new unknown like me could do something in debate. We broke to regionals our first qualifier, so I guess I'm not completely wrong. :D

_________________
- Joshua Beckman
Region X

Beckman/Hopkins 2015-2016
LD 2016-2017
Ellerslie Discipleship Training Summer 2017
http://www.ellerslie.com


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 7:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2015 11:53 pm
Posts: 23
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: New Jersey
sons_of_thunder wrote:
Quote:
I understand completely, and my partner and I have won rounds where are speaker points were lower as well it's just when you listen to who broke and who got speaker points the same names are called a lot ;)


Agreed. Sometimes it just sort of seems like a popularity contest. :) But I like to think that a new unknown like me could do something in debate. We broke to regionals our first qualifier, so I guess I'm not completely wrong. :D


Totally agree, you don't need good speaks to win rounds, but they help a lot!

_________________
Min/Wolf | TP | 2015-2016
Min/Wolf | TP | 2016-2017
Min/Murch | TP | 2017-2018

Arete, Region 10


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 7:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:14 pm
Posts: 51
Home Schooled: Yes
Although the more I think about it, the more it makes sense that they do relate. Debate happens on two levels, really: the arguments themselves, and the communication of those arguments by the speakers. As with anything in life, communication is essential. If you have a brilliant argument, but you can't communicate it effectively (low speaker points) you stand a much better chance of losing the round. And same the other way around: even if you are a brilliant speaker, you need good arguments. So I think it actually makes sense that they're interconnected. It's not only about the speaks, but it's not only about the flow, either.

Question resolved. :D

_________________
- Joshua Beckman
Region X

Beckman/Hopkins 2015-2016
LD 2016-2017
Ellerslie Discipleship Training Summer 2017
http://www.ellerslie.com


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Mar 15, 2016 7:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 652
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
Speaker points are simply indicative of a person's ability to communicate with a judge. The better you communicate, the better the judge retention of your arguments. The better the judge retention of arguments, the more likely you are to win. It's not a fool-proof mechanism, but it works often enough. If you present one argument persuasively, have excellent refutation on it, have great organization with it, and deliver it well, then you can win even if all your other arguments fail and you aren't persuasive, organized, or good in delivery with them.

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 2:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:14 pm
Posts: 51
Home Schooled: Yes
So with that resolved, I'll jump into the discussion.

I researched quite a bit about counter plans, and I read in a book that for a counter plan to be valid, it must be three things:

1. Non-topical (This seems to be because if it was topical, then it would be affirming the resolution, and thereby saying the affirmative team was right)
2. Competitive with the Affirmative plan (In other words, you can't enact both)
3. Advantaged (The plan needs to have advantages)

Now, I did read on Wikipedia that there is something called the Negation theory, which says that the Negative can agree with the resolution but just has to refute the Affirmative's case. But that was Wikipedia. ;) I couldn't find it anywhere else. It seems the vast majority of the alumni/professionals/scholars/coaches believes that a topical counter plan is an automatic surrender by the negative team.

Thoughts from those of you who are experienced?

_________________
- Joshua Beckman
Region X

Beckman/Hopkins 2015-2016
LD 2016-2017
Ellerslie Discipleship Training Summer 2017
http://www.ellerslie.com


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 4:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1377
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
sons_of_thunder wrote:
It seems the vast majority of the alumni/professionals/scholars/coaches believes that a topical counter plan is an automatic surrender by the negative team.

This is true, but topical counterplans are generally accepted by a lot of the parent/community judges you'll run into in NCFCA. Debate seems to have shifted in NCFCA from the hypothetical discussion about the resolution to a real world discussion of Congressional policy. Personally, I disagree with this shift, but the shift is still occurring.

What a lot of it comes down to is the issue of refuting the resolution or the Aff plan. I believe that NCFCA made a slight misstep with the wording of the Judge Orientation slides. They now say that it is the job of the Negative team to refute either the resolution or the Affirmative team's plan. Thus, when a parent/community judge walks into the round, chances are high that they will hold both topical and non-topical counterplans to be legitimate. At the North Carolina National Open we asked Mrs. Hudson (the President of the league) about this change. She essentially said that it's up to us to make that determination and that we should read the judging slides again.

It's hard to tell what the official stance of the league is there, but I suppose this is how all debate theory works, it's up to us to convince the judge that we have the correct stance. It's probably a poor move to run a topical counterplan with an experienced coach/alum but it would probably work out fine with a parent/community judge.

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 4:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:14 pm
Posts: 51
Home Schooled: Yes
I see. It all comes down to who comes across as more credible when debating about theory, I guess.

_________________
- Joshua Beckman
Region X

Beckman/Hopkins 2015-2016
LD 2016-2017
Ellerslie Discipleship Training Summer 2017
http://www.ellerslie.com


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 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