homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:06 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  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:06 pm
Posts: 1058
Home Schooled: No
Location: Texas
I think the biggest problem in not narrowing the ground of the 2AR would come from an inadequate 2NR.

As the 2NR it is YOUR responsibility to clearly lay out for the judge arguments that were dropped and evidence in the round that stands unrefuted and to in no uncertain terms let the judge know that these flow to the negative and there is nothing the aff can say that should be allowed under the generally accepted principle of fairness (no chance of rebuttal) to change their mind at this point.

This is why the 1AR usually turns the round back to the aff or the aff starts to let the round slip away, a good 2NR will not let a sloppy 1AR go unpunished and also not leave any opening for the 2AR to come to the rescue.

I have seen arguments shelled in the 1AR because they were running out of time and this is sometimes a hard area as a judge to determine if there is enough meat there to let the argument stand and force a good refutation by the 2NR which in turn brings the 2AR in to refute the point. In these instances I usually flow neg if the 2NR successfully refuted the 1AR and don't give as much weight to the 2AR because they are attempting to support an argument that was really not strong enough on its own without the 2AR.


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 7:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 1267
Home Schooled: Yes
I really like Isaiah's points and hope people are paying attention!

In my opinion, a good 2AR will solidify the affirmative's position on the ground it has already claimed. Whether that takes the form of reading a new quotation, referencing an old quotation, or simply walking the judge down a trail of logic, as long as it doesn't re-shape the overall argumentation of the round I would accept it as a judge. If you are going to rule out new evidence, what else is out the window? New analogies?

I noticed some people were also saying no new evidence should be introduced in the 2NR. If no new evidence can be introduced in the 2NR, how is the negative supposed to respond to the 1 AR effectively? Any time a negative simply restated their prior arguments instead of responding to my 1 AR, they were conceding some significant ground. Can the 2NR say, "Oh, well based on the 1 AR we're changing our argument from X->Z" No. But can they read a piece of evidence to contradict a response raised by the 1 AR? Absolutely.

I really do understand your frustration over teams that save special evidence until the 2 AR when it cannot be responded to. And as a judge, I would almost always ask to see significant evidence brought up in the 2 AR. But just because some people abuse that ability doesn't mean that it is in poor form across the board (As Isaiah's gun control example demonstrates), and I think it is a bit broad to claim that a good team should never need to bring up new evidence in the 2 AR.

- Isaac

_________________
I have gone to find myself. If I get back before I return, keep me here.


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 9:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:17 am
Posts: 12
Home Schooled: Yes
Db8r_from_Dixie wrote:
And as a judge, I would almost always ask to see significant evidence brought up in the 2 AR. But just because some people abuse that ability doesn't mean that it is in poor form across the board (As Isaiah's gun control example demonstrates), and I think it is a bit broad to claim that a good team should never need to bring up new evidence in the 2 AR.


I already analyzed Isaiah's gun control example a while back, and I guess he forgot to respond. You might take a look at that.

But I agree. As a judge, I would definitely ask to see any new evidence, and also be equally as willing to disregard it if it seems like a cheap-shot.

Db8r_from_Dixie wrote:
In my opinion, a good 2AR will solidify the affirmative's position on the ground it has already claimed. Whether that takes the form of reading a new quotation, referencing an old quotation, or simply walking the judge down a trail of logic, as long as it doesn't re-shape the overall argumentation of the round I would accept it as a judge. If you are going to rule out new evidence, what else is out the window? New analogies?


Reading a new quotation and referencing an old quotation are two VERY different things. An old quotation has been there for a considerable amount of time and the judge has already had access to it in making their judgements. The problem is that any new analysis has the potential to re-shape the debate. You don't know what will be effective to a judge. If your new quotation or logic allows the judge striking new clarity that they never had in your previous speeches, or allows the judge to develop a new conclusion or warrant, then it could very well be unfairly cornering the negative team.

Db8r_from_Dixie wrote:
If no new evidence can be introduced in the 2NR, how is the negative supposed to respond to the 1 AR effectively?


There are numerous ways to respond to the 1AR. First of all, if none of the neg evidence and arguments apply after the 1AR, then they must have had a pretty crappy brief. At that point, they've lost the round anyway. On the flip side, the negative team has had an entire uninterrupted 13 minutes to hammer the crud out of the affirmative; there ought to be some arguments that still apply - even after the 1AR. (in most cases there are) Use those! In these circumstances, continue to re-read evidence that has already been introduced in past speeches and provide supporting logic.

I'll say it again, I am generally against new evidence in the 2NR as well, but sometimes it does happen. And when it does happen, the negative is just begging to be pummeled by the 2AR. If this is the case, I would permit the affirmative to read a new card refuting only the evidence read by the neg, assuming that it only refutes and does not modify or add to the argument in any way. Even then, this is usually only necessary when the negative has brought in a new argument, which is already impermissible on the part of the negative.
In all circumstances however, I am against the affirmative reading new power cards intended to build their case and not intended to address a specific piece of new negative evidence from the 2NR. This is like letting the 900-lb gorilla out of the cage - and taking away the negative's tranquilizers. :o

-Samuel Sefzik


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:04 am 
Offline
The Philosophy Juggler
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 3:47 am
Posts: 969
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Houston, Texas
We lost a semifinals round based (somewhat) off of Aff's refutation in the 2AR. They stated our evidence was old (It was. But the card shows empirics, so it doesn't matter if it is old). We didn't get a chance to respond, so it was kind of frustrating, especially since two judges voted against us citing that as a RFD. But you shouldn't bring it up to the Tournament Director, or even the judge after the round. That's poor sportsmanship. You tell the debaters about new args, but you don't make it a bigger issue than it needs to be.

And I use new evidence in the 2AR all the time. Especially plan advocacy. It's completely legit unless you are using it as an argument, like everyone else has said.

_________________
~Jacob P.
Founder & CEO, High School Model NATO
Research Fellow at COG Debate
Kohiotoko wrote:
Do rap lyrics trump Ph.D papers in terms of credibility? I'm inclined to say yes.
Kohiotoko wrote:
CAPS LOCK IS NOT CRUISE CONTROL FOR AWESOME YOU GUYS.


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
Ultimately the judges didn't pay close attention OR you didn't emphasize the dates well enough for them to remember.


That's life. Not ethics.

_________________
Upside Down Debate. The book that teaches you the deeper why of debate, from the ground up.


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 5:37 am
Posts: 767
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 2, Washington
Isaiah wrote:
Ultimately the judges didn't pay close attention OR you didn't emphasize the dates well enough for them to remember.


That's life. Not ethics.


Isaiah, it's a new argument that hasn't been brought up, and they have no chance to refute it.

If you think they should emphasize that the date is fine BEFORE the 2AR, how exactly would they know the 2AR speaker was going to bring it up in his speech?

The only way I think it'd be okay for the 2AR to bring this up is a) it's been brought up before or b) the evidence was stated in the 2NR.

Neg shouldn't bring new evi in the 2NR either unless they want to have something happen to them.

^And of course I'm referring to evidence as in a quote from a source related to the case^

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


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 3:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
Creating rules and ethics challenges to solve a basic challenge in life kind of avoids the point of learning to communicate.

In life, you sometimes only get a chance to say something once – so you have to jude carefully what to say and what to emphasize. Saying "but I said X" isn't enough when you failed to teach someone something because you didn't do the work to communicate it.

IF you argument needs recency of evidence to succeed, you have the ability to spend the extra .5 seconds to really emphasize the date when you read their support. That's life.

With that said, of course judges who don't pay attention are super frustrating, and people who sway them in final moments because they weren't paying close enough attention are frustrating. When you get outside of the debate community, you'll realize that's 90% of people and... ultimately it's not their fault. They're trying to catch up with a concept you've thought through a hundred times and so you have to teach them well.

(I fully realize I've taken this thread now in a completely different direction than before haha)

_________________
Upside Down Debate. The book that teaches you the deeper why of debate, from the ground up.


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
I think it's the right direction, because I think that is, in fact, the point.

My answer, when one of my teams complained about losing because of one misunderstood detail, or one new 2AR argument, has always been "You didn't lose on that. If you let it stay that close, then you still have more to learn about putting a debate out of your opponent's reach in the mid-game. Fixating on that one detail means you won't think about the other missed opportunities earlier in the debate. You need to seal them all up if you want to win consistently."


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 6:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2011 3:44 pm
Posts: 117
Home Schooled: Yes
DrSraderNCU wrote:
My answer, when one of my teams complained about losing because of one misunderstood detail, or one new 2AR argument, has always been "You didn't lose on that. If you let it stay that close, then you still have more to learn about putting a debate out of your opponent's reach in the mid-game. Fixating on that one detail means you won't think about the other missed opportunities earlier in the debate. You need to seal them all up if you want to win consistently."

Wouldn't you agree, however, that there are plenty of times when judges overlook arguments which the 1AR dropped because of a stellar 2AR, either because of excellent speaking or covering up the 1A's mistakes with cross-application of points that have been made throughout the round?

_________________
David Christensen
Stoa: Mars Hill Speech and Debate Club (AZ)
Christensen-Napier, 2011-2012
Christensen-Napier, 2012-2013
Christensen-Ford, 2013-2014


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 26, 2012 7:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:54 pm
Posts: 1074
Home Schooled: Yes
Sure. That also happens even with more educated judge pools, because sometimes cross-applications are enough to cover 1AR mistakes. If the 1AR mistake was really destructive, the 2NR should have been able to destroy the affirmative so thoroughly with it that the judge wouldn't care what the 2AR had to say; on the other hand, there are some arguments that can be dropped entirely and still won't be winners.

_________________
-Chris


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 4:21 am 
Offline
i can haz title?
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 12, 2009 9:37 pm
Posts: 258
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: being liberally social
My thoughts: at the end of the day, the winner of ballots and tournaments is not necessarily who had the most flawless arguments, perfect logic, or outstanding theory, but instead who can convince the most judges. What does this mean? That if bringing up new evidence wil convince the judge, go for it. It you feel that you need to bring a new argument in the 2AR to win, then by all means do so. But don't be surprised if you get slammed when you try to pull that on an experienced debater.
That being said, what I do as the negative (2NR) is say:

"I would ask that you the judge disregard any new evidence or arguments brought up in the final affirmative speech. This debate has lasted nearly an hour and a half and the Aff has had plenty of chances to bring them up before, in addition, you would not be able to make a truly educated decision without hearing both sides."

_________________
2009-2010 Mulder/Ruiz
2010-2011 Severin/Ruiz
2011-2012 Burchfiel/Ruiz
2012-2013 Burchfiel/Ruiz
2013-2014 Castro/Ruiz


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 4:32 am 
Offline
Cupcake
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:08 pm
Posts: 1211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Illinois
This thread is old and has finished its run, so it's locked now.


[P.S. Having the standard of "do whatever it takes to convince a judge even if you don't have good logic, theory, or argumentation" completely devalues quality debate and also would permit immoral and/or unethical actions such as lying, twisting words, and so on. Your goal ought to be flawless argumentation, perfect logic, outstanding theory, and proper sportsmanship. It doesn't matter if you fall short sometimes, but strive for those things.]

_________________
Drew Chambers
LinkedIn


Top
   
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3

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