homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Sat Mar 25, 2017 12:49 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.  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:07 pm 
Offline
Cut off all contact. NOW.
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 5:34 pm
Posts: 492
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Waist deep in thought.
There seems to be a lot of controversy on this topic.

My personal opinion:

New Args: new args in any of the rebuttals is just lousy; don't do it.

New Evidence: only under certain circumstances. If it's proof for a key point that the neg has asked for repeatedly, you should have brought it up earlier. If it's more evidence to backup a point, go for it. Be careful with this. There's a fine line between using evidence well and witholding it.

_________________
R6|Bloom/Yeager|Truth Advocates|2010-2011
R6|Bloom/Evans| Truth Advocates|2011-2012
R6|Bloom/Evans| Truth Advocates|2012-2013

I Support The Right To Arm Bears.
Okay, fine, we won't eat Pizza in Paris.


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 3:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:46 am
Posts: 678
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I can't think of anything witty right now...so...RIX
I don't understand why there is any controversy. Every coach I've ever had from every school of thought has stated this axiom

"You cannot present new arguments but you can present new evidence in the 2AR unless previously requested."

_________________
http://siftingthroughmythoughts.blogspot.com/

08-09 | Thomas/Young | Broke to Regionals
09-10 | Brake/Thomas | Broke to Nats
10-11 | Black/Thomas | Won Regionals, 7th at Nats
11-12 | Comfort/Thomas | Won 2 Qualifiers, Won Regionals
12-13 | LD Debater | 3rd overall in RIX, 7th at Nats


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:40 pm 
Offline
Meeshmoosh
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Posts: 339
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 8 w00t
Amodeum wrote:
I don't understand why there is any controversy. Every coach I've ever had from every school of thought has stated this axiom

"You cannot present new arguments but you can present new evidence in the 2AR unless previously requested."


Absolutely. No new arguments, but new evidence is fine, as long as that new evidence is not making a new argument.

_________________
-Ryan

Bosh Bebb wrote:
What do you guys think about disenfranchising all white people? That could be legit, too. I think there's lots of advocacy for it.


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 4:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
Evidence = support for an argument

You can't help but present new evidence in 2AR. Might not be quotations, but it's evidence.

Support that leads to new conclusions = bad in 2AR

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


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 3:15 am
Posts: 941
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: In the eye of the storm.
Foxtrot wrote:
Amodeum wrote:
I don't understand why there is any controversy. Every coach I've ever had from every school of thought has stated this axiom

"You cannot present new arguments but you can present new evidence in the 2AR unless previously requested."


Absolutely. No new arguments, but new evidence is fine, as long as that new evidence is not making a new argument.


Exactly. I posted wrong in the other thread. Way to keep me honset Ryan. :) I don't mind if a team brings up evidence that correlates to the arguments already in the round (Although I think that it is best to have all the evidence read before the 2AR and just refer back to it in the 2AR) but if you decide to read new evidence that does not apply, that can get sketchy.

_________________
Jonathan Hixson - Arx Axiom Debate Society
WMD Extemp Club
Ethos Publications, LLC


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:18 pm 
Offline
T-Rothasaurus
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:48 am
Posts: 3114
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Washington
Why do you need new Evidence in the 2AR? If you haven't made coherent refutations that you can pull through at this point, you shouldn't win anyway.

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


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 1394
Home Schooled: Yes
In APDA, judges give the following reminder before every rebuttal: "while new examples are welcome, new arguments are not permitted."

If the evidence highlights a new argument, it's bad. If it's a new example, it's not.

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


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:46 am
Posts: 678
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I can't think of anything witty right now...so...RIX
David Roth wrote:
Why do you need new Evidence in the 2AR? If you haven't made coherent refutations that you can pull through at this point, you shouldn't win anyway.


While it is always preferable to make your points earlier, sometimes, there are many examples of legitimate use.

Here's one:

AFF: The recidivism rate is at 30%
NEG: It's at 20%
AFF 1AR: Their card is wrong because ____
NEG 2NR: Our card is valid because of ____. Their card is not valid because of _____
AFF 2AR: No, their card is wrong because of ___. NEW EVIDENCE: Here's a second source who validates our number.

This is NOT abusive because the AFF has not purposely withheld anything. They probably were squished for time in the 1AR and gave a valid response anyway. This is simply extending an old argument. I see nothing wrong with this.

I would say that you must tread carefully. But the basic principle is that you can indeed bring up new evidence.

_________________
http://siftingthroughmythoughts.blogspot.com/

08-09 | Thomas/Young | Broke to Regionals
09-10 | Brake/Thomas | Broke to Nats
10-11 | Black/Thomas | Won Regionals, 7th at Nats
11-12 | Comfort/Thomas | Won 2 Qualifiers, Won Regionals
12-13 | LD Debater | 3rd overall in RIX, 7th at Nats


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 5:31 pm 
Offline
Meeshmoosh
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Posts: 339
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 8 w00t
conservativesrock wrote:
Foxtrot wrote:
Amodeum wrote:
I don't understand why there is any controversy. Every coach I've ever had from every school of thought has stated this axiom

"You cannot present new arguments but you can present new evidence in the 2AR unless previously requested."


Absolutely. No new arguments, but new evidence is fine, as long as that new evidence is not making a new argument.


Exactly. I posted wrong in the other thread. Way to keep me honset Ryan. :) I don't mind if a team brings up evidence that correlates to the arguments already in the round (Although I think that it is best to have all the evidence read before the 2AR and just refer back to it in the 2AR) but if you decide to read new evidence that does not apply, that can get sketchy.

Yeah, I definitely agree. Aff should attempt to read the evidence before the 2AR, but sometimes that's not possible, and as long as your evidence doesn't make a new argument I think that it is perfectly acceptable to read new evidence in the 2AR.

_________________
-Ryan

Bosh Bebb wrote:
What do you guys think about disenfranchising all white people? That could be legit, too. I think there's lots of advocacy for it.


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:15 pm 
Offline
T-Rothasaurus
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:48 am
Posts: 3114
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Washington
Amodeum wrote:
AFF: The recidivism rate is at 30%
NEG: It's at 20%
AFF 1AR: Their card is wrong because ____
NEG 2NR: Our card is valid because of ____. Their card is not valid because of _____
AFF 2AR: No, their card is wrong because of ___. NEW EVIDENCE: Here's a second source who validates our number.
That's a new argument in the 2NR, the 2AR should just throw it out, he doesn't need to bring up new evidence.

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


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 6:19 pm 
Offline
Meeshmoosh
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Posts: 339
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 8 w00t
David Roth wrote:
Amodeum wrote:
AFF: The recidivism rate is at 30%
NEG: It's at 20%
AFF 1AR: Their card is wrong because ____
NEG 2NR: Our card is valid because of ____. Their card is not valid because of _____
AFF 2AR: No, their card is wrong because of ___. NEW EVIDENCE: Here's a second source who validates our number.
That's a new argument in the 2NR, the 2AR should just throw it out, he doesn't need to bring up new evidence.

But in that example he did, and in my opinion it would be perfectly acceptable.

_________________
-Ryan

Bosh Bebb wrote:
What do you guys think about disenfranchising all white people? That could be legit, too. I think there's lots of advocacy for it.


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 8:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:46 am
Posts: 678
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I can't think of anything witty right now...so...RIX
David Roth wrote:
Amodeum wrote:
AFF: The recidivism rate is at 30%
NEG: It's at 20%
AFF 1AR: Their card is wrong because ____
NEG 2NR: Our card is valid because of ____. Their card is not valid because of _____
AFF 2AR: No, their card is wrong because of ___. NEW EVIDENCE: Here's a second source who validates our number.
That's a new argument in the 2NR, the 2AR should just throw it out, he doesn't need to bring up new evidence.


That's not really a new argument. That's just new refutation about the same basic truth which is contested.

_________________
http://siftingthroughmythoughts.blogspot.com/

08-09 | Thomas/Young | Broke to Regionals
09-10 | Brake/Thomas | Broke to Nats
10-11 | Black/Thomas | Won Regionals, 7th at Nats
11-12 | Comfort/Thomas | Won 2 Qualifiers, Won Regionals
12-13 | LD Debater | 3rd overall in RIX, 7th at Nats


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 08, 2012 9:19 pm 
Offline
Forerunner
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:45 am
Posts: 1090
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Locations are too mainstream
kj_eowyn613 wrote:
It's not that big of a deal. :)


this statement 10 times over.
and this is off topic.......... but...........
whatever you do, don't go be a troublemaker and go to the tournament director and whine about how you think you were cheated out of a win because "they weren't fair."

I mean, raising that concern with the actual debaters themselves would be waaay more polite and helpful. I say this because I really hate when people see something and decide to try to disqualify a team. It's almost like the person sitting in the room for the round(and speech too) is trying to get them disqualified.

I decided to try to never get someone DQ'ed. I have even sat in a speech round and seen someone break some rules but instead of going and complaining to the tourney director I just went up to them after the speech and told them about it and they were really thankful to me. :)

_________________
Former NCFCA debate and speech competitor
Former homeschooler
Joel Thomas


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 1394
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
whatever you do, don't go be a troublemaker and go to the tournament director and whine about how you think you were cheated out of a win because "they weren't fair."


For what it's worth, you actually can't, insofar as it's not a rule in NCFCA (to my knowledge).

The only way it would work is if a team DQ'd themselves for bringing up new arguments. (which has happened, but probably doesn't happen very often)

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


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:46 am
Posts: 678
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I can't think of anything witty right now...so...RIX
andrewmin wrote:
Quote:
whatever you do, don't go be a troublemaker and go to the tournament director and whine about how you think you were cheated out of a win because "they weren't fair."


For what it's worth, you actually can't, insofar as it's not a rule in NCFCA (to my knowledge).

The only way it would work is if a team DQ'd themselves for bringing up new arguments. (which has happened, but probably doesn't happen very often)


Sadly, the NCFCA has begun to use the "unethical" guideline with creative license. People have been disqualified now for being rude, for using brackets in a card, or for doing something "unethical" in terms of argumentation. DQing for new arguments isn't that far-fetched at this point.

_________________
http://siftingthroughmythoughts.blogspot.com/

08-09 | Thomas/Young | Broke to Regionals
09-10 | Brake/Thomas | Broke to Nats
10-11 | Black/Thomas | Won Regionals, 7th at Nats
11-12 | Comfort/Thomas | Won 2 Qualifiers, Won Regionals
12-13 | LD Debater | 3rd overall in RIX, 7th at Nats


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:17 am
Posts: 12
Home Schooled: Yes
Alright guys, it seems people are making this whole evidence issue more complicated than it needs to be.

There's one primary reason I find new evidence in the 2AR abusive. It comes down to this - if it is worth the judge considering and if it is worth the Affirmative reading, it is worth debating. And introducing it in the 2AR makes it impossible to debate because the negative team has ZERO chance to respond.

I hear a lot about "well, new evidence is fine, but new arguments are not!" I would argue that neither of these are OK, and here's why:

Take for example, a hypothetical harm of inequality due to hate crime laws. Alright. Now, imagine that the only support the Affirmative team has in the 1AC is an assertion for this argument. The Negative team pounds them into the dirt for not providing any evidence. Finally, the negative team closes out their 2NR with a strong press for quantification and anecdotes - at which point, the round is leaning in their favor.

Now, the 2AR gets up to speak. He begins his argument, "my opponents have been asking us to bring up evidence supporting the contention that hate crime laws unequally protect victims, so I'm going to provide you with 3 powerful examples in this final speech."

Alright, so the Affirmative team wins the round... and the negative team had no chance whatsoever to respond to the examples or to even have a fair debate.

Under the logic most people on this thread have been using, these types of tactics would be fine. The argument existed, didn't it? It may have been a weak argument at first (as it had no evidential support) but it existed on the flow, nonetheless. So can't the affirmative team wait till the final rebuttal to introduce all their most powerful cards?

NO! NO! NO! NO!

This is the affirmative sandbagging the poor negative team with no hope of recovering the round, simply because they were too lame to get the evidence out earlier. If an affirmative team fails to support their arguments early in the round, it's either due to incredibly poor time management and inferior skill, or abusive tactics intended to save all the best evidence for the last speech.

While I agree that there is no technical "rule" against it (I have never argued that there is), it is absolutely CLASSLESS and is, in my humble opinion, VERY poor form. It proves that you're not good enough to actually be bold and engage in a head-on debate about the evidence with the negative team. Introducing new evidence in the 2AR where the negative has no chance to respond IS A PATHETIC EXCUSE FOR DEBATE. That is soapboxing while affording the neg no opportunity to argue against you. Once again, if it is worth bringing into the round, it is worth debating. So debate it, don't save it!

Ryan and I have NEVER brought up a single shred of new evidence in our 2ARs. Yet, our affirmative case has only lost once all year (to the very formidable Aldrich/Harris, I must say) We make it a point to manage our time effectively and introduce all the evidence we will need to construct our case and refute the other team's arguments during the constructives and the 1AR.

Additionally, when we are negative, we make it a point to not introduce new evidence in our 2NRs, so as to not warrant any new evidence from the 2AR in response.

It comes down to this: If you are a competent debater, you shouldn't require new 2AR evidence. What you already have in the round should be sufficient.

I leave room for your disagreement and I would love to answer any questions, or debate the issue with any one of you.

- Samuel Sefzik


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:17 am
Posts: 12
Home Schooled: Yes
kj_eowyn613 wrote:
I think it's perfectly legit to read evidence in the 2AR as long as it wasn't "withheld" evidence or evidence that supports a new argument. The aff team in finals at the National Open did it against us, and I was totally cool with it. If you can't read evidence, there's no point in having the 2AR's purpose be to refute the last negative speech. Each to his own however. It's not that big of a deal. :)



Yeah, Kara. :) the key word is NEW evidence. We had already read that evidence in our 1AC. So I was only re-reading it. As the neg, you had the entire round to refute it. However, new evidence in both the 2NR and 2AR is a big no-no in my opinion. I add the 2NR in there because I believe that addresses your point about "having the 2AR's purpose be to refute the last negative speech". If the 2NR doesn't bring in any new evidence, the 2AR should have no reason to read any new evidence in response - thus making it fair for both teams. :)

Thanks for a great round!

-Samuel Sefzik


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 2:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
Samuel...

You support your case in the 2AR.

Quotations are one type of support.

Sometimes people are still hashing out points by the 2AR that necessitate quotations.

Example: Protectorate year we ran a lift the DC gun ban aff.

1NC: More guns = less crime is as obvious as the nose on my face
2AC: Oh really? Then let's set up a "real life stats" standard. Did your source look past her nose? No. Here are 5 fleshed out states or cities that prove our point.
2NC: Ignore
1NR: But in Houston it had the opposite effect!
1AR: 1. Actually there were two alt causes in Houston, with immigration and drugs. 2. Houston crime stats look better when you do the ENTIRE PERIOD instead of cherrypicking 4 years.
2NR: In Maryland gun ban worked! (no stats, just fluff)

I'm 2AR. Saying that my awesome stats on how the gun ban failed IN MARYLAND shouldn't be read in the 2AR is patently ridiculous.

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


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
The test, which should be applied by the judge to everything said by the 2AR, is this: how much of a difference would it have made to the debate if the negative had an opportunity to answer the 2AR's move? A blatantly new argument that was a non-sequitur -- "Peanut butter is better than jelly!" -- wouldn't bother me in the slightest. If the 2AR wants to waste speech time on that, live it up. On the other hand, an evidenced argument made in the 1AC that was cryptic, repeated in its cryptic form in every speech, and suddenly made devastatingly clear with the one missing piece of explanation in the 2AR, would trigger my judge-fu, because the negative had no opportunity to respond to the argument in its final form. Most people would agree that the most legitimate thing you can do in your 2AR is explain things, and in this hypothetical there's no new argument and no new evidence, but the overall argument package winds up being enormously different from what the 2NR could anticipate based on the previous three affirmative speeches, so it's exclusion-worthy for unfairly yanking the rug out from under the negative.

So, the point isn't whether the new bit is an argument, evidence, an explanation, or a knock-knock joke; it's how much it remakes the landscape of the debate and how little notice the negative had that the changed landscape was coming.


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 09, 2012 6:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 3:52 am
Posts: 636
Home Schooled: Yes
I'd like to pop in here and comment that I think that the majority of evidence read in the 2AR is read for rhetorical purposes (ie, saying the same thing the aff has been saying the entire round, just in more impactful words), which I don't have a problem with in general. I agree with the analysis of others regarding evidence which is proving or explaining something that ought to have been introduced earlier.


Top
   
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 53 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 3 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