homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Tue Mar 28, 2017 3:26 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 Previous 1 2 3 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 1:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:17 am
Posts: 12
Home Schooled: Yes
DrSraderNCU wrote:
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?



There we go! May I give an example?

At NCFCA Nationals last year, I had a round in prelims in which the affirmative team was making blatant assertions to support an important argument in their case. We were running a counterplan and also winning with it - up until the 2AR, that is. They began arguing that our counterplan wouldn't work for one main reason (and introduced the argument in the 2AC), but would not provide any evidence to support their argument. Finally, after we as the neg had asked them numerous times to support their argument with evidence, I pointed out to the judge one last time in the 2NR that they had none. I was getting major positive responses and head nodding from the judge.

So, in the 2AR the last speaker brings up EXACTLY what we had been asking for all round and utterly destroys our counterplan.
Problem was, the evidence they read was flat out WRONG and was being power tagged by the aff. Had we been given the chance to respond, we could have shown that to the judge. Them saving evidence destroyed our ability to have a good debate.

So, here's the RFD from the community judge. "I thought that the negative team's argumentation and speaking were far superior, however, the evidence in the affirmative's last rebuttal convinced me."

Flash of light wrote:
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.


I don't have a problem with someone opening their 2AR with a snappy little founding father's quote, as that does not provide case specific support and only illustrates a principle. However, statistics, anecdotes or any other powerful evidence should not be read into the 2AR if it was not previously read into the round.


Last edited by ProfessorSam on Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:20 am 
Offline
Zen of Research
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2007 9:41 pm
Posts: 1510
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: No Longer Researching.
There is this handy little thing called "No New in the 2". It takes about 15 seconds to explain and solves all the problems everyone's been talking about in this thread.

jussayin.

_________________
Cornell University


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:17 am
Posts: 12
Home Schooled: Yes
Peter Voell wrote:
There is this handy little thing called "No New in the 2". It takes about 15 seconds to explain and solves all the problems everyone's been talking about in this thread.

jussayin.



Amen, Peter. We make it a habit to explain this in every 2NR. Works pretty well, except that teams will get up and argue that it is just fine, then proceed to introduce their new evidence. It's frustrating, but I think the key is in making the judge understand WHY it is poor form, and not making a claim that "it is a rule".

-Samuel Sefzik


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 2:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:17 am
Posts: 12
Home Schooled: Yes
Isaiah wrote:

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.


The need for that new evidence is wholly a result of the new argument by the 2NR. Just point out that a) it was a new argument - and should thus be disregarded, and b) no evidence from the neg does NOT warrant a response with evidence from you as the Aff. And c) the statistics you read in previous speeches indicate the gun ban didn't work in Houston or any other states, thus with no evidence from the neg there is no reason to accept the unfounded argument that it would work in Maryland.

If the neg specifically asks the Affirmative to respond to this point, go ahead and read the evidence. However, a good neg would never bring up a new argument in the 2NR and then ask the aff to respond in the 2AR; that would be suicide. A good neg would not bring up the new argument in the first place (thus removing the need for a response), and would instead spike the 2AR and ask that they not read any new evidence. These are rebuttals. Not constructives.


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
It's really weird to go a whole thread being completely ignored :P

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


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 4:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:17 am
Posts: 12
Home Schooled: Yes
Isaiah wrote:
It's really weird to go a whole thread being completely ignored :P


Umm, I'm sorry? Take a look at my previous post.


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 6:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
You're saying neg made a new argument by having a new example of the argument "more guns = more crime"?

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


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:17 am
Posts: 12
Home Schooled: Yes
Isaiah wrote:
You're saying neg made a new argument by having a new example of the argument "more guns = more crime"?


Isaiah, the argument "more guns = more crime" existed the entire round. The 2NR is getting a bit late for any new examples. At that point, I would consider the Maryland "example" a new argument because a) it requires a new response from the aff. b) The new "example" has the potential to remake the landscape of the debate, and c) the neg has the potential to win solely on this example if the affirmative does not respond. That late in the round, the neg should simply debate using the examples they already have. If they wanted to use Maryland as support, they should have done so in the negative block.

I will give you some credence though, this situation is not QUITE as bad as the tactics that routinely madden me. When the neg makes a new argument this late in the round, it does force the aff into a difficult spot - which is why I am against new "support" in the 2NR as well. The maxim "No new in the 2" should apply to both the aff and the neg. I do however think the 2AR can still address the neg's argument without reading any new evidence - especially if all the neg offered was "fluff" as you put it, and no stats.

The majority of times I have an issue with new evidence in the 2AR are instances in which they simply decide to save several "punch cards" to be read - not even intended to address a new argument by the 2NR. I believe that is abusive and undermines the whole premise of good debate.
As Dr. Srader was saying,
DrSraderNCU wrote:
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.


I think this is very well put. Every single neg round Ryan and I debated in Illinois (except for R6 v. Frazer/Stivers) had at least 3 new power cards in the 2AR that completely re-sculpted the face of the debate. Heavy spiking against this in the 2NR payed-off, but regardless, it is frustrating to even have to deal with it in the first place.


Last edited by ProfessorSam on Sun Mar 11, 2012 7:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:23 pm 
Offline
Forerunner
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2011 2:45 am
Posts: 1090
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Locations are too mainstream
ProfessorSam wrote:
Peter Voell wrote:
There is this handy little thing called "No New in the 2". It takes about 15 seconds to explain and solves all the problems everyone's been talking about in this thread.

jussayin.



Amen, Peter. We make it a habit to explain this in every 2NR. Works pretty well, except that teams will get up and argue that it is just fine, then proceed to introduce their new evidence. It's frustrating, but I think the key is in making the judge understand WHY it is poor form, and not making a claim that "it is a rule".

-Samuel Sefzik


I agree. I try hard to do this every NEG round. You just have to carefully go between the fine line of "poor form" and "breaking rules."

:)

_________________
Former NCFCA debate and speech competitor
Former homeschooler
Joel Thomas


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 4:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 5:37 am
Posts: 767
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 2, Washington
Well, I agree with Samuel.

The whole point of debate is the ability to DEBATE what is said. If a team is allowed to bring up evidence in the 2AR that can't be disputed, what's the point of debate?

I don't know about you, but I often attack evidence based on words such as "may" rather than "will", or a lame source. You don't get that opportunity after the 2AR, and judges pretty much never catch it themselves.

Evidence in the 2AR is simply unnecessary as well. Caleb Meyer and I are 19/1 with our case, and we never read new evidence in the 2AR. (The only loss was to Farris/Kemp, 2nd place at the texas open) :D

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


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 1:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
You still provide reasons for your case (warrants) in your 2AR. That IS evidence.

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


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 4:33 pm 
Offline
THE Cookie Monster!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 12:43 am
Posts: 2599
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: where no one knows my name
I haven't been the 2A since halfway through Russia year, but I would sometimes bring out a new opener or persuasive card in the 2AR. Here's how I judged whether or not that was okay:

Does this piece of evidence support an argument not formerly presented in the round? If so, don't read.
Does this piece of evidence provide new warrants to a previously stated argument? If so, don't read.
Is this a piece of evidence that just now states the warrants for my claims that neg asked for in the 1NR or before? If so, don't read.
Does this piece of evidence provide a new example or statistic that neg asked for in the 1NR or before and/or adds a whole new dimension of severity to the significance of my case? If so, don't read.
Does this piece of evidence have to be preceded with the statement, "So here's that piece of evidence my partner didn't have time to read in the 1AR..." If so, do not read.
Is this piece of evidence simply a statistic or example that upholds points unaddressed by negative? If so, okay to read.
Is this piece of evidence a one or two sentence claim that essentially restates what my team has already presented? If so, okay to read.
Does this piece of evidence simply bring out pretty rhetoric that makes my partner and me look really cool? If so, okay to read.
Does this piece of evidence respond to a new claim/request made in the 2NR? If so, okay to read, but best to point out no new arguments in the rebuttals.

As a 2N, when I'm pointing out in the 2NR that the affirmative team has failed to provide us with evidence we've asked for, I always end my argument by saying "If they bring this evidence up in the last speech, please disregard it. They've had plenty of time to bring it up in former speeches, back when we actually had the chance to refute it."
I do the same when pointing out a dropped argument.

_________________
Brenna Bakke, Veritas CA
Adorable Speecher | gr8 debate timer | 08-09
Bakke/Ruscigno | TP <3 | 09-10
Bakke/Bakke | TP <3 | 10-11
Bakke/Van Ness | TP <3 | 11-13
Sad Brenna | LD ew | 13-14
PHC Student | wow such college deb8 | 14&beyond


You're not alone.


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:20 am
Posts: 128
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: obviously
ProfessorSam wrote:
So, in the 2AR the last speaker brings up EXACTLY what we had been asking for all round and utterly destroys our counterplan.

Problem was, the evidence they read was flat out WRONG and was being power tagged by the aff. Had we been given the chance to respond, we could have shown that to the judge. Them saving evidence destroyed our ability to have a good debate.


I'm going to agree and say that this situation IS problematic. Aff's should NEVER have any reason whatsoever to "save" evidence. If there was a problem with the evidence, wait until the judge leaves, and talk to them about it. Humbly. If you tell them you're trying to improve your arguments, and wow that was a surprising piece of evidence, they'll be happy to let you see it. Then you have the opportunity to either continue asking questions (non-threateningly) or take notes on the awfulness of the evidence and be prepared in case it happens again.

ProfessorSam wrote:
So, here's the RFD from the community judge. "I thought that the negative team's argumentation and speaking were far superior, however, the evidence in the affirmative's last rebuttal convinced me."


HOWEVER: If all it took to sway this community judge was an iddy biddy piece of evidence?

Community judges 101:They know who they want to vote for BEFORE the round really starts and spend the rest of the round justifying that decision. Yes, this is a tad fatalistic. Yes, it's definitely not fair. Sadly, this is what happens 9 times out of 10 with community judges because this is how the masses are trained to think. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to give that judge multiple (but no more than 5) reasons for voting your way. Additionally, your CP should not have been the only argument your judge had to consider (DAs???) and I'm willing to bet your quote wasn't the only sentence in your judge's RFD.

ProfessorSam wrote:
I don't have a problem with someone opening their 2AR with a snappy little founding father's quote, as that does not provide case specific support and only illustrates a principle. However, statistics, anecdotes or any other powerful evidence should not be read into the 2AR if it was not previously read into the round.


Interestingly, I absolutely agree with Isaiah in his assessment of the appropriateness of new evidence in the 2AR. Sometimes it is necessary to use evidence in the rebuttals to support arguments that are already on the flow. (Please see his post on page 1).

HOWEVER: I also don't believe that reading evidence in the rebuttals (any of them) is EVER a good strategy technique. You have 5 minutes. Spending that time reading evidence to support arguments that should have already been supported is a strategic waste of time. If you have NOTHING ELSE TO SAY, sure intersperse no more than 3 well-placed, strategically important cards. Otherwise, spend that time talking about how awesome your side of the story is, explain your arguments, and throw out some voters. Debate is NOT supposed to be a battle of the experts/evidence. (My horse is bigger than your horse!)

_________________
I have sometimes believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast...


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 3:52 am
Posts: 636
Home Schooled: Yes
BouncyTigger wrote:
I'm willing to bet your quote wasn't the only sentence in your judge's RFD.

I find this genuinely amusing. You apparently have no idea how common one-line and unwarranted RFDs are with poorly-trained comm judges. Regardless of this instance, there are absolutely instances of 2AR abuse swaying layjudges (and experienced judges, for that matter).

And I agree with revgirl.


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:17 am
Posts: 12
Home Schooled: Yes
\
Flash of light wrote:
BouncyTigger wrote:
I'm willing to bet your quote wasn't the only sentence in your judge's RFD.

I find this genuinely amusing. You apparently have no idea how common one-line and unwarranted RFDs are with poorly-trained comm judges. Regardless of this instance, there are absolutely instances of 2AR abuse swaying layjudges (and experienced judges, for that matter).


It's all good guys. :)
That was certainly not the only thing in the RFD. She went on to explain how the evidence convinced her and why she voted on it. However, she was very clear that she voted for them because of their new evidence.

BouncyTigger wrote:
HOWEVER: If all it took to sway this community judge was an iddy biddy piece of evidence?


Once again, this was a CP round, so that was the main issue distinguishing the two teams' positions. Their evidence was meant to address the CP and they did a great job of applying it that way in the 2AR. The judge was smart enough to realize that the CP was the paramount issue, and the solvency thereof the most important thing for the neg. She just didn't know anything about evidence ethics. One piece of evidence was certainly enough to win this round. They were also a great team; it would have been close regardless.

Samuel Sefzik


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:43 pm 
Offline
Cupcake
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:08 pm
Posts: 1211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Illinois
I haven't read everything and I'm not necessarily able to debate the entire topic, but it seems as though many of you would like a 2AR to be clear repetition.

Essentially, if you're not providing deeper analysis/warrants for already made claims in the 2AR, then the round has pretty much already been decided and the only purpose the 2AR serves is to clearly show what's been said.

_________________
Drew Chambers
LinkedIn


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 8:53 pm 
Offline
Easiest Person to Kill with a Witty Comeback

Joined: Fri Feb 26, 2010 2:36 am
Posts: 973
Home Schooled: Yes
I've always kind of thought that the 2AR/2NR are more for impact calculus than refutation.

_________________
- Region 6 Alumnus


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
Dr_Pepper wrote:
I've always kind of thought that the 2AR/2NR are more for impact calculus than refutation.

Even if that were the case, impact calculus is SUPPORT for your side.

Whether you quote someone saying "X is greater than Y for Z reason" or simply say it yourself, you are supporting a claim. Support is evidence is evidence is evidence.

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


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:17 am
Posts: 12
Home Schooled: Yes
Isaiah wrote:
Dr_Pepper wrote:
I've always kind of thought that the 2AR/2NR are more for impact calculus than refutation.

Even if that were the case, impact calculus is SUPPORT for your side.

Whether you quote someone saying "X is greater than Y for Z reason" or simply say it yourself, you are supporting a claim. Support is evidence is evidence is evidence.


Isaiah, you know so much about debate, and you're so good at teaching debate to students that you sometimes seem to simplify things a little too much. You're simplifying matters to make it appear that "all support is equal to evidence," therefore since all speeches are for supporting your arguments, any evidence (support) is OK in any speech.

Support takes on differing levels of credibility and weight. You can "say" anything you want in your last speech, as long as you are not mis-representing the other team or bringing up new arguments. That would be support, but not new evidence. Not everything you say = evidence. Under your simple interpretation, the aff simply talking would constitute "evidence". Obviously, literature from a decorated Ph.D. is much different from a debater simply blabbing about his points. We quote experts in debate to set our position apart and add credibility. Reducing hot-air from a debater and a peer-reviewed journal to the same hypothetical level is doing the sport of debate an injustice, to say the least.

Talking over your existing points is entirely different from reading a strongly worded card from a credible expert that completely re-shapes the debate by giving your position strong new analysis. I'll say it again: allowing new evidence in the 2AR is basically giving the aff an opportunity to ignore the neg's arguments and give an extension of their 1AC - something that is outrageously effective with community judges.

Drew wrote:
Essentially, if you're not providing deeper analysis/warrants for already made claims in the 2AR, then the round has pretty much already been decided and the only purpose the 2AR serves is to clearly show what's been said.

I don't believe that the 2AR should be a simple re-iteration of old material. I do, however, find that new "warrants" are abusive if they have the potential to add new "reasons" to the flow for voting aff. The 2AR is the final speech. If you haven't provided enough warrants to make your case by that time, you don't deserve to win the round anyway. Sticking a couple new ones in during those last 5 minutes is, to put it in Dr. Srader's terms, "yanking the rug out from under the negative team" since they have no chance to address them. It has the potential to completely reverse the judge's mind.

Also, please, please, please realize that I am also strongly against any new evidence in the 2NR. Obviously, new evidence must be admissible in the 1NR and 1AR, since the aff must respond to 2NC arguments. However, to keep ugly situations from happening that require new 2AR cards, a 2N should take great care not to force the 2A into a tight spot that easily lends itself to abuse.

Dr_Pepper wrote:
I've always kind of thought that the 2AR/2NR are more for impact calculus than refutation.

Exactly. One need not worry that the 2AR will become stifled or boring without the introduction of new evidence. If you are a good enough debater, you should be able to weigh the scope and magnitude of the issues and simply debate what is already there. It's your job to make it interesting! If you are well studied and passionate about your case, this shouldn't be too hard. ;)


Top
   
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 16, 2012 12:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
If what you had just said were your actual 2AR in an actual round I would be fine with the gist of it, which has some new types of analysis but for points that are already on the flow. New support.

I'd object to this statement and hope my judge caught it:

Quote:
...any evidence (support) is OK in any speech.

Support takes on differing levels of credibility and weight. You can "say" anything you want in your last speech, as long as you are not mis-representing the other team or bringing up new arguments. That would be support, but not new evidence.


1. I never said "any" is OK in "any" speech. I agree 100% with Dr. Srader's standard. I'm trying to say that debaters who think "quotes" = "evidence" and blindly apply the standard do not understand that they are literally outlawing argument.

2. Now I'M conservative. You absolutely cannot "say" anything you want in your last speech. You need to stick to supporting and analyzing arguments already brought up. If you make a point of analysis that is new, it violates such a standard, I don't care how you support it.

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


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 Previous 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