homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Tue Apr 25, 2017 5:52 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  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: How to debunk "myths"
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 5:37 am
Posts: 767
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 2, Washington
I've hit a lot of affirmative teams that read a bunch of convincing evidence and play a game of telephone with themselves where each speech the perceived strength of the evidence gets higher.

But when you research the evidence either the context destroys it, or there's a back story to the evidence that destroys it.

It's like a piece of evidence that says a certain person is corrupt, and then you find articles showing that what he said was not actually an incriminating statement.

Since it obviously takes more time to debunk evidence than it does to say evidence, how do you convince a judge with a team that's doing this for every single piece of evidence?

(Especially when aff team is so good at speaking that you sound like an idiot debunking them).

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 3:24 am
Posts: 769
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Alabama
If they are taking evidence out of context to change its meaning, then that is a violation of Debate Ethics, and you should go to JO about it. :?

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

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 4:09 pm 
Offline
I know not this "leverage" of which you speak.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:52 pm
Posts: 2268
Home Schooled: Yes
_TakenUsername_ wrote:
If they are taking evidence out of context to change its meaning, then that is a violation of Debate Ethics, and you should go to JO about it. :?

Most of the time it's media outlets twisting quotes, not the debaters.

That being said, I go by this general rule: never use JO as a first resort.

_________________
This account doesn't express the opinions of my employers and might not even express my own.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 5:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 5:37 am
Posts: 767
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 2, Washington
First, Mr. Glasses is correct. They're just quoting the biased articles. So it's not always an evidence violation.

Second, JO here in region 2 has made mistakes so I don't even feel like resorting to that.

Third, we'll lose the round unless we make it clear they're just plain wrong. I'm talking how do we beat them in round.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:49 am
Posts: 62
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 10 (from Ohio)
What I do which seems to work is:

1) challenge their source as best you can (who they get money from, how they're bias, etc).

2) say you'll give the source a free pass if the evidence holds up because that's all that really matters.

3) show how the evidence is contextually bad (or however its wrong) and

4) bring it home by saying how its unimaginable that they would quote such a source when it's so obviously wrong and that the only reason they didn't quote a better source was because its not true and none of the good sources agree with them.

Hope that helped.

_________________
Benjamin Erste ~ guy who likes to always have a good time.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 8:48 pm 
Offline
The Great White Sharc
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:58 pm
Posts: 4769
Home Schooled: Yes
Make your responses more efficient so you can get through them more quickly than the original point. Have all of the documentation on-hand.

_________________
Marc Davis

I currently help coach at TACT in Region X.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jan 26, 2013 12:18 am 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1909
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
013 wrote:
Make your responses more efficient so you can get through them more quickly than the original point.
This is the key answer to Zealous' scenario: be really, really concise. Don't go into any more detail than you absolutely have to. If they want to contest the issue, you can always go into more detail later.

I'm a big advocate of conciseness anyway. It's not hard to learn, and there are so many scenarios where being able to say something more quickly and cleanly than your opponent is a huge advantage. A drill I like is delivering responses in classical four-point structure, deliberately using only one clear, simple sentence for each point. For example:
Quote:
The Affirmative team claimed that John Smith had been indicted for corruption (link). However, this is simply not true (response). What really happened was that a political opponent accused John Doe of corruption, and the Affirmative's source misreported it as an actual indictment (warrants). Because there's no reason to believe that John Doe actually is corrupt, voting for their plan doesn't actually make your life better (impact).
In an actual round, you might read a short card under the Warrants section. But again, this should be concise; keep your citation and underlining as brief as possible.

_________________
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 - v1.4 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 6:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 5:37 am
Posts: 767
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 2, Washington
Yeah, I have a hard time knowing when I've already won the point and I can just move on.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:32 am 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1909
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
Zealous1 wrote:
Yeah, I have a hard time knowing when I've already won the point and I can just move on.
The eternal struggle. Personally, I found that if an argument was straightforward and was presented clearly using a standard structure like the one above, 99% of the time the judge would just "get" it right off the bat (and further repetition would just be a drag on my speaker points.)

Obviously, the key factor is how you say it, not how many times you say it or how much time you spend on it. (This is why I find the above drill useful - it forces one to make everything as simple and clear as possible, without leaving anything out.)

_________________
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 - v1.4 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Jan 27, 2013 8:21 pm 
Offline
The Great White Sharc
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:58 pm
Posts: 4769
Home Schooled: Yes
Say it in a way that catches the judges attention. If it's really important in the round, tell the judge to pay attention. Alter your speed or volume. Use forceful words.

_________________
Marc Davis

I currently help coach at TACT in Region X.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed May 15, 2013 9:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2440
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
013 wrote:
Say it in a way that catches the judges attention. If it's really important in the round, tell the judge to pay attention. Alter your speed or volume. Use forceful words.

As an example, at NFA nationals, an aff someone was running was entirely cut from one article. The first page of the article literally said "this is a good idea, but the federal government shouldn't do it because its unconstitutional and would be way too controversial." (which we were going to leverage as a link to a tics DA) Our strat was to hold up the article (30 pgs) and say "I will concede the round right now if she can show me where, in this article, it says the USFG should do it."

If you have the documentation, don't be afraid to go all-out.

_________________
-Bryan
Assistant Mock Trial Coach, University of Nebraska at Omaha


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu May 16, 2013 1:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
I suggest setting up a standard of "primary sources, for this particular subject".

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu May 16, 2013 6:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2440
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
Isaiah wrote:
I suggest setting up a standard of "primary sources, for this particular subject".

Although if you do that, be careful that you have primary (or at least closer to primary) sources for everything else also, or some standard as to why primary matters on this issue, but nothing else. If they have more primary sources than you, they could easily just extend and cross-apply your analysis and win the round somewhere else.

_________________
-Bryan
Assistant Mock Trial Coach, University of Nebraska at Omaha


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

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