homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:51 pm
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  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Evidence In The 2AR
PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2012 12:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 5:37 am
Posts: 767
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 2, Washington
I don't understand the people who think any new evidence is fine in the rebuttal. Seriously. What's the point of debate if you can bring up all of your case in the 2AR?

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2012 1:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:46 pm
Posts: 212
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Mars, obviously.
I don't like new evidence in the rebuttals. I don't remember what I answered on the survey, but to me, new evidence is totally acceptable in the 1AR if a) it was requested in the 2AC cx or in the negative block, b) it's needed to refute a new point from the 2NC. Otherwise, I think it's yucky. :P

_________________
ShaynePC wrote:
Guys. John Bush III is coaching this club. In Greek, jonbush means SIGN UP NOW.

Join Speech and Debate USA
[Avatar photo credit]


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2012 1:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
Zealous1 wrote:
I don't understand the people who think any new evidence is fine in the rebuttal. Seriously. What's the point of debate if you can bring up all of your case in the 2AR?

i'm pretty sure there's a thread for this in the theory subforum. but speaking as one of those people who thinks new evidence is fine in the rebuttals (as long as it addresses previous arguments), i don't see how new evidence is abusive. as long as you're responding to a previously made argument, there's no way you can surprise a team by bringing up your "whole case" in the 2AR. new evidence should be as natural and permitted as new responses. rebuttals are meant to be more than just rehashes after all.

of course, different people have different preferences, and personally i hardly ever use evidence in rebuttals, excluding openers and closers. but i don't think it should be banned on "theory" or fairness grounds.

_________________
- Will

2010-11 | Freshman | Bardsley/King | IX | 13th at Regionals
2011-12 | Sophomore | Dovel/King | IX | Q'd to Nationals
2012-13 | Junior | Dovel/King | IX | 17th at Nationals
2013-14 | Senior | Dovel/King | IX | 5th at Nationals

Baylor University class of 2018


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2012 5:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 5:37 am
Posts: 767
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 2, Washington
I'm fine with new evi in the 1NR and 1AR.

But there's pretty much no circumstance where it would be needed in the 2NR and 2AR.

Here's the thing. If you're reading more evidence on the same point, it's because that evidence has something the previous evidence didn't. For example, a better author. Or maybe better wording. But if it's adding to your side, neg should be able to refute that evidence (show a flaw in it).

I can understand (sort of) when people say new evi is fine in the 2AR if it's on the same point, but I still feel like there's either no need, or it's abusive. If the evidence provides something previous evidence did not, such as a credible source, direct wording, or even a new warrant, I think it's abusive. If it doesn't provide something new, then there's no reason to read it.

It's even worse if a team is purposefully hiding that evidence till the end because they don't want neg to be able to respond to it. That's one of the most abusive things I can think of.

Don't be a mediocre debater: Bring all your evidence up front. If your evidence really is that good, then you shouldn't be worried about the negative team seeing it because they wouldn't be able to beat it.

So please. Don't bring up new evidence in the 2NR or the 2AR. Not only is there no need, not only is it mediocre debate, it can be abusive. Otherwise teams like us (and many others) have to worry about spending a few precious seconds of 2NR time to spike the 2AR's possible evidence abuse. And it may or may not even happen. 30 Seconds + lost on something that might not happen? Disgusting.

I would love to discuss this further. I don't think any good arguments can be made for new 2AR evidence, especially one that is purposefully hidden till then.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2012 8:04 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
2AR evidence that is merely the last response in a chain of argument that has gone throughout the entire rebuttals, OK. 2AR evidence that re-affirms points you've already made for rhetorical effect, OK (IMHO, anyway, some people dislike it.) 2AR evidence raising a new argument, or making a response you should have made earlier (but didn't), not so much.

I once lost against a case we (in my humble opinion) completely smoked because the Aff read a new harm in the 2AR. At NCFCA nats. /notbitteratallokmaybealittle

A more tricky issue is leveraging the 2AR's lack of response. When I ran missile defense we had a Weighing Mechanism of Doom that we always pulled out in the 2AR. Any smart team could see exactly what our main fulcrum was from a mile away - you had to take out the accidents harm - but most people spent the entire round arguing about the technology. We were totally OK just dangling the accidents harm off to the side like fishing bait, shaking our heads in amusement as they refused to bite, and then chomping them with a giant shark-bite of hyper-polished weighing spiel in the 2AR. I'm sure this resulted in a few teams kicking themselves under the table, but it was their fault for picking the wrong footing; we weren't trying to hide what our harms were. It's not like the Aff has a duty to jump in front of the lectern and be like "no, no, no, you need to attack this..."

_________________
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
   
PostPosted: Sun Sep 23, 2012 2:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
at the end of the day, anything you say in the 2AR, be it evidence or otherwise, is (hopefully) going to "add to your side". the question is: what separates evidence from everything else (analysis, etc.)? it's still new material. it's still something neg won't be able to respond to. so if you lock yourself into that mindset (neg won't be able to respond, therefore 2AR can't respond), you might as well get up for the 2AR, repeat your points (without actually responding the the 2NR, because doing that would be abusive), and then sit down.

on the other hand, 2ARs bringing up new harms like with what happened with MSD is not cool. which is why it makes sense for 2ARs to respond, but not to construct. evidentiary construction is bad, as is making a new construction without evidence. but responding to previous arguments - either with evidence or without - can't be abusive (unless it's the special situation where neg has asked for a special piece of evidence).

_________________
- Will

2010-11 | Freshman | Bardsley/King | IX | 13th at Regionals
2011-12 | Sophomore | Dovel/King | IX | Q'd to Nationals
2012-13 | Junior | Dovel/King | IX | 17th at Nationals
2013-14 | Senior | Dovel/King | IX | 5th at Nationals

Baylor University class of 2018


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2012 1:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
Mr Glasses wrote:
revgirl wrote:
If you want to continue the discussion (which I fully encourage), do it in the Debate Theory forums so Elijah can keep his thread clean. ;)

I was tempted to say, "NO BRENNA! I NEED THE TRAFFIC!" but that would be downright selfish.

On topic, were there any areas of theory that the survey skipped?

fiating SCOTUS is a pretty niche area of theory, but it was definitely discussed last year (our case did it).

_________________
- Will

2010-11 | Freshman | Bardsley/King | IX | 13th at Regionals
2011-12 | Sophomore | Dovel/King | IX | Q'd to Nationals
2012-13 | Junior | Dovel/King | IX | 17th at Nationals
2013-14 | Senior | Dovel/King | IX | 5th at Nationals

Baylor University class of 2018


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Evidence In The 2AR
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 10:57 pm 
Offline
I know not this "leverage" of which you speak.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:52 pm
Posts: 2286
Home Schooled: Yes
Masked Midnight wrote:
No new arguments/responses


Why no new responses?

kingwill wrote:
it's still new material. it's still something neg won't be able to respond to. so if you lock yourself into that mindset, you might as well get up for the 2AR, repeat your points . . . , and then sit down.

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


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Evidence In The 2AR
PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:27 am
Posts: 107
Home Schooled: Yes
I think final rebuttal new evidence is fine if it's simply repeating an already-made point, or if it's responding to something brought up in the previous rebuttal speech.

Here's my stance on new arguments in the 2AR: if the argument would have made sense to make in the 1AR, it should not come up for the first time in the 2AR. Another way to look at it is that the Affirmative is only allowed to make new responses to things said uniquely in the 2NR (like a 2nd line response on a Disad or something.)

But I think that saving 1AR arguments until the 2AR lowers the quality of debate and gives a huge advantage to the Aff.

_________________
"Until the possible becomes actual, it's only a distraction." ~ Qui-Gonn Jin

Verve, WA
G. Smith


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Evidence In The 2AR
PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 2:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
New evidence in 2AR isn't against the rules, and isn't even sleazy. If you can use it to make your arguments more compelling, go with your bad self.

That said, a careful judge will exercise enormous skepticism over a really good piece of evidence in the 2AR. She'll ask herself, "Since the negative didn't get a chance to pick holes in it, I'll do the picking. Is there anything I could call a flaw in this evidence? Is there any argument anywhere in the 2NR that saps this evidence of power? If so, I'll take notice of that."

In the latter part of my career, I was the 2A/1N, and what I developed a taste for doing was making the radical move in the 1AR (my partner giving the speech, obviously) and then explaining, in my 2AR, what had gone down. An example similar to MSD's above: we had an affirmative that claimed ozone depletion, and we had two fairly developed scenarios for planetwide extinction -- ocean ecosystems and arboreal (forest) ecosystems. People read the scouting reports and cut takeouts to both arguments, so I'd halfheartedly cover their takeouts in the 2AC, and then the 1AR would concede them both away. The 2NR would indignantly point out that we'd granted away the entire case, whereupon in the 2AR I'd remind the judge of the first piece of evidence in the harms, the one that said ultraviolet radiation would scrub the earth clean of life, and the last card, which said even if ozone depletion was only half as severe as projected, it would be sufficient to end life on earth. "Forests and oceans were just examples," I'd say. "Even if they win that those ecosystems are resilient, the two cards I just referenced mean every life form on earth is doomed if the ozone layer goes away."

The reason we did it that way is that judges love to point out to the losing team that they had plenty of opportunity to address a situation, but just kept failing to understand what was happening. I'd point out that those two pieces of evidence were quite clearly tagged in the 1AC, were extended by name in both the 2AC and the 1AR, and if the negative went after the shiny object of specific illustrations of a broad claim, that wasn't our problem. They were confusing the example for the principle.

So I throw that story in just to make the point that reading your best evidence in the 2AR is permitted, but it's not terribly wise. When you think of what kind of decision the judge has to make, you muddy up the waters with a stunt like that. Far better to make your move earlier, and then give the judge a postmortem where you say "Here's where the negative dropped the ball." That's just a higher percentage strategy.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Evidence In The 2AR
PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
Well, it's all about the audience. I can get ornery and say "It's perfectly legitimate!!" but if your judging pool is dead set against it, there are easier routes to victory than trying to whittle down that resistance.

One thing my partner always said I was pretty good at was introducing elaborate new explanations in the 2AR, and then saying "which was the 1AR #3 off their link extensions." He'd be thinking "Boy, this is new. How does Doyle get away with this?" and then he'd look at his flow and think "Well, I suppose my #3 there has something to do with what he's saying now, but I certainly didn't think it meant all that."

I think you do something similar when you read new evidence. You read it, and then you paraphrase the important parts, and then you give a history of those claims from earlier in the debate. Is it a solvency card that says your plan has worked everywhere it's been tried? Hunt down every claim you made in the debate that it's been successful in previous implementations, and list them by speech and specific location. Convey that this has been your position all along, and the new 2AR evidence's purpose is just to remove any remaining doubt, but nevertheless continues the same argument that the negative had endless chances to answer.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Evidence In The 2AR
PostPosted: Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
if you want to cover your bases, read the card and also tell the judge why you should win even if you didn't read the card, by referring back to previous warrants. this also helps legitimize the card, as dr. srader was saying, and you should be doing it anyway.

_________________
- Will

2010-11 | Freshman | Bardsley/King | IX | 13th at Regionals
2011-12 | Sophomore | Dovel/King | IX | Q'd to Nationals
2012-13 | Junior | Dovel/King | IX | 17th at Nationals
2013-14 | Senior | Dovel/King | IX | 5th at Nationals

Baylor University class of 2018


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Evidence In The 2AR
PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:06 pm
Posts: 1058
Home Schooled: No
Location: Texas
It simply does not make any sense to say no new evidence in any of the speeches because given what the previous speaker says and evidence they bring up you should have every right to refute it and with evidence if you want.

Again there should not be new lines of argumentation and as others have said the best way to re-enforce this is by taking that new piece of evidence you are reading in the 2AR and link it back to and show how it simply bolsters a claim made in the 1AC.

As far as what to do as the 2NR as I make my final negative plea if I know there are arguments that have been dropped or demolished I always feel free to drop the proverbial "don't let the 2AR get up and refute/mitigate/change (pick your word) this in their last speech knowing we don't have a chance to respond". Usually what I do as a judge is make a judgement if I am basically at the same place a the negative team on the issue and if the issue is settled in my mind also or if the aff get one last chance to settle the issue in their favor. Again it does not always mean it works but it is a good reminder for the judge to be on the lookout.

@kingwill....I don't think SCOTUS fiat is niche it is at the very basic core of fiating the "USFG" as long as that is the actor in the resolution it is a very easy sell to anyone with an open mind willing to listen for a few seconds.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Evidence In The 2AR
PostPosted: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 03, 2009 9:20 pm
Posts: 636
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NH, Reg10n
Zealous1 wrote:
Don't bring up new evidence in the 2NR or the 2AR. Not only is there no need, not only is it mediocre debate, it can be abusive.

New evidence in the 2NR is totally fine. Take this for example:
2NC brings up new DAs
1AR responds with X response
2NR brings up evidence that completely discredits X response

This is especially prevalent when a 1AR doesn't have a very good response, so their only response is a question for more evidence: how many will this effect? They haven't proven a link! No evidence showing that Z really will cause X!

In those instances, it is totally legit for a 2NR to bring up new evidence and responses in his speech - the Affirmative still has a chance to defend their position.

_________________
Mrs. A wrote:
Oh my.... another Edelblut?

edelblutmusic <my music you listen to with your ears


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Evidence In The 2AR
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 6:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
I'll join the bandwagon.

Evidence is "support" for your argument. No argument you should make should be unsupported.

I think the challenge comes from people transitioning from "quotation-led" debating to "argument-led" debating that harnesses support/warrants for one's own points. It's using "evidence" as the musical notes of the song you are composing, versus taking the sheet music from a brief and playing it straight.

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


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Evidence In The 2AR
PostPosted: Wed Mar 20, 2013 7:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 5:37 am
Posts: 767
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 2, Washington
mechanical pencil wrote:
Zealous1 wrote:
Don't bring up new evidence in the 2NR or the 2AR. Not only is there no need, not only is it mediocre debate, it can be abusive.

New evidence in the 2NR is totally fine. Take this for example:
2NC brings up new DAs
1AR responds with X response
2NR brings up evidence that completely discredits X response

This is especially prevalent when a 1AR doesn't have a very good response, so their only response is a question for more evidence: how many will this effect? They haven't proven a link! No evidence showing that Z really will cause X!

In those instances, it is totally legit for a 2NR to bring up new evidence and responses in his speech - the Affirmative still has a chance to defend their position.


Yes, I as an A/T that's fine, I was talking about new evidence that could have been brought up earlier.

@Razi: If you've lost outrounds to region 2 b/c of new evidence in the 2AR, depending on the situation I am proud of R2 for that.

I stand by my original position: If the evidence has anything new to add it's abusive. If it doesn't have anything new to add, it is useless.

The only time I'd read new evidence in the 2AR is if the Neg read new evidence or ran a new argument in the 2NR that I need to respond to.

But openers? Why do you have to quote it, why not just say it? The negative has no chance to respond to the openers because you saved it to the 2AR. Just bring it up front.

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


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Evidence In The 2AR
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:06 pm
Posts: 1058
Home Schooled: No
Location: Texas
I think the point is actually being made quite clearly there is NO standard or bright line for bringing up evidence in speeches except for the one you started this thread about.....and that is a judges ballot. There is NO standard for speed and spread you can talk as fast and dump as much useless information on the other team as you like until...you get the judges ballot. There is NO standard for having a prima facie case until....the judges ballot.

You can do almost anything you want in the debate round as long as you can convince the judge. If you get enough ballots go against you then it soon becomes apparent that that tactic won't work and you need to stop or you will keep losing rounds....now all of a sudden a standard starts to appear but it revolves around what judges will accept and what they won't there is no debate rulebook some where you can quote from (although some teams have tried this tactic as well).

As the aff team you get the last word there is no reason a neg team should be able to convince a judge about anything you are allowed and not allowed to do in your last speech after all you get the last word it is your job to convince the judge otherwise. If you try and fail then next time try a different tactic if you keep failing maybe you just need to accept the fact that your idea simply is not going to fly and apply the same standard to yourself that all the judges are applying with those ballots.

Personally I see nothing wrong with new evidence in the 2AR but I am pretty confident I can convince in short order that it is OK, your job is to figure that out as well. I also think topical counter plans are OK but 5 years ago outside of California I would never tell one of my team to run one (although my daughter decided to try anyway and showed me up by winning that round) the standard set by judges was that they were bad/illegal so why try and find that 5% of judges that would agree with you when you could win without it. That is the main reason as a practical matter I usually think new evidence in the 2AR is actually ever needed the second one was usually simply don't have the time


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Evidence In The 2AR
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 6:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 5:37 am
Posts: 767
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 2, Washington
I'm sorry they said against the rules, I agree that's dumb.

As for brightline, yes there isn't one, but you don't need a brightline for everything.

Generic "quotes" like founding father quotes are fine. The type of quotes that you don't need to put a URL and date for.

As for the Coach's post: I agree there is no rule, but there is being ethical?

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


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Evidence In The 2AR
PostPosted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 7:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 pm
Posts: 152
Home Schooled: Yes
Coach Carter is basically saying the accepted community norms should limit what you try to do in the round. In R2 NCFCA, that means very limited 2ARs. In other parts of the country, there's a lot more you can do.

RPatz and DrSrader both give the standards I'd hold to as a judge, and the standards that usually produce the best 2ARs (probably more likely to win consistently then speeches which provide more new points). If the new warrant/evidence could have been a response in the 1AR, it probably shouldn't be run. However, strategic concessions/expansions to frame the negative arguments out of the round is absolutely devastating. 2ARs should be all about strategy, not realizing your 1AR forgot your best response and trying to squeeze it in anyway.

_________________
Come to Puget Sound Debate Camp!
debatecamp.pssda.net


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Evidence In The 2AR
PostPosted: Sun Mar 24, 2013 4:15 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 3:06 pm
Posts: 1058
Home Schooled: No
Location: Texas
Masked Midnight wrote:
Quote:
As for brightline, yes there isn't one, but you don't need a brightline for everything.

Generic "quotes" like founding father quotes are fine. The type of quotes that you don't need to put a URL and date for.

There is no brightline...so why are founding father quotes legitimate? It's new analysis, new logic and new rhetoric. For the record, I cite founding father with URLs. Just having URLs as a standard seems like a poor determinant for evaluating "evidence".


For the record wasting time on founding father quotes in a debate round is one of my HUGE pet peeves especially when you rush the last 20 to 30 seconds of your speech trying to cram in everything and run out of time.....now aren't you wishing you had just left the founding fathers at home... off soap box


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited