homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:02 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 Previous 1 2
Author Message
 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
   
 Post subject: Re: Evidence In The 2AR
PostPosted: Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

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

The Founding Fathers used new evidence in rebuttals. :o

Last Federalist Paper is Federalist #85. It summarizes the debate and looks much like a 2AR.

The last paragraph of this Federalist Paper quotes Hume to illustrate a point.

Quote:
The zeal for attempts to amend, prior to the establishment of the Constitution, must abate in every man who is ready to accede to the truth of the following observations of a writer equally solid and ingenious: "To balance a large state or society [says he], whether monarchical or republican, on general laws, is a work of so great difficulty, that no human genius, however comprehensive, is able, by the mere dint of reason and reflection, to effect it. The judgments of many must unite in the work; EXPERIENCE must guide their labor; TIME must bring it to perfection, and the FEELING of inconveniences must correct the mistakes which they inevitably fall into in their first trials and experiments."3 These judicious reflections contain a lesson of moderation to all the sincere lovers of the Union, and ought to put them upon their guard against hazarding anarchy, civil war, a perpetual alienation of the States from each other, and perhaps the military despotism of a victorious demagogue, in the pursuit of what they are not likely to obtain, but from TIME and EXPERIENCE. It may be in me a defect of political fortitude, but I acknowledge that I cannot entertain an equal tranquillity with those who affect to treat the dangers of a longer continuance in our present situation as imaginary. A NATION, without a NATIONAL GOVERNMENT, is, in my view, an awful spectacle. The establishment of a Constitution, in time of profound peace, by the voluntary consent of a whole people, is a PRODIGY, to the completion of which I look forward with trembling anxiety. I can reconcile it to no rules of prudence to let go the hold we now have, in so arduous an enterprise, upon seven out of the thirteen States, and after having passed over so considerable a part of the ground, to recommence the course. I dread the more the consequences of new attempts, because I know that POWERFUL INDIVIDUALS, in this and in other States, are enemies to a general national government in every possible shape.


Snap :lol:

_________________
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  Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2

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