homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Sat Aug 19, 2017 2:44 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  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 8:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:19 pm
Posts: 123
Home Schooled: Yes
Hammy wrote:
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Evidence isn't a cop-out.

Except when taken out of balance with critical thinking. Knowledge (evidence) without wisdom (critical thinking) is worthless.


Realistically, though. That's not true. Not in the sense we're talking about. Also, that's not mutually exclusive.

That's why a two year old with four, full debate boxes can still pull off a solid debate round?

Except they can't. At least if by solid you mean decent. I've seen teams come up and just read quotations, that's not the kind of evidence that wins most judges over. We have the opposite problem more often. Teams get up using critical thinking that's based off of misinformation and 'facts' they know off the top of their head that are simply false and don't bring any actual expert opinion to support they're controversial factual claims. They look fine to the judge who hasn't researched the topic much and the team's logic is fine so they win.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 8:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1371
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Evidence isn't a cop-out.

Except when taken out of balance with critical thinking. Knowledge (evidence) without wisdom (critical thinking) is worthless.


Realistically, though. That's not true. Not in the sense we're talking about. Also, that's not mutually exclusive.

That's why a two year old with four, full debate boxes can still pull off a solid debate round?


You're being absurd.

You were the one who said that balance is unimportant.

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 9:18 pm 
Offline
Mr. Grumpy
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:37 pm
Posts: 209
Home Schooled: Yes
Hammy wrote:
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Evidence isn't a cop-out.

Except when taken out of balance with critical thinking. Knowledge (evidence) without wisdom (critical thinking) is worthless.


Realistically, though. That's not true. Not in the sense we're talking about. Also, that's not mutually exclusive.

That's why a two year old with four, full debate boxes can still pull off a solid debate round?


You're being absurd.

You were the one who said that balance is unimportant.


No, I didn't.

_________________
Graham Stacy:
NCFCA & Stoa Alumnus
Author: COG Debate
Coach: ResolvedFL - Sigma Society
USF - Class of '19 - Applied Mathematics


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 9:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 3:24 am
Posts: 769
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Alabama
Hammy wrote:
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Evidence isn't a cop-out.

Except when taken out of balance with critical thinking. Knowledge (evidence) without wisdom (critical thinking) is worthless.


Realistically, though. That's not true. Not in the sense we're talking about. Also, that's not mutually exclusive.

That's why a two year old with four, full debate boxes can still pull off a solid debate round?


You're being absurd.

You were the one who said that balance is unimportant.


Here.

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

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 10:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1371
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Evidence isn't a cop-out.

Except when taken out of balance with critical thinking. Knowledge (evidence) without wisdom (critical thinking) is worthless.


Realistically, though. That's not true. Not in the sense we're talking about. Also, that's not mutually exclusive.

That's why a two year old with four, full debate boxes can still pull off a solid debate round?


You're being absurd.

You were the one who said that balance is unimportant.


No, I didn't.

Then clarify what you said.

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 10:04 pm 
Offline
Mr. Grumpy
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:37 pm
Posts: 209
Home Schooled: Yes
Hammy wrote:
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Evidence isn't a cop-out.

Except when taken out of balance with critical thinking. Knowledge (evidence) without wisdom (critical thinking) is worthless.


Realistically, though. That's not true. Not in the sense we're talking about. Also, that's not mutually exclusive.

That's why a two year old with four, full debate boxes can still pull off a solid debate round?


You're being absurd.

You were the one who said that balance is unimportant.


No, I didn't.

Then clarify what you said.


My original comment is still there. What part of it confuses you?

_________________
Graham Stacy:
NCFCA & Stoa Alumnus
Author: COG Debate
Coach: ResolvedFL - Sigma Society
USF - Class of '19 - Applied Mathematics


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 10:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1371
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Evidence isn't a cop-out.

Except when taken out of balance with critical thinking. Knowledge (evidence) without wisdom (critical thinking) is worthless.


Realistically, though. That's not true. Not in the sense we're talking about. Also, that's not mutually exclusive.

That's why a two year old with four, full debate boxes can still pull off a solid debate round?


You're being absurd.

You were the one who said that balance is unimportant.


No, I didn't.

Then clarify what you said.


My original comment is still there. What part of it confuses you?

On the point that you discounted a call for balance.

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 11:01 pm 
Offline
Mr. Grumpy
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 25, 2013 5:37 pm
Posts: 209
Home Schooled: Yes
Hammy wrote:
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Crazy-Clubin'-People wrote:
Evidence isn't a cop-out.

Except when taken out of balance with critical thinking. Knowledge (evidence) without wisdom (critical thinking) is worthless.


Realistically, though. That's not true. Not in the sense we're talking about. Also, that's not mutually exclusive.

That's why a two year old with four, full debate boxes can still pull off a solid debate round?


You're being absurd.

You were the one who said that balance is unimportant.


No, I didn't.

Then clarify what you said.


My original comment is still there. What part of it confuses you?

On the point that you discounted a call for balance.


Nevermind. I think my comment(s) are clear enough. Either the point is taken or it's not.

_________________
Graham Stacy:
NCFCA & Stoa Alumnus
Author: COG Debate
Coach: ResolvedFL - Sigma Society
USF - Class of '19 - Applied Mathematics


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2015 11:12 pm 
Offline
Hint hint peoples.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:18 pm
Posts: 1364
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: San Diego, California
Dat quote war tho...

To be on-topic, I believe in limited openness. Closed debate really doesn't make much sense to me, except in the case of region 6, where everyone is friends and wants to protect each other. I can understand that, even though IMO it'd be better for them to be open. The fact that teams are seemingly opting for surface-deep argumentation and evidence wars isn't an indictment of openness but rather an indictment of debate's general trends. Do you really think the surface-deep evidence wars would stop if all teams/competitors stopped sharing their briefs and cases? It'd be a little tougher to maintain, yes, but especially in a resolution like reforming Middle East policy, even a closed system would have probably seen a decline in overall debate quality due to the fast-paced and always changing nature of that resolution.

_________________
Evan Buck, LD Coach

As the deer pants for the water brooks, so pants my soul for You, O God. -Psalm 42:1


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 1:08 pm 
Offline
I know not this "leverage" of which you speak.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:52 pm
Posts: 2281
Home Schooled: Yes
Full disclosure: I'm a big proponent of openness. I shared my AFF case with everyone under the sun and love it when other people do too. If I lose on an argument I've never heard before, then so be it.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Sep 15, 2015 7:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
I would add that I am not a fan of openness on AFF (I prefer spontaneous, creative analysis to pre-prepared, "canned", arguments), but I think sharing/trading NEG files is awesome. I've held this position for over 6 years now and I've been happy with it.

I agree that you should not be TOO open with your Aff case, but I think limited openness is really essential. People should at least know what you're running. Otherwise you can just say all kinds of ludicrous "facts" that no one can refute because they don't have any credible evidence saying the contrary. It makes for a pretty lame debate round.

You should be able to win because your arguments are better, not because no one knows any facts about your case.

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Sep 16, 2015 4:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:31 pm
Posts: 82
Home Schooled: No
Hammy wrote:
Most alumni can probably agree that there has been a noticeable decline in the quality of debate over the past few years. The teams today seem to be nothing like the teams of yesterday. I feel that debaters are forgetting what debate really is.


Good luck proving that.

_________________
The NCFCA board has just announced that they will create a grand army to counter the increasing threats of the separatists.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2015 3:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
I don't think so at all. Ludicrous facts are ludicrous for a reason and it takes far more skill to dissect and point them out as such rather than reading a "card from my NEG front-line" in response. I believe you can refute without evidence; this is why they are separate judging criteria.

The problem is, a lot of the time you CAN'T refute the evidence without evidence of your own. The evidence is just wrong. So many people write so many wrong things that you can't possibly refute without better evidence.

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2015 3:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
1. It is a collection of counterwarrants to the warrants in the evidence of your opponent.
2 To add credibility to your position.

3. To establish facts and statistics that cannot be proven with logic.

Quote:
To point 1, if you can come up with the same warrants as the evidence to counter the warrants of your opponent's claims, you should win the round regardless of who you cite. This is the real art of debate that closedness forces you into; it makes you think, rather than read. As someone who has done collegiate debate, I can assure you that "OpenEvidence" leads you into a system where debaters stop thinking up their own warrants because "there's a card for it". Point being, closedness leads to better debate via more critical thinking.

I agree for the most part, but some warrants are FACTS, which cannot be proven logically and require evidence.

Quote:
Secondly, when you isolate the credibility variable, I think one would be hard pressed to find a round in which all judges involved said "I'm gonna go with the PhD. Why? Because he's a PhD". If a judge says that, there are two problems: (a) it represents fallacies by virtue of circular reasoning and appeal to authority and (b) shows a shallow understanding of argumentation. I'd call it a fluke ballot if it ever happens.

So, if the Aff team has some fact or statistic that's bogus that I can't refute...I should argue that "that guy is just a PhD, he's not necessarily right"??

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2015 5:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
Facts can be (a) found in generic briefs (buy COG, folks ;))

I have gotten COG before. It almost never has facts in it specific enough to counter the type of problem I'm talking about. COG is really only good for extremely general cards that explain general phenomena. Not statistics or specific facts about cases.

Quote:
(b) established with warrants. If your evidence is a claim without warrants, it's useless outside of credibility; as aforementioned, credibility isn't purely a reason to need evidence.

You don't understand. THERE ARE NO WARRANTS FOR FACTS. ;) Facts don't have warrants.

For instance, if someone says "we give x amount of money to y program" that claim has no warrant. It is simply a fact. And unfortunately, experts get them wrong sometimes.

A good example of this is last year. People ran prisoner law. They had evidence from very credible people saying that we give money directly to the PA's prisoner law. Do we? No. Detailed government reports show that actually we only give the money to specific parts of the PA budget, and not the budget in control of the prisoner law.

How can I refute this without evidence? I can't. The same way I can't refute the erroneous claim that the b-61 bombs at Incirlik base are older, and therefore have no PALs. The same way I can't refute the claim that mandatory minimums are advisory (which they aren't). Sometimes you just need evidence to refute people's facts, or to have any type of high quality debate.

Quote:
You should argue that the reasoning for "Dr. Expert" doesn't logically justify the conclusion reached in his statistic. This yields better debate than saying "my PhD says otherwise" and leaving it there.

You don't need a logical justification for facts. They are just facts.

I'd also like to point out that when people go neg without evidence, there are very few good DAs they can run, because most DA links require case-specific evidence. This further degrades the quality of the debate round. In a good debate round you want both peoples' best arguments to clash.

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Sep 21, 2015 6:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
I would disagree, but I'd recommend putting together generic briefs on areas within the resolution (appellate courts, trial courts, etc) that have specifics.

No COG generic briefs had anything specific to the prisoner law or TNWs, which are the two cases I mentioned.

Quote:
Actually, I do understand. The statement "we give x money to y program" can be easily refuted by saying that the federal budget appropriation, as congressionally authorized, does not have the means to satisfy "x money". You could also talk about monetary verification issues; while another card would be nice to have, it isn't necessary to win the argument.

I don't understand what you're getting at. How would congress not have the means to give money to the prisoner law? And what verification issues?

Quote:
These are things that should be in either generic briefs on the resolution or specific briefs on other cases.

Ummm, no definitely not. There's no way your generic brief on Turkey is going to contain details of the PALs on Turkish nukes. Generic briefs do not get anywhere close to being that specific.

Quote:
Furthermore, if this is the only argument for having open evidence, it's a weak one. Evidence is important and I don't decry that; I'm just saying that the fact some people quote illegitimate facts isn't a reason to advocate an open-evidence policy. That's their problem, not really yours.

I'd say it's pretty strong, because almost every squirrel case I've ever hit was based on false "facts" that couldn't be refuted with logic.

But that's not my only reason anyway. As I previously mentioned, it degrades the quality of the debate by not allowing the neg to run any of the strongest DAs (which almost always require case-specific evidence). It makes it less like an actual congressional debate, where both sides know facts about the policy in question.

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 2:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
Seems like we may be at an impasse, but I'll go ahead and respond :P.

Quote:
Then write your own generics. ;)

There is absolutely no way that any generic I wrote would contain the minute details of the prisoner law or PALs on TNWs. I'd have to crazy lucky to happen to have put that in the brief if I didn't know about those cases ahead of time.

Quote:
You could make the argument that the AFF would require a reevaluation of the congressional budget, since it has already been decided upon; they'll likely try to fiat their way out of it though. A better strategy would be to refute the case on other grounds -- be creative; there's always more than one way beat a case and no case is perfect for that reason.

Sure, it's possible (though quite hard) to win without refuting that point. But the point is, debates become pretty stupid if the entire thing is Neg's legit DAs vs Aff's erroneous harms that are based on a false claim about the status quo. I'd rather debate about reality than Aff's fictitious idea of reality.

Quote:
You don't need to be "that specific" to win. Specs are good to have, but they are not necessary; that's my point. No debater has a "right to specifics!" in a given round; hence, we shouldn't start exhorting teams to "be open". The NEG has a no more a right to my AFF than the Green Bay Packers have rights to see the game-day plans of the New England Patriots.

Right, you don't have a RIGHT to specifics, but it does improve the quality of debate by having people argue about reality rather than a fictional world.

Quote:
You and I disagree on what "quality debate" looks like, so it seems. I do not think that pre-meditating an entire debate round so that everyone plays off of their frontlines is "quality debate"; academic debate is an exercise in critical thinking and logical reasoning, not a congressional deliberation (if you take a look at how much critical thinking and logical reasoning goes into a congressional "debate", I think you'll see my point... ).

1) As I previously mentioned, I think people can be TOO open. I'm not saying that everyone should know every minute detail about everyone's cases, merely that they should know what cases peopel are running.

2) Congressional debates are pretty high quality last I checked.

Quote:
Who determines the "strongest D/As"? The D/A my brother/partner ran in our last outround at nationals was the deciding issue for one of our judges and he had no evidence to support it; this can be contrasted with the D/As from certain sourcebooks that have evidence and yield nothing in the round. Evidence is by no means an indicator of a "strong D/A". D/As are predicated upon ideas; if you have an idea better than that of a PhD, then you should be given due credit (and victory) based on that idea.

All I know is, from my experience, the strongest DAs by far are case specific and not at all general. OF course you can win a few ballots with super general DAs, but they usually have very theoretical impacts, and therefore do not appear as powerful as Aff's harms. I can't think of a single case that has more significant generic DAs to it than case specific DAs.

I mean, take TNWs for instance. What generic stuff can you run against that? Maybe some really weak DAs about relations or soft power or something, both of which can easily be refuted by Aff. You need to know about it in order to come up with anything very powerful against it.

To sum up my position, I think it's perfectly possible to have excellent debate rounds where one team runs a squirrel. However, I don't see why a debate with less detailed, more general arguments from neg, and arguments based on erroneous "facts" from aff, is higher quality than a debate that covers every aspect of the case, down to the tiny details. A debate where neg has no evidence is a restricted debate.

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 4:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1371
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
Cyberknight wrote:
I mean, take TNWs for instance. What generic stuff can you run against that? Maybe some really weak DAs about relations or soft power or something, both of which can easily be refuted by Aff. You need to know about it in order to come up with anything very powerful against it.

So said the debater who relies heavily on evidence.

Cyberknight wrote:
2) Congressional debates are pretty high quality last I checked.

Watch CSPAN sometime. They really aren't that great. :P

Cyberknight wrote:
A debate where neg has no evidence is a restricted debate.

Restricted to where the negative actually needs debate skills instead of a well researched position to win.

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 6:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1393
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
So said the debater who relies heavily on evidence.

...Yeah, I do. So? :P How does that change anything about my statement?

Quote:
Restricted to where the negative actually needs debate skills instead of a well researched position to win.

Tell, me, have you ever known a team that had only good research, and not good argumentation skills, that actually did well? I didn't think so. Evidence is useless without logic.

Also, as someone already mentioned on this thread (forget who), you can't really be good at research if you aren't a good critical thinker and arguer. I have never known anyone who was a good researcher and not a good arguer.

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 1:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1371
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
Cyberknight wrote:
...Yeah, I do. So? :P How does that change anything about my statement?

At risk of sounding like an ad hominem, you're the one having trouble coming up with arguments. ;)

Cyberknight wrote:
Tell, me, have you ever known a team that had only good research, and not good argumentation skills, that actually did well? I didn't think so. Evidence is useless without logic.

Us, last year.

Cyberknight wrote:
Also, as someone already mentioned on this thread (forget who), you can't really be good at research if you aren't a good critical thinker and arguer. I have never known anyone who was a good researcher and not a good arguer.

Well that's good that you haven't met anyone like that, but I've met several.

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 58 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