It seems like there's always going to be a wayward example that you can define the discussion into that warrants openness. I would suggest that, in this case, a defense brief should contain material on nuclear weapons; TNWs was a big case Russia year and I am certain that someone would pull backfiles under future resolutions as a result.
...I guess if it so happened that you had Russian backfiles, then maybe. But hardly anyone in debate now debated Russia year. Also, that's just one example, I mentioned several others. Generic briefs are not as specific as neg briefs. That's kind of a no-brainer, I don't understand why we're still arguing this.
You don't have to debate the "false" status quo if you can actually destroy the "facts" with context.
My whole point is that you can't always. And I gave you numerous examples of when you can't.
vidence is logic. When you present a "fact" in evidence, you have to justify that fact within a given context; just saying "my evidence says X, so therefore it must be true (that's all)" is not the proper way to use evidence in debate. All claims require warrants; the same is true of facts requiring contextualization.
Evidence is NOT necessarily logic, as I already pointed out. "TNWs in Turkey don't have PALs" is not logic. It's a statement of fact. A LOT of evidence is logic, but a good half of it is just facts.
Also, if your evidence says x, and your evidence is credible, and x is merely a statement of fact (not a logical argument), then yes, the judge should assume it's true, unless you give him a really good reason not to (like better evidence to the contrary).
Many times, you can have deeper rounds with less evidence. Less evidence also affords you the opportunity to dissect your opponents' evidence, using it to your advantage; this is usually more effective than even reading a card of your own.
If you have a brief, you can dissect your opponent's evidence AND use your own evidence. If you don't have evidence, you can ONLY try to take apart their evidence. It makes the neg team and aff team more different. With evidence on both sides, both teams can attack each other's evidence AND provide their own. With one-sided evidence, neg only has one of these options, rather than both.
The important thing is that you can still dissect your opponents evidence if you have evidence of your own. The only difference is that you have a second option as well.
You're pivoting here. This depends on what you want to have a specific argument about. if you want to have a technical debate about a single statistic, then yes, evidence is a must. If you want to have a detailed debate around the practical solvency of the AFF plan, then evidence is not always necessary.
Or, you can address specific statistics AND talk about practical solvency.
And, I'd further posit, no few arguments are "possible"; anything is possible -- you're completely free to come up with your own argument with the same reasoning behind it as Dr. Expert.
No you can't. We don't just read evidence for the heck of it. We run evidence primarily because we need to ESTABLISH FACTS that CANNOT BE PROVEN WITH LOGIC. For instance, how can I prove, with logic, that the money we give to the PA goes to it's security forces' budget? How can I prove that the PA's security forces protect Israel? How can I prove that Saudi Arabia fights terrorism? I CAN'T. You need evidence to prove these things, no amount of logic can just magically establish these facts.
_________________Check out my new website!
"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014