homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Wed Nov 22, 2017 8:24 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




Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: K Midround/Endround?
PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 12:04 am 
Offline
Epicness at its awesomest
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:20 pm
Posts: 866
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Party Region (R8ght)
So, at the last practice tournament, there was a team who basically knew next to nothing about their case. Every attempt that my partner and I made to get details, numbers, anything at all, their response was the same: "I don't know and would hate to speculate."
In the 2NR, I made this a voting issue, but I guess I did a poor job because that wasn't even mentioned on the ballot.
So, I was ranting that night to an LDer friend, and he emailed me the next day with a written out argument which, while he didn't know it, was easily translatable into a philosophical K on not knowing enough about your own case. [And no, I don't mean vagueness - He's an LDer, so it's obviously way cooler then that.]

I am in process of translating his paragraph into a K, but my question is, is it possible to K a team halfway through the round?
Now, I know the normal objections to that are the same as T - It's a-priori, so it ought to be in the 1NC. My response in this instance is that we kind of ignored it after the 1AC, but the behavior became frustrating only after it took place throughout the entire round, AND after they tried to make voting issues out of our not knowing the numbers we asked THEM for. I can't really K a team on pervasive behavior if that behavior hasn't had time to be properly labeled pervasive, can I?
That's my only objection/response to it I've thought of, so if the K masters could lend me a hand here, that would be loverly. <3

_________________
Some days, words are not enough.

- Five year alumni turned debate coach.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: K Midround/Endround?
PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
Yeah, its legit, if its on a problem that arises later in the round. My partner and I have a K in the back of our minds that we would run, at the earliest, in the 2AC.

In one round we had my partner and I ran a K and a res analysis arg. We kicked the res analysis, and if I had been thinking would have run another K in the 2NC based on one sentence they said in the 2AC.

_________________
-Bryan
Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

Google it, we're the second link that pops up. We're pretty proud of that.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: K Midround/Endround?
PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2011 2:30 am 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2955
Home Schooled: Yes
A constructive is a constructive. Any position is fair game in the 2NC.

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: K Midround/Endround?
PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 11:06 pm 
Offline
THE Cookie Monster!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 12:43 am
Posts: 2599
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: where no one knows my name
I'd say it's legit to run a K in the middle of the round because it's a-priori. Crucial philosophy transcends theoretical phrases.
I even saw a K run in the 1AR during double-octs a few days ago. I would not recommend this, though; that team is just K happy. :P It can apparently be done, however, since aff won the round.

_________________
Brenna Bakke, Veritas CA
Adorable Speecher | gr8 debate timer | 08-09
Bakke/Ruscigno | TP <3 | 09-10
Bakke/Bakke | TP <3 | 10-11
Bakke/Van Ness | TP <3 | 11-13
Sad Brenna | LD ew | 13-14
PHC Student | wow such college deb8 | 14&beyond


You're not alone.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: K Midround/Endround?
PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:22 am 
Offline
Winner of HSD Big Brother 1

Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 3:45 am
Posts: 435
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Wishing he was in colorado.
revgirl wrote:
I'd say it's legit to run a K in the middle of the round because it's a-priori. Crucial philosophy transcends theoretical phrases.
I even saw a K run in the 1AR during double-octs a few days ago. I would not recommend this, though; that team is just K happy. :P It can apparently be done, however, since aff won the round.


Yeahhhh i was shocked to see it... but i think you can do it. If your addressing a flawed mindset or something..

_________________
JJ just :locked: this


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: K Midround/Endround?
PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 2:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:02 am
Posts: 635
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: South Carolina
In my opinion...yes. Sure it's a-priori but more importantly...it's prefiat...meaning that nothing happens and our words/philosophy/way we tackle problems matters. If that really doesn't become apparent until even the rebuttals...then it's fair game.
For example, there was an NFL round where one team in the rebuttals gave the other team the finger during while he was going through his speech. The guys at the table saw it and presented a nice big k in the next speech.

_________________
God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist.
- Saint Augustine


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: K Midround/Endround?
PostPosted: Fri Jan 21, 2011 8:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2889
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
Depends on where the link is. Obviously, I can't K you in the 2NR on something you said in the 1AC. If the link doesn't come out until the later speeches, then it's cool. I was running with a novice recently a case about health collaboration-- the neg ran a DA of spending money in the 1NC (we diverted money from farm subsidies, they said we'd starve the U.S. or something like that). My partner read a quote in the 2AC about farm subsidies = corporate welfare, which the neg reluctantly agreed with in the 2NC CX, but countered we'd still be starving the U.S.. In the 1AR I ran a K of valuing corporate welfare over human life.

Couldn't have run it in the 2AC-- wasn't a link yet. The link developed, and then I ran the K. In your case, the link wasn't realized until you understood there would be no aff response that you could respond to. Sounds good to me.

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: K Midround/Endround?
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:08 pm 
Offline
THE Cookie Monster!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 12:43 am
Posts: 2599
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: where no one knows my name
Sharkfin wrote:
Depends on where the link is. Obviously, I can't K you in the 2NR on something you said in the 1AC. If the link doesn't come out until the later speeches, then it's cool. I was running with a novice recently a case about health collaboration-- the neg ran a DA of spending money in the 1NC (we diverted money from farm subsidies, they said we'd starve the U.S. or something like that). My partner read a quote in the 2AC about farm subsidies = corporate welfare, which the neg reluctantly agreed with in the 2NC CX, but countered we'd still be starving the U.S.. In the 1AR I ran a K of valuing corporate welfare over human life.
I'm confused. You said corporate welfare was the bomb, neg argued human life, and you K'd them on valuing CW over HL?

_________________
Brenna Bakke, Veritas CA
Adorable Speecher | gr8 debate timer | 08-09
Bakke/Ruscigno | TP <3 | 09-10
Bakke/Bakke | TP <3 | 10-11
Bakke/Van Ness | TP <3 | 11-13
Sad Brenna | LD ew | 13-14
PHC Student | wow such college deb8 | 14&beyond


You're not alone.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: K Midround/Endround?
PostPosted: Mon Jan 24, 2011 9:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:48 am
Posts: 468
Home Schooled: No
Location: Region 1
You're going to need to read your judge. I would consider that a new argument (if it wasn't mentioned until the rebuttals) and would disregard, however some judges would probably accept it. I don't have a problem with arguments being proposed through the constructives -- that's the time to "construct" your position.

_________________
What should a human be able to do? I agree with Robert A. Heinlein


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: K Midround/Endround?
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 12:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2889
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
revgirl wrote:
Sharkfin wrote:
Depends on where the link is. Obviously, I can't K you in the 2NR on something you said in the 1AC. If the link doesn't come out until the later speeches, then it's cool. I was running with a novice recently a case about health collaboration-- the neg ran a DA of spending money in the 1NC (we diverted money from farm subsidies, they said we'd starve the U.S. or something like that). My partner read a quote in the 2AC about farm subsidies = corporate welfare, which the neg reluctantly agreed with in the 2NC CX, but countered we'd still be starving the U.S.. In the 1AR I ran a K of valuing corporate welfare over human life.
I'm confused. You said corporate welfare was the bomb, neg argued human life, and you K'd them on valuing CW over HL?

No, we took our funding from farm subsidies, which we linked to corporate welfare. Meaning we said corporate welfare was teh failz. Neg argued it was good over a marginal benefit to human life, we K'd them.

Quote:
I would consider that a new argument (if it wasn't mentioned until the rebuttals) and would disregard, however some judges would probably accept it.

I don't understand how you can justify your position. How can you not accept a K in the rebuttals? If I use vulgarity in my 1NR, the aff can't K me for it in the 1AR? If I endorse genocide in my 1NR, the aff can't K me on it in the 1AR? I mean, how can you disregard an argument like that just because it was new in the first rebuttals?

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: K Midround/Endround?
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:48 am
Posts: 468
Home Schooled: No
Location: Region 1
Sharkfin wrote:
Quote:
I would consider that a new argument (if it wasn't mentioned until the rebuttals) and would disregard, however some judges would probably accept it.

I don't understand how you can justify your position. How can you not accept a K in the rebuttals? If I use vulgarity in my 1NR, the aff can't K me for it in the 1AR? If I endorse genocide in my 1NR, the aff can't K me on it in the 1AR? I mean, how can you disregard an argument like that just because it was new in the first rebuttals?


If you use vulgarity, I will reflect that in your speaker points and speak to tournament officials about your unprofessionalism.
If you endorse genocide in your 1NR, and hadn't brought that up in your constructives, I will disregard it.
The purpose of rebuttals is to clarify and extend existing arguments, which were built in the constructives. You are supposed to be "rebutting," or answering existing arguments, not forming new ones. There is meant to be a difference between constructive and rebuttal speeches -- hence the names.

_________________
What should a human be able to do? I agree with Robert A. Heinlein


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: K Midround/Endround?
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 6:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2889
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
debateohana wrote:
Sharkfin wrote:
Quote:
I would consider that a new argument (if it wasn't mentioned until the rebuttals) and would disregard, however some judges would probably accept it.

I don't understand how you can justify your position. How can you not accept a K in the rebuttals? If I use vulgarity in my 1NR, the aff can't K me for it in the 1AR? If I endorse genocide in my 1NR, the aff can't K me on it in the 1AR? I mean, how can you disregard an argument like that just because it was new in the first rebuttals?


If you use vulgarity, I will reflect that in your speaker points and speak to tournament officials about your unprofessionalism.
If you endorse genocide in your 1NR, and hadn't brought that up in your constructives, I will disregard it.
The purpose of rebuttals is to clarify and extend existing arguments, which were built in the constructives. You are supposed to be "rebutting," or answering existing arguments, not forming new ones. There is meant to be a difference between constructive and rebuttal speeches -- hence the names.

1. But you won't give the loss based on a K that the aff brings up? (something that would clearly be permissible during the constructives)
2. You're going to disregard an endorsement of genocide?
3. Perhaps the names should be loosened. The purpose of the constructive-rebuttal format is to engender a deep, thoughtful debate. I don't see how that goal is furthered if the aff is not allowed to K the neg in the 1AR for something said in the block. By allowing it, it brings the proper issues into the forefront of the round.

Take another example: The independent voter for fairness. My 1NR says aff can't bring new responses because of xyz. Aff brings new responses. I run the independent voter. New argument? Yep. Never argued it until the 2NR. But is it legit? Absolutely. No other way to run it.

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: K Midround/Endround?
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 2:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:48 am
Posts: 468
Home Schooled: No
Location: Region 1
Sharkfin wrote:
debateohana wrote:
Sharkfin wrote:
Quote:
I would consider that a new argument (if it wasn't mentioned until the rebuttals) and would disregard, however some judges would probably accept it.

I don't understand how you can justify your position. How can you not accept a K in the rebuttals? If I use vulgarity in my 1NR, the aff can't K me for it in the 1AR? If I endorse genocide in my 1NR, the aff can't K me on it in the 1AR? I mean, how can you disregard an argument like that just because it was new in the first rebuttals?


If you use vulgarity, I will reflect that in your speaker points and speak to tournament officials about your unprofessionalism.
If you endorse genocide in your 1NR, and hadn't brought that up in your constructives, I will disregard it.
The purpose of rebuttals is to clarify and extend existing arguments, which were built in the constructives. You are supposed to be "rebutting," or answering existing arguments, not forming new ones. There is meant to be a difference between constructive and rebuttal speeches -- hence the names.

1. But you won't give the loss based on a K that the aff brings up? (something that would clearly be permissible during the constructives)
2. You're going to disregard an endorsement of genocide?
3. Perhaps the names should be loosened. The purpose of the constructive-rebuttal format is to engender a deep, thoughtful debate. I don't see how that goal is furthered if the aff is not allowed to K the neg in the 1AR for something said in the block. By allowing it, it brings the proper issues into the forefront of the round.

Take another example: The independent voter for fairness. My 1NR says aff can't bring new responses because of xyz. Aff brings new responses. I run the independent voter. New argument? Yep. Never argued it until the 2NR. But is it legit? Absolutely. No other way to run it.


The "no new arguments in the rebuttals" is an already in-place metastructure. Politely asking the judge to disregard a new argument is not a new argument in itself. In your example, your 1NR is referring to metadebate guidelines. Your 2NR response to AFF's mistake is not a new argument. Their blunder, however, merits no more than a quick mention to the judge (why you are not going to spend time responding) and then you should move on. By spending large amounts of time on that issue, you lose the opportunity to respond to the arguments which have been laid out in the constructives.

If you picture the debate round as a building project, the teams lay a foundation together in the constructives. In the rebuttals, the walls, windows, doors, etc are built on that existing foundation. I as a judge will ignore extra buildings whose foundation was laid in the rebuttals. I am expecting a deep and thoughtful debate - not one where last-minute arguments are thrown out without time for either team to extend or answer. New arguments in the rebuttals do not allow for that deep and thoughtful debate; that is the whole purpose behind the metastructure restriction.

Also, you need to be sure ou have a clarity on the difference between an "argument" and a supporting point to an existing argument. An argument is a line of reasoning in itself, which can be rebutted either by refuting a premise (or supporting statement) or by showing that the premises do not lead to the conclusion. Once the main arguments are presented in the constructives, continued discussion of those arguments (including adding supporting premises and answering them) is permissable in the rebuttals. What teams may not do is begin a whole new line of argumentation.

Let me see if I can give a simplified version to show what I mean:

Aff argues that:
c1. Dogs are loyal
c2. Dogs are trustworthy
c3. Cats are neither loyal nor trustworthy
So, c4. Dogs are superior pets to cats.

Neg responds:
c1. Cats can be loyal.
c2. There is more to being a superior pet than loyalty & trustworthiness; the amount of work required by the owner is also a factor in superiority of pet choice.

In the rebuttals
Neg continues:
r1. Dogs are not always trustworthy (refers back to Aff c2)
r2. Cats require less work on the owner's part than dogs, so cats are superior pets (refers back to Neg c2)

Aff responds:
r1. Dogs are more loyal than cats; cat loyalty examples are rare, but dog loyalty examples are common (refers to Aff c1&c3, and Neg c1)
r2. Amount of owner work is a part of pet superiority, but dogs actually require less work than cats (refers to Neg c2, and Neg r2)
r3. More people own dogs than cats, so that shows they are superior (NEW argument, does not refer to any constructive premise/conclusion; judge will disregard whether true or false)

Does that make sense?

_________________
What should a human be able to do? I agree with Robert A. Heinlein


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: K Midround/Endround?
PostPosted: Tue Jan 25, 2011 8:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2889
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
debateohana wrote:
The "no new arguments in the rebuttals" is an already in-place metastructure. Politely asking the judge to disregard a new argument is not a new argument in itself. In your example, your 1NR is referring to metadebate guidelines.

Right. THe independent voter, however, is not asking the judge to disregard an argument-- it's asking them to vote neg based on that blunder.

Quote:
Your 2NR response to AFF's mistake is not a new argument. Their blunder, however, merits no more than a quick mention to the judge (why you are not going to spend time responding) and then you should move on.

It's a "voter". So aff made this blunder, you should vote negative directly on this issue. This isn't a response to the blunder, this is a "voter", a new argument.

Quote:
New arguments in the rebuttals do not allow for that deep and thoughtful debate; that is the whole purpose behind the metastructure restriction.

Perhaps the structure should be restructured? Deep and thoughtful debate is nice, but should we really sacrifice our moral position in favor of it? (see my genocide question in my previous post)

Quote:
Also, you need to be sure ou have a clarity on the difference between an "argument" and a supporting point to an existing argument. (...) What teams may not do is begin a whole new line of argumentation.

Post-fiat argumentation, absolutely. Pre-fiat argumentation with links in the previous speech is legit, IMO.

Quote:
Let me see if I can give a simplified version to show what I mean: (...)
Does that make sense?

I understand all of the example (and agree), but I don't think it's applicable to Ks. Because your entire example is post-fiat-- none of those arguments actually have pre-fiat impacts (which are worth sacrificing some depth, IMHO).

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: K Midround/Endround?
PostPosted: Sat Jan 29, 2011 3:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:16 am
Posts: 170
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Either "I can see Russia from my house" or "::stealing Jacob Dean's location::"
Everything discussed in the rebuttals must be linked to something from an earlier speech (I may even be a little tolerant of "new arguments" as long as the length to something previous can be ABSOLUTELY proven).* So if the K is based on something that has been said or done in the round, it's legit anywhere.

*I suspect that this will provoke a cavalcade of indignant responses. If you wish to respond, plz warrant your claim.

_________________
Quote:
Why is irresponsibility automatically a bad thing?

Say wha...? Must I answer?


"The nine most feared words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'" (Ronald Reagan)

Quote:
Insert random statement useful for nothing but narcissism


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 15 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited