No, it's not. I would turn your statement around and say that forcing Aff to concede a terrible argument and then lose because of it should be considered more abusive. Debate should be judged not on dropped arguments, but based on a paradigm that if Aff's case is a good idea, it should win, and if it isn't it should lose. If X Neg dropped argument hardly even applies to the case or if it's a funding DA (ahhhhhhhhhh), then guess what. Aff's case is still better than the SQ and it should win.
I think there's a slight problem between what you're saying and what Nathan is saying.
Joseph - "I would turn your statement around and say that forcing Aff to concede a terrible argument and then lose because of it should be considered more abusive"
But you're first of all, the timing. Nathan - "It's still not ok to wait until the 2AR"
And secondly, you're missing the fact that concession =/= importance. Jordan - "Once an argument is conceded in the rebuttals, it becomes true. That doesn't make it important."
Debate should be judged not on dropped arguments, but based on a paradigm that if Aff's case is a good idea, it should win, and if it isn't it should lose.
Ok. But dropped arguments obviously would play into that. If you're saying 'x' is a bad idea, and there's no response to it, then there is a problem there. Waiting until the very last speech, waiting to the point where the Negative cannot
raise an objection is, in my opinion, abusive and unfair. You're exploiting the time constraints (time constraints that wouldn't exist in real life) in order to evade a Negative's argument.
If X Neg dropped argument hardly even applies to the case or if it's a funding DA (ahhhhhhhhhh), then guess what. Aff's case is still better than the SQ and it should win.
Yes, I would agree with this. But this isn't refutation, it's weighing. You're accepting
the argument as true, but not important.
If it doesn't apply or if it doesn't outweigh.
Then why don't you just say so? It doesn't really take that long, and it'll shut down the argument for the rest of the round (assuming your argument is correct).
A funding DA is what I would call a dumb argument.
There would be plenty of people that would disagree. So who would be right, in-round? What about those teams that have won on funding DAs? Is that just an anomaly? Are you willing to lose rounds on anomalies because of a misconception you hold?
Because most DAs will actually help determine whether Aff's case is a good idea or a bad idea, and they are weighing arguments. Funding DAs are not, because they don't determine anything but Neg's desperation, and it's more legitimate to respond arguments like that in the 2AR.
Are you saying Funding DAs
or illegit? Or funding solvency
Because if you're cutting from an NGO's funding, I can see how pointing out the importance that the NGO has being a reason why the plan would be a bad idea.
Or GFRs ifffff
you can show where the money would be cut from. And why that specifically would be a bad thing.
Oh and by the way, a clear line can't really be drawn because there are hundreds of "dumb arguments" against every case. But I suppose you could generically define a dumb argument as one which doesn't impact the round. It either doesn't apply or is such a small DA that it doesn't outweigh Aff's advantages. Solvency arguments should never be considered dumb or unimportant unless they don't apply to the 1AC.
I think Affirmatives and Negatives will almost always be in opposite camps when determining which arguments are "dumb."
You misunderstood my framework. What I meant to say is if the Aff's case is a good or bad idea based on what's said in the round. That last part was a give-in for me.
And dropped arguments are definitely in-round. Therefore, they deserve just as much recognition (if not refutation) as any other argument. Especially
if you can lose on them.My position
3. Can I respond to args my partner dropped?
I would say no. It upsets me when arguments are dropped, and then picked up the 2AR. It skews strategy (dropped weighing) and the time restrictions placed upon the Aff.
However, there is one way that you can "address" (not respond) to argument dropped: Bite them. Say, "yeah we dropped them, but 'x' is more important, [and that means we win]." I've had my 1AR partner drop non-important arguments on purpose several times this year. If the Neg doesn't address them, then they're washed out, and that's fine with me. If the Neg spends his time pointing out they were dropped and I can't respond to them, I accept their limitations, and then show how even though I can't respond to them (and won't) we should still win because they're not important.