homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Tue Dec 12, 2017 2:15 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.  [ 19 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 4:43 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, this is a mini-rant I developed due to events at my last tournament that has sprung into an opinion I've formed, and I hope that everyone will either tell me I'm overreacting, or agree with me and help me set a new trend.

I am tired of teams making big, freaking deals out of the other team not reading evidence over a point that wasn't an issue of contention until they asked for the evidence in cross ex.

Random example from India Year: [because my overtired brain, for some reason, can't remember any exact examples from Florida]

Aff: So, it's the neg stance that h1b's hurt job growth?
Neg: Yes, as multiple points in my speech demonstrated.
Aff: Then why are so many companies hiring h1b's?
Neg: They aren't - Actually, they are laying off most of the h1b workforce.
Aff: Did you read evidence on this?
Neg: No, whether companies were hiring was never a -
Aff: Ok, thanks.
::insert major rant in either the 2AC or 1AR about how the neg never read evidence on the point so ignore everything he said here::

Seeing this happen for years and getting more and more widespread over the most unimportant points in-round has led me to make the following opinions on rules regarding when to ask about evidence:

1. If they make a huge deal about a point that needs BETTER evidence on your point, and then read none of their own: Ask if they read any. This means public humiliation and pointing out a hypocritical stance. And exposing your opponent to those two things, preferably in front of crowds of people, is always fun.
2. If they make a point period without evidence that isn't a logical inference, don't ask them about it. You have just asked them a question you already knew the answer too, which is good, but gets you no where, which is not good. I know the ancient rules of master +Xing say don't ask a question you don't know the answer too, which is awesome advice, for when you're trying to get somewhere. What's the follow up question 99.999999999% of the time after that "No" you know is coming? [Hint: It's not a question.] "Ok, great, now let's talk about....."
3. This is the big one imo, and the one that irritates me the most: Don't ask them if they brought up evidence about a point they never even made. This is dumb for the same reasons as number 2, in addition to making you look silly for asking, instead of them for answering. No, they did not read evidence to a point they never made, and you didn't gain anything [except a 'that was retarded' thought bubble thrown in your direction from anyone paying attention to the round] by asking.

[/rant]
Agree? Disagree?

_________________
Some days, words are not enough.

- Five year alumni turned debate coach.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 5:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:48 am
Posts: 468
Home Schooled: No
Location: Region 1
Jacob Dean wrote:
So, this is a mini-rant I developed due to events at my last tournament that has sprung into an opinion I've formed, and I hope that everyone will either tell me I'm overreacting, or agree with me and help me set a new trend.

I am tired of teams making big, freaking deals out of the other team not reading evidence over a point that wasn't an issue of contention until they asked for the evidence in cross ex.

Random example from India Year: [because my overtired brain, for some reason, can't remember any exact examples from Florida]

Aff: So, it's the neg stance that h1b's hurt job growth?
Neg: Yes, as multiple points in my speech demonstrated.
Aff: Then why are so many companies hiring h1b's?
Neg: They aren't - Actually, they are laying off most of the h1b workforce.
Aff: Did you read evidence on this?
Neg: No, whether companies were hiring was never a -
Aff: Ok, thanks.
::insert major rant in either the 2AC or 1AR about how the neg never read evidence on the point so ignore everything he said here::

Seeing this happen for years and getting more and more widespread over the most unimportant points in-round has led me to make the following opinions on rules regarding when to ask about evidence:

1. If they make a huge deal about a point that needs BETTER evidence on your point, and then read none of their own: Ask if they read any. This means public humiliation and pointing out a hypocritical stance. And exposing your opponent to those two things, preferably in front of crowds of people, is always fun.
2. If they make a point period without evidence that isn't a logical inference, don't ask them about it. You have just asked them a question you already knew the answer too, which is good, but gets you no where, which is not good. I know the ancient rules of master +Xing say don't ask a question you don't know the answer too, which is awesome advice, for when you're trying to get somewhere. What's the follow up question 99.999999999% of the time after that "No" you know is coming? [Hint: It's not a question.] "Ok, great, now let's talk about....."
3. This is the big one imo, and the one that irritates me the most: Don't ask them if they brought up evidence about a point they never even made. This is dumb for the same reasons as number 2, in addition to making you look silly for asking, instead of them for answering. No, they did not read evidence to a point they never made, and you didn't gain anything [except a 'that was retarded' thought bubble thrown in your direction from anyone paying attention to the round] by asking.

[/rant]
Agree? Disagree?


As a judge, I really just want to hear you respond to this situation with a simple "I'll be happy to read that evidence," as long as you follow through and either you or your partner read that evidence in the next speech. Even if the crosser is being silly, all you have to do is remain calm. You should be able to get that response out before being cut off.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 5:07 am 
Offline
Laugh, or I will kill you
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:33 pm
Posts: 2492
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: College in San Diego Baby!
Just say: "if you make a contention out of that we'd be happy to respond with evidence".

_________________
+X wrote:
Oh, come now, Daniel. Your mafia playing habits make you a no-good double-crossing manipulative liar. But I would never call you a jerk!

;) <3


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 5:15 am 
Offline
Brenna's Bestest Bud
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:55 pm
Posts: 605
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: SoCal
lucky13 wrote:
Just say: "if you make a contention out of that we'd be happy to respond with evidence".


Always. This.

Frequently, neg asks for us (as aff) to read more evidence in the 2AC to support our args. This happens during the CX of the 1AC. Every time this happens, I respond by either pointing them to 1AC ev or saying, "If you'd like to make an argument about that in your speech, we'd be happy to read evidence to support our case" or something of the sort. I believe it's quite unreasonable for neg to ask for a million pieces of evidence to be read in the 2AC during the first CX. Same thing if you're neg. If you're trying to run vagueness or you think aff needs to bring up more evidence, just argue it in your speech, because I think it can be more persuasive and effective than if someone asks for 30 pages of evidence in CX.

$0.02

_________________
-Erin
"We must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope." -Martin Luther King, Jr.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 5:40 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)
debateohana wrote:
As a judge, I really just want to hear you respond to this situation with a simple "I'll be happy to read that evidence," as long as you follow through and either you or your partner read that evidence in the next speech. Even if the crosser is being silly, all you have to do is remain calm. You should be able to get that response out before being cut off.

I agree that's how you the asked should respond, but I am more frustrated that people are asking in the first place. After all, the words "I'll be happy to read it" might sound awesome, but you know while you're uttering them that your opp has no interest in you reading it - if he's wise he would much rather you didn't, which is why asking about it's existence makes absolutely no sense in my mind.

I think I might have mis-stressed my position - I know how to react when under the situation; my frustration is rooted that +Xers think this is a viable line of questioning at all.

_________________
Some days, words are not enough.

- Five year alumni turned debate coach.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 5:45 am 
Offline
Hot Ta-Molly
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:19 am
Posts: 1325
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Steubenville, OH
Jacob Dean wrote:
debateohana wrote:
As a judge, I really just want to hear you respond to this situation with a simple "I'll be happy to read that evidence," as long as you follow through and either you or your partner read that evidence in the next speech. Even if the crosser is being silly, all you have to do is remain calm. You should be able to get that response out before being cut off.
I think I might have mis-stressed my position - I know how to react when under the situation; my frustration is rooted that +Xers think this is a viable line of questioning at all.

It's totally valid. By pressing you in CX, they are wasting your 2AC time without wasting their speech time. It works against young teams who don't know how to respond just yet. They're trying to make you respond to an argument in your next speech that has not yet been argued in a speech. Therefore, it isn't an argument yet. Just do what Daniel and Erin said, x2-3 and Neg will get the picture you aren't going to eat their presses without them arguing them. ;)

_________________
~Molly

"Isn't it bewildering…that everything is so beautiful, despite all the horrors that exist?" -Sophie Scholl

Life Posterz


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:21 pm
Posts: 761
Home Schooled: No
I think the root of your frustration may need a bit more analysis both as to the question asked and the way you answered it. I think you let yourself get into a bad situation in response to a bad question. Here's what I mean:


Aff: Then why are so many companies hiring h1b's? [BAD QUESTION]
Neg: They aren't - Actually, they are laying off most of the h1b workforce. [BAD ANSWER]


The question is bad because it assumes facts not in evidence. If no one has read any evidence into the round that "companies are hiring" then the question is fundamentally flawed and should never have been asked.

Even if AFF "did" read such evidence, the question still would have been bad because AFF would be cross-examining NEG about AFF's evidence, which is a huge no-no. Never ask the other team what they think about your arguments or your evidence, you might not like the answer you get and you will deserve it.


The problem with the response is that it also asserts facts not in evidence. If you didn't read any evidence in your speech that "they are laying off", then you can't assert that fact in cx. No one is allowed to make up their own facts in policy debate.


Here's a better scenario that may keep you out of trouble the next time:


Aff: Then why are so many companies hiring h1b's? [BAD QUESTION]
Neg: You never read any evidence that said they were.


Now the "lack of evidence" problem is his, not yours, and you have avoided asserting unproven facts yourself.

_________________
"Coach Vance" Trefethen

Blue Book - the oldest and best selling homeschool policy debate briefs
Blue Book Advanced
Blue Book MidSeason Supplement
http://www.speechsupplies.com/


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:09 pm 
Offline
melancholy milkshakes. no straws.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:31 pm
Posts: 3986
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Hinnom, TX
Lil Yellow Fireball wrote:
Jacob Dean wrote:
debateohana wrote:
As a judge, I really just want to hear you respond to this situation with a simple "I'll be happy to read that evidence," as long as you follow through and either you or your partner read that evidence in the next speech. Even if the crosser is being silly, all you have to do is remain calm. You should be able to get that response out before being cut off.
I think I might have mis-stressed my position - I know how to react when under the situation; my frustration is rooted that +Xers think this is a viable line of questioning at all.

It's totally valid. By pressing you in CX, they are wasting your 2AC time without wasting their speech time. It works against young teams who don't know how to respond just yet. They're trying to make you respond to an argument in your next speech that has not yet been argued in a speech. Therefore, it isn't an argument yet. Just do what Daniel and Erin said, x2-3 and Neg will get the picture you aren't going to eat their presses without them arguing them. ;)

Neg doesn't have the right to do anything to Aff's 2A time unless they argue it themselves. I'm inclined to agree with Jacob most everything so far. CX is not apart of the round, unless either team admits things they aren't supposed to, but for Aff to respond to an argument, it must first be addressed in a speech. If Neg comes up in their speech and does nothing but ask for evidence on a certain point without actually arguing it either way, I'd just come up in the CX and ask them why it matters to the round.

Neg needs to have a legitimate reason to abuse Aff's time, and if they don't have a good reason, make them look silly in CX when it's your turn to ask the questions.

_________________
Joe Hughey
joehughey24@gmail.com

Two roads diverged in a wood and I -
I took the one less traveled
And that has made all the difference


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 5:16 pm 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
lucky13 wrote:
Just say: "if you make a contention out of that we'd be happy to respond with evidence".

This. I usually respond (as aff or neg) with a "::slapslap:: that's not an issue of contention, fool!" (paraphrased, of course). However, if the C-Xer cuts you off like this:
Jacob Dean wrote:
Neg: No, whether companies were hiring was never a -
Aff: Ok, thanks.

Then things are a little different. Just don't let the C-Xer cut you off :P Jk. Sometimes judges don't like that.

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 5:25 pm 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
Jacob Dean wrote:
debateohana wrote:
As a judge, I really just want to hear you respond to this situation with a simple "I'll be happy to read that evidence," as long as you follow through and either you or your partner read that evidence in the next speech. Even if the crosser is being silly, all you have to do is remain calm. You should be able to get that response out before being cut off.

I agree that's how you the asked should respond, but I am more frustrated that people are asking in the first place. After all, the words "I'll be happy to read it" might sound awesome, but you know while you're uttering them that your opp has no interest in you reading it - if he's wise he would much rather you didn't, which is why asking about it's existence makes absolutely no sense in my mind.

Well, what opp may be doing (and I've done this before) is trying to suck up your time while undermining your credibility. Basically, it goes like this (when C-Xing an underexperienced team):

CXer: Did you read evidence on XYZ?
CXee: No, but we have it.
CXer: Coolio -- could you read that in your next speech?
CXee: Uh....sure.... :?

They either waste time addressing an uncontested point, or they never get to it -- in which case even if you don't point that out to the judge, their credibility is undermined.

I'll admit right now that this is a completely unreasonable tactic. Which is why if opp asked me that question I would say: "If you contest that point, we'll address it."

So, the best way to make this backfire on opp and prevent them from doing it again is to call them out on it in CX.

@Vance: Good tactic, there. I'd prolly say that as well.

Just realized I double-posted...

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:48 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
Okay, personally, I think that cross-examination has many functions. Clarification, setting up your partner's disads, giving your partner prep time, and exposing weakness in your opponent's arguments so that your partner has an easier time addressing them. However, it is not a place to make contentions.

Here's the difference:

1A: In your last speech, you stated that CTR is effective, right?
1N: Yes.
1A: Did you provide any evidence to support this fact?
1N: No.
1A: Alright, my partner will address that in her speech. :next question:

As opposed to...

1A: In your last speech, you stated that CTR is effective, right?
1N: Yes.
1A: Did you provide any evidence to support this fact?
1N: No.
1A: Do you have any evidence to support it?
1N: Back at the table, yeah, we might.
1A: Okay, then I'd love to see that in a later speech, if you could bring it up.
1N: ...okay.

I've seen both happen. I've had both done to me [though switched positions, since I'm the two]. And I've had my partner do the first. I think it's okay for a cross-exer to ask if the opposing team provided evidence because that plants a seed of doubt in the judge's mind about their argument. It also makes their partner's speech easier.

2A: "Judge, the negative speaker contends that CTR is effective, therefore, we shouldn't abolish it. But as admitted in cross-examination by the negative, they haven't provided a single piece of evidence to support this fact, while our 1AC gave you numerous pieces that proved CTR is very ineffective. For the negative's argument to be credible, we would ask for evidence to support their position."

This draws the judge back to cross-examination. It reminds them that the negative team themselves admitted to never having provided evidence.

What is not cool, however, is to expect the negative team to respond a point you make in cross-examination. I hate it when people ask, "Could you bring this up in a later speech?" That's borderline abusive of their time. Cross-ex is a time to set up arguments, not make them.

_________________
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.


Last edited by revgirl on Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:58 pm 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
revgirl wrote:
I hate it when people ask, "Could you bring this up in a later speech?" That's borderline abusive...

I agree. Nevertheless, people will do it -- and I've done it before. Sometimes, I still do it myself -- as a test for the affirmative team. If they don't respond correctly, they've just shot themselves in the foot.

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:00 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
Yeah, people will do it. That's where the words of Daniel, Molly, and Erin come in handy. You just respond to that by saying, "If you make an argument in your speech about it, then certainly."

_________________
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
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:01 pm 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
revgirl wrote:
You just respond to that by saying, "If you make an argument in your speech about it, then certainly."

Yes. And with a reasonable judge, that can turn the opp's strategy on its head.

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 10:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:32 pm
Posts: 292
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: On my bed... Drowning in piles and piles of books and papers :D
As many people have said before me, I always respond to that kind of question with, "If you make an argument about that in your next speech, we will gladly respond to it with evidence." I learned that the hard way my first year when we actually lost a round because I didn't bring up evidence in my 2AC on a point asked about in CX (it was never brought up in the 1NC, however). My partner didn't have time to bring up evidence about it in the 1AR, and of course they came up in their last speech and said, "We have been asking for these numbers since the first CX and they still haven't provided them! It is too late for them to bring them up now because it is the last speech and we wont have time to respond. So vote Neg!" The judge listened :| .

_________________
~ Sabrina - A tab orphan, and proud of it!
PROBE - Small, but mighty!
Forerunner wrote:
:P You are smart.
I think more people should listen to you

lookingforangels wrote:
Yeah, you're gonna die. ;)


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 2:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:21 pm
Posts: 761
Home Schooled: No
1A: Okay, then I'd love to see that in a later speech, if you could bring it up.
1N: ...okay.
[BAD ANSWER]


BETTER ANSWER
1N: Actually we'd like to hear your partner's response to the arguments we already made, then we'll see what evidence we need to use to respond.


Never let the other team write your speeches for you.

_________________
"Coach Vance" Trefethen

Blue Book - the oldest and best selling homeschool policy debate briefs
Blue Book Advanced
Blue Book MidSeason Supplement
http://www.speechsupplies.com/


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 3:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:21 pm
Posts: 761
Home Schooled: No
I should have added, "Can we see more evidence" is also always a bad question. There is never a good time to ask that question.


After all, you don't want them to have more evidence, you want them to have LESS evidence. You'd be thrilled if they never bring up more evidence, wouldn't you? So don't ask for things you don't want.


Smart responders will never admit that the arguments/evidence they made thus far are inadequate. Requests for "more evidence" should always be answered by "After we hear your response to the evidence/arguments we gave already, then we'll see what we need to provide later in the round." Never promise absolutely to bring up more evidence. After all, your arguments were great and don't need "more evidence" to become valid, do they? How dare anyone suggest that more is needed? ;) As soon as you concede more is needed, you concede your argument was inadequate.

_________________
"Coach Vance" Trefethen

Blue Book - the oldest and best selling homeschool policy debate briefs
Blue Book Advanced
Blue Book MidSeason Supplement
http://www.speechsupplies.com/


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:55 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
coachvance wrote:
1A: Okay, then I'd love to see that in a later speech, if you could bring it up.
1N: ...okay.
[BAD ANSWER]
Well yes, I understand that it's a bad answer. My point was that when the 1A poses the request for evidence, an unexperienced 1N can often be tricked into complying. Which is effective, sure. Right? No.

_________________
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
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 4:56 pm 
Offline
melancholy milkshakes. no straws.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:31 pm
Posts: 3986
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Hinnom, TX
coachvance wrote:
I should have added, "Can we see more evidence" is also always a bad question. There is never a good time to ask that question.


After all, you don't want them to have more evidence, you want them to have LESS evidence. You'd be thrilled if they never bring up more evidence, wouldn't you? So don't ask for things you don't want.


Smart responders will never admit that the arguments/evidence they made thus far are inadequate. Requests for "more evidence" should always be answered by "After we hear your response to the evidence/arguments we gave already, then we'll see what we need to provide later in the round." Never promise absolutely to bring up more evidence. After all, your arguments were great and don't need "more evidence" to become valid, do they? How dare anyone suggest that more is needed? ;) As soon as you concede more is needed, you concede your argument was inadequate.

This says it all.

It's more of a problem with novices, I notice, both in asking those kinds of questions and in answering them in a way that concedes the inadequacy of their argument(s). The best way to answer those kinds of questions is simply to put the burden on Neg to actually argue something, rather than simply asking for evidence that shouldn't be needed until Neg makes an argument. After all, CX isn't technically supposed to be part of the round anyway.

_________________
Joe Hughey
joehughey24@gmail.com

Two roads diverged in a wood and I -
I took the one less traveled
And that has made all the difference


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 19 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited