homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Thu Sep 21, 2017 11:30 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.  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:37 am 
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
The criterion for mine and Jordan's case is responsibility. In our last aff round at San Diego, a team ran a framework of a judicial court. They claimed that since a debate round has a judge who votes on whether or not the status quo is wrong, we're basically in a judicial setting and the round should be treated as such. Thus, we had to prove the status quo guilty to win.

Unfortunately for negative, this really destroyed any chance that they had of winning... We interpreted their framework as saying that any proof of guilt of the status quo should result in a vote for the affirmative. They never contested this. As Jordan pointed out in the 2AR, you wouldn't give a criminal [in our case, CTR] acquittal just because he once donated money to charity [the DAs/SQ advantages]. All we had to do was prove a single harm in the status quo to win the round.

I'm still not sure I entirely agree with the judicial system framework, but it sure does work for the affirmative. Any thoughts?

_________________
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 Mar 22, 2011 4:13 pm 
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)
Knee-Jerk reaction: It seems to make any DA's neg runs meaningless. I like how you both handled the DA's, [but frankly I think the DA's against CTR are lame to begin with, so you really don't NEED that framework to beat them.]

But looking at other cases, DA's under that framework are basically like saying "Look, you can only convict one killer, and even if the SQ has murdered three people, executing him will cause his sister to launch into a tirade and kill ten." Under a court setting, that isn't a reason to not execute the SQ, as it is still guilty, but in a POLICY making realm, is a WONDERFUL reason to keep the SQ around. I would argue against the framework as the neg to say that it renders many legitimate arguments meaningless, if the question is ONLY "is there any harm at all", and we have to ignore whether getting rid of it is worth any cost.

_________________
Some days, words are not enough.

- Five year alumni turned debate coach.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2887
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
The neg ran that completely wrong. I think what they were trying to say is: "The burden of proof is that the SQ is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

Usually, that would skew the round horribly to the neg (debate rounds are usually decided using the civil burden of proof-- that is, the preponderance of the evidence/51% doubt = neg vote, rather than the criminal burden of proof).

For instance, the neg should've run something like: "Judge, the aff must show you that the inefficiencies of CTR outweigh the benefits. We have yet to see this proven beyond a reasonable doubt (cue one or two DAs), therefore, under our criterion you must vote neg."

Pretty sure that's what they were trying to do.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:18 pm 
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!
Sharkfin wrote:
The neg ran that completely wrong. I think what they were trying to say is: "The burden of proof is that the SQ is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt."

Usually, that would skew the round horribly to the neg (debate rounds are usually decided using the civil burden of proof-- that is, the preponderance of the evidence/51% doubt = neg vote, rather than the criminal burden of proof).

For instance, the neg should've run something like: "Judge, the aff must show you that the inefficiencies of CTR outweigh the benefits. We have yet to see this proven beyond a reasonable doubt (cue one or two DAs), therefore, under our criterion you must vote neg."

Pretty sure that's what they were trying to do.
^ Just what I was gonna say.

Presumption is a strong argument on the negative side, although a criterion is a silly way to argue it. It all relates back into net benefits. Presumption is just a way of saying that we have an unsure advantage on the aff side, so the neg's D/A's should outweigh.

_________________
+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: Wed Mar 23, 2011 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:34 pm
Posts: 224
Home Schooled: No
Location: St. Louis, MO
The only criterion that belong in policy debate are Net Benefits. Anything else, as far as I can tell, is simply a criterion that the AFF knows it upholds and SQ doesn't, like, "criterion: whoever saves the US more money wins," which is an easy out and gives the negative NO GROUND (unless you want a counterplan debate, lol). A criterion is supposed to be something that both sides agree to, that whoever gets there first (or better) gets the ballot. So, "criterion; whatever is the most net-beneficial thing to do" is generally the only way to go.

Please do us all a favor and reject extraneous criterion making in policy debate.

CoachJen
Assistant Coach, Texas Tech Debate (09'-10')
2010 NPDA National Champions

_________________
and this argument matters because...?


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 3:01 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
Mm. I definitely agree with you to a degree. That's my my brother and I have chosen to use a framework instead, and one that is much more inclusive. Responsibility allows for net benefits of any kind, and doesn't rule out any certain set of impacts. It simply asks the judge to weigh the policy[s] with a mindset of responsibility: Is this our responsibility? No? Then we probably shouldn't get involved. Would getting involved in this same policy prohibit us from fulfilling our own responsibility or duty? No? Then we definitely shouldn't get involved.

_________________
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 Mar 23, 2011 8:39 pm 
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!
CoachJen wrote:
The only criterion that belong in policy debate are Net Benefits. Anything else, as far as I can tell, is simply a criterion that the AFF knows it upholds and SQ doesn't, like, "criterion: whoever saves the US more money wins," which is an easy out and gives the negative NO GROUND (unless you want a counterplan debate, lol). A criterion is supposed to be something that both sides agree to, that whoever gets there first (or better) gets the ballot. So, "criterion; whatever is the most net-beneficial thing to do" is generally the only way to go.

Please do us all a favor and reject extraneous criterion making in policy debate.

CoachJen
Assistant Coach, Texas Tech Debate (09'-10')
2010 NPDA National Champions
I half agree, and half strongly disagree.

The way criteria are used is absolutely ridiculous, (I uphold my criteria of "relations improved" so I should WIN!!!) and should be stopped, its just silly. Net benefits are the point of debate, so using criteria like that is just ignoring the point of debate.

However, there are thousands of times in life when we have two equally good options. For instance, we can spend a million dollars (economic loss) to avert a terrorist threat (threat of nuclear destruction). It's almost impossible to distinguish between the two, because both are worthy goals. That's where the criteria can be a helpful thing to have. If our focus is aimed toward national security, then the spending is put in a different light, and can be viewed in a better manner. How do you weigh apples and oranges when choosing which to eat? It all depends on your personal preference, or bias. Both are about the same size, but it just depends on what your criteria would be. If you want something sour, you'd probably choose the orange, but if you want something sweet, the apple would take precedence. It's merely a way of choosing between two net benefits and determining which is better. Essentially its a bias on what is important to you.

A criterion (when improperly used) is a ridiculous attempt to twist debate and say: "I WIN!!! Yay me!!!"
A criterion (when properly used) is merely a means to determine between two equally beneficial goals.

_________________
+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: Wed Mar 23, 2011 8:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:34 pm
Posts: 224
Home Schooled: No
Location: St. Louis, MO
Lucky -

Ok - so name *one* criterion for me that both teams can agree to race down it. If you have to use two (one for aff, like Economy and one for neg, like Human Rights) then we get sucked into redundancy; that debate should already be happening somewhere else on the flow, and they are already implicit in the argumentation from both sides.



Coach Jen
Assistant Coach, Texas Tech (09'-10')
2010 NPDA National Champions

_________________
and this argument matters because...?


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:56 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
Daniel, you pose a legitimate predicament. However, I don't think a criterion is necessarily the way to solve that problem. That would simply draw the debate away from the actual issue [money or potential security?] to the values [economics or life?]. It's still going to cause a dispute because both teams will want to go with whichever criterion supports their arguments best. I think the best way to handle that issue is simply impact weighing:

"A million dollars is a lot of money. If we spend such a large amount on attempting to prevent a possible attack is not the right choice. We shouldn't spend so much money on an unsupported fear, especially when our country is in debt. It sets a bad precedent and promotes emotional terror. Please vote negative."

"Judge, a million dollars may be a substantial amount of money to you and me. But compared to the potential crisis of a terrorist attack, it is virtually nothing. Please vote affirmative."

_________________
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 Mar 23, 2011 11:10 pm 
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!
CoachJen wrote:
Lucky -

Ok - so name *one* criterion for me that both teams can agree to race down it. If you have to use two (one for aff, like Economy and one for neg, like Human Rights) then we get sucked into redundancy; that debate should already be happening somewhere else on the flow, and they are already implicit in the argumentation from both sides.



Coach Jen
Assistant Coach, Texas Tech (09'-10')
2010 NPDA National Champions
I don't think that type of criterion exists. The reason a criterion can work though, is that it (if correctly used) will focus the round. If all of the neg's D/A's stem from hurting the economy, and all the aff's advantages come from protecting national security, then a criterion helps to focus on the premise of the arguments. Which do you prefer? Well that depends on your bias (insert lots of analysis about why the judge should prefer my bias).

@Brenna: That's a hopeless decision for the judge. Imagine having two perfectly good... yet bad... option to choose from. When you talk about impact weighing, thats actually the reason a criterion exists, for the impact weighing. It's your personal bias or way to distinguish between the two valid arguments. Now we can just focus on which goal our country should head in :). (aff or negs criterion). The round (if argued this way) would be much simpler.

_________________
+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: Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:34 pm
Posts: 224
Home Schooled: No
Location: St. Louis, MO
Lucky -

You didn't answer my redundancy argument. That debate should already exist on the advantages. The fancy word is "impact calculus" and those values need to clash through the body of the debate, not just in one little section that someone will likely ignore or drop.

Coach Jen
Assistant Coach, Texas Tech (09'-10')
2010 NPDA National Champions

_________________
and this argument matters because...?


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 11 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