Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TARSIER

Varsity Blues

Recommended Posts

I have been a varsity debater for my high school for 2 years. Last Year, I did exceptionally well in Rankings, winning almost all of my rounds and beating the "camp" teams. However, this year I have encountered some very interesting judges. At least, interesting to me. A few have told me that Solvency Evidence is not needed, and simply restating advantages is enough to solve. A few others have un-linked my DA by saying that the military is not a domestic program(AIDS Pledge, Aff Taking away money from Domestic Tax Pool, AIDS pledge coming out of that pool, millions of people in africa die. Link: Don't Ask Don't Tell Repealment uses Military money.Plan says No Funding.) Other judges say that without enforcement, they can still solve. Without funds, they can still solve NO MATTER THE CASE. Fiat works on everything, including Stock issues. Etc, ETc ETC. I don't get it, everythign I have ever learned in my life about debate is refuted by a ton of novice judges(parents who sat through one round and told how to vote) moved up to a varsity round, who are crackpots IMHO. Who is right? Can Fiat work for stuff besides Leg Intent? Does Leg. Intent apply to changing the 1949 Geneva Convention? Even though the plan admittedly costs some money, no money needed because it is Fiated? What is the debate round coming to? I have only one 2 debates this whole year, (I ran maverick a couple of times) and do not understand how negative can win to these seemingly new rules.

 

Please Help

 

Jay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If these judges truly are new to the event, then you're probably talking a little bit above their heads, meaning they have to substitute their knowledge of how the world works for the gaps in their knowledge about your case. You need a special case for lay judges, one that is slow, descriptive, and very persuasive. Try to avoid jargon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HI, In short, no. Fiat only says that the plan should be done, and it is the illusion that if the ballot is cast for the affirmative side that the plan is put into effect - it was "invented" (I prefer to use the term "agreed to") so that we wouldn't have to listen to "But Congress would never do that" type arguments. It does not, in any way that I am aware of, relieve the burden of solvency from the Affirmative. In other words, the Affirmative still has the burden to prove the plan will be a good solution to the problem. They can't simply say "plan solves, fiat makes it so" and set down - it's a convention not a magic wand. H.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...