Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
grandpa

out of round impact: "make them rewrite the case"

Recommended Posts

Hey all-

 

Ran into a critical argument that I haven't heard before several times this while judging. The critique's thesis was the U.N. is a front for western colonialism, with genocide/biopower implications. The link was basic "u.n. action = colonialism, you use the U.N. for PKO so you link."

 

Anyways, during c-x the aff asked the neg why the neg had any kind of pre-fiat out of round implications. The neg replied, "well, our argument will persuade you to rewrite your case so it's not colonialist, and that's how our movement will start." The aff asked, "well we don't have any intention of rewriting our case based on this critique, so why do you have prefiat implications?" neg answers "well, if you don't rewrite the case, you're entrenching colonialist thinking and you lose the round based on the fact you reject our movement in the real world".

 

Another team made this same argument about "we force them to be less _____ist and rewrite their case, starting our movement" (from a different school) and I dropped them for the same framework/theory reasons.

 

I totally didn't buy this. The aff argued convincingly that they could NEVER rewrite their case to be 'less colonialistic' since the critique's link if off of generic u.n. action, and that there was no chance of the aff rewriting their case after the round since they just wouldn't do it, and therefore there was no prefiat/out of round implications. The aff also extended the usual policymaking/roleplaying/realism good framework defense.

 

I vote aff, since the neg goes big for the critique in 2nr (and the block dropped a link turned disad COLD that the aff extended in the 1ar). Give an oral critique, and the neg team goes ballistic, basically arguing 'they didn't read enough evidence, we did a better job with the critique on the flow and the disads don't matter because of our out of round implications'.

 

Am I missing something theoretically here? I think I made the right decision, but the team I judged travels nationally and went to decent camps. If I don't know what's going on, educate me. I'm not a critique expert, but I think this argument is bogus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems similar to the many erasure arguments out there - like lets say u hit gendered language - u cross out the gendered word and it is 'erased" and u read cards onto how that can solve.

 

Anyway it seems to me that voting aff was the right decision. First of all it doesnt seem like the neg even won their framework or that there was any framework clash within the round. Also- the aff won that the alt wont solve and if there was no framework clash (I believe) u default to the aff's framework and evaluate the disad - so theres a link turn and more harms that they prevent (whether its nuc war or w/e).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey all-

 

Ran into a critical argument that I haven't heard before several times this while judging. The critique's thesis was the U.N. is a front for western colonialism, with genocide/biopower implications. The link was basic "u.n. action = colonialism, you use the U.N. for PKO so you link."

 

Anyways, during c-x the aff asked the neg why the neg had any kind of pre-fiat out of round implications. The neg replied, "well, our argument will persuade you to rewrite your case so it's not colonialist, and that's how our movement will start." The aff asked, "well we don't have any intention of rewriting our case based on this critique, so why do you have prefiat implications?" neg answers "well, if you don't rewrite the case, you're entrenching colonialist thinking and you lose the round based on the fact you reject our movement in the real world".

 

Another team made this same argument about "we force them to be less _____ist and rewrite their case, starting our movement" (from a different school) and I dropped them for the same framework/theory reasons.

 

I totally didn't buy this. The aff argued convincingly that they could NEVER rewrite their case to be 'less colonialistic' since the critique's link if off of generic u.n. action, and that there was no chance of the aff rewriting their case after the round since they just wouldn't do it, and therefore there was no prefiat/out of round implications. The aff also extended the usual policymaking/roleplaying/realism good framework defense.

 

I vote aff, since the neg goes big for the critique in 2nr (and the block dropped a link turned disad COLD that the aff extended in the 1ar). Give an oral critique, and the neg team goes ballistic, basically arguing 'they didn't read enough evidence, we did a better job with the critique on the flow and the disads don't matter because of our out of round implications'.

 

Am I missing something theoretically here? I think I made the right decision, but the team I judged travels nationally and went to decent camps. If I don't know what's going on, educate me. I'm not a critique expert, but I think this argument is bogus.

 

 

seems your decision was legit, but i wasn't there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Give an oral critique, and the neg team goes ballistic, basically arguing 'they didn't read enough evidence, we did a better job with the critique on the flow and the disads don't matter because of our out of round implications'.

 

 

 

An observation which does not address the point of your thread:

 

The Neg "going ballistic" is one of the primary reasons why lots of judges don't like giving oral critiques. It's hard enough to get people to give up their time to come judge at a tournament; it gets even harder if their past experience includes teams who openly challenge their evaluations. In sports (especially high school), a player who openly argues with a referee's call is likely to get ejected from the game; perhaps we need a similar action for debaters who do the same. Docking speaker points is not a solution since (a) often the tournament asks that orals be given AFTER the ballot has been turned in, and (B) most big tournaments use the "drop the high & low rounds" system on calculating points anyway, and © points don't matter in elim rounds.

 

I know very well that the REAL goal of debaters who do this is not to change the decision at hand but to make the judge so intimidated by their challenge that he/she will think twice about voting against the team in some future round (what Phil Kerpen once called a "deterrence win" on another thread in this forum).

 

My policy with my debaters is that they are NOT to argue wth the judge in the oral, and any who do so will miss the next few tournaments. Maybe that means we get "walked on" by judges more than is our due, but I tend to think that the good of the activity is a greater value here.

 

(Note: I am not dissing oral critiques....just this particular reaction to them and the fact that there is NO remedy in the tournament system to deal with it.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any team that makes the argument that the aff will (note, not should) rewrite their case after the round to avoid ______ist langauge should lose. Especially after the aff says they are not going to rewrite their case. At best it gives them a link for the language being intentional, but it's not a round winner by itself.

 

r

O

B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think you need to be a "critique expert" to realize that the argument is complete bullshit. As far as I can tell, they might as well say that their alternative is to purge the debate community of all of its colonialist heresy, as if this activity has turned into but a few notches above the inquisition. Their "movement" is literally to kick out everybody who makes a particular argument. To me, they are going to need to be VERY VERY convincing about the link and the impact to win that alt.

 

But still, one should feel an obligation to vote on what was actually said in a debate rather than how stupid one particular argument is. I have encountered debates like this before (under the guise of a "rethinking" alt), and here's how I handled it.

 

Me: I vote aff because they win case outweighs.

Neg: WHAT?? What about the out-of-round implications??

Me: Well, what were the out-of-round implications?

Neg: That you should use the ballot to support our critique.

Me: What does your critique say?

Neg: The the plan is flawed because blah blah blah.

Me: What if in a theoretical world they won that the case outweighs the critique?

Neg: Then the critique wouldn't necessarily prove the plan is flawed.

Me: So what were the out-of-round implications again?

 

My point is this: their alternative relies on the assumption the the critique is good - in fact, so good that the aff is worth rejecting in its favor. And if only the aff is making impact analysis (in the form of dropped turns or extending advantages), then the alternative is asking you to do something wrong, namely reject a good aff for bad reasons. So ultimately the alternative is nothing more than a restatement of the argument that if the negative wins the critique then it wins the round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An observation which does not address the point of your thread:

 

The Neg "going ballistic" is one of the primary reasons why lots of judges don't like giving oral critiques. It's hard enough to get people to give up their time to come judge at a tournament; it gets even harder if their past experience includes teams who openly challenge their evaluations. In sports (especially high school), a player who openly argues with a referee's call is likely to get ejected from the game; perhaps we need a similar action for debaters who do the same. Docking speaker points is not a solution since (a) often the tournament asks that orals be given AFTER the ballot has been turned in, and (B) most big tournaments use the "drop the high & low rounds" system on calculating points anyway, and © points don't matter in elim rounds.

 

I know very well that the REAL goal of debaters who do this is not to change the decision at hand but to make the judge so intimidated by their challenge that he/she will think twice about voting against the team in some future round (what Phil Kerpen once called a "deterrence win" on another thread in this forum).

 

My policy with my debaters is that they are NOT to argue wth the judge in the oral, and any who do so will miss the next few tournaments. Maybe that means we get "walked on" by judges more than is our due, but I tend to think that the good of the activity is a greater value here.

 

(Note: I am not dissing oral critiques....just this particular reaction to them and the fact that there is NO remedy in the tournament system to deal with it.)

 

While I don't think straight up arguing with a judge is an all too effective or good thing, and I certainly think going ballistic on a judge is indefensible, saying that judges should be likened to referees who can't be questioned or enagaged in conversation is kinda absurd. Yes, judges should be extremely respected for the time they put in traveling to tournaments and listening to debates that usually end up boring the life out of them. However, a one way street of "I talk, you sit down, shut up and listen" doesn't seem to foster any of the educational benefits of the activity. If teams can't ask questions like "but what about the calculability arguments they dropped" they won't be afforded any space to understand either why those arguments are unconvincing or how they played into the decision the judge made. Likewise, judges won't be afforded space to learn about certain arguments further in-depth if the reason they didn't vote on them was a combination of their unfamiliarity with the arguments and a lack of in-depth explanation during the round. Even if judges can't learn anything from teams who ask them questions or express frustration over what they believe was an unfair decision, dialogue with the losing team on their specific points of contention over the round provides opportunities for the team to better refine how they debate by providing them with a better understanding of why they didn't win the round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I don't think straight up arguing with a judge is an all too effective or good thing, and I certainly think going ballistic on a judge is indefensible, saying that judges should be likened to referees who can't be questioned or enagaged in conversation is kinda absurd. Yes, judges should be extremely respected for the time they put in traveling to tournaments and listening to debates that usually end up boring the life out of them. However, a one way street of "I talk, you sit down, shut up and listen" doesn't seem to foster any of the educational benefits of the activity. If teams can't ask questions like "but what about the calculability arguments they dropped" they won't be afforded any space to understand either why those arguments are unconvincing or how they played into the decision the judge made/

 

You & I obviously interpret what I wrote VERY differently; where did I say that the debaters can't/shouldn't discuss the round with the judge? Where did I say they can't/shouldn't ask questions? Where did I say the oral critique should be a one-way street?

 

But....there is a really fine line that needs to NOT be crossed by the debaters. The questions need to be phrased so as not to "accuse" the judge of anything. To use your example, instead of saying "what about the calculability arguments that they dropped?" (obvious implication that the judge "missed" something), it would be a lot better to ask "what could we have done to better highlight the calculability arguments? It was our feeling that they were not very well covered by they other team and we thought we could win on that."

 

See the difference?

 

Bottom line is, it really is not the job of the judge to justify his/her decision.....justification implies seeking agreement by all parties, and that is probably not achievable in a heated and close round. The judge does have a duty to explain and clarify her/his decision. You don't have to like it or even agree with the decision, but education comes when you understand the decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I like to ask my questions in the following manner:

 

"What was your opinion of the X argument?"

"How did you weigh the X claim?"

"Did you buy X argument?"

"How could we have best answered this X response?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why we are on the subject on out-of-round impacts, I have a question..

 

One of my arguements on/against language K's is our out-of-round proliferation of words is inevtable and thusly you need ot solve out-of-round. I hvae adopted this method for the femy and other langage K's we run. That unless we are able to show that we support "-ism" is bad..then their use if the word is only going to increase out-of-round which means our impacts would only worsen. THe ballot is Key to show that "-ism: is abd and vote neg to endorse the out-of-round impacts.

 

Would this work in most cases. We have only read a nuke-speak K with this strat, picked the round up, but does it seem like it would work agaisnt more solid teams?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You & I obviously interpret what I wrote VERY differently; where did I say that the debaters can't/shouldn't discuss the round with the judge? Where did I say they can't/shouldn't ask questions? Where did I say the oral critique should be a one-way street?

 

But....there is a really fine line that needs to NOT be crossed by the debaters. The questions need to be phrased so as not to "accuse" the judge of anything. To use your example, instead of saying "what about the calculability arguments that they dropped?" (obvious implication that the judge "missed" something), it would be a lot better to ask "what could we have done to better highlight the calculability arguments? It was our feeling that they were not very well covered by they other team and we thought we could win on that."

 

See the difference?

 

Bottom line is, it really is not the job of the judge to justify his/her decision.....justification implies seeking agreement by all parties, and that is probably not achievable in a heated and close round. The judge does have a duty to explain and clarify her/his decision. You don't have to like it or even agree with the decision, but education comes when you understand the decision.

 

Yeh, my fault, when I hear referee or any other sports analogies that people try to apply to debate I kinda take them literally (what came to mind was that referees don't ever explain their decisions). I dunno about the whole rephrasing thing, like I was saying, while keeping cordial and all, sometimes direct questioning or voicing of frustration helps the explanation process, but it does depend, and I'm sure 8-9 times out of ten your way of asking is better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't think you need to be a "critique expert" to realize that the argument is complete bullshit. As far as I can tell, they might as well say that their alternative is to purge the debate community of all of its colonialist heresy, as if this activity has turned into but a few notches above the inquisition. Their "movement" is literally to kick out everybody who makes a particular argument. To me, they are going to need to be VERY VERY convincing about the link and the impact to win that alt.

 

But still, one should feel an obligation to vote on what was actually said in a debate rather than how stupid one particular argument is. I have encountered debates like this before (under the guise of a "rethinking" alt), and here's how I handled it.

 

Me: I vote aff because they win case outweighs.

Neg: WHAT?? What about the out-of-round implications??

Me: Well, what were the out-of-round implications?

Neg: That you should use the ballot to support our critique.

Me: What does your critique say?

Neg: The the plan is flawed because blah blah blah.

Me: What if in a theoretical world they won that the case outweighs the critique?

Neg: Then the critique wouldn't necessarily prove the plan is flawed.

Me: So what were the out-of-round implications again?

 

My point is this: their alternative relies on the assumption the the critique is good - in fact, so good that the aff is worth rejecting in its favor. And if only the aff is making impact analysis (in the form of dropped turns or extending advantages), then the alternative is asking you to do something wrong, namely reject a good aff for bad reasons. So ultimately the alternative is nothing more than a restatement of the argument that if the negative wins the critique then it wins the round.

One of the biggest problems with this example is that any good kritik debater will win that if they win link, then the case has no solvency, so it CAN'T outweigh. But if the neg didn't win that, then the aff impact outwieghing still stands.

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...