Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Calculus

RVIs

Recommended Posts

Who is butterscotch for 300 and the win...................

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If an RVI on T went conceded on the neg block, does that mean the judge has to vote Aff? guarantees?

 

Depends entirely on what the warrants were in the RVI shell.

 

For example, some RVIs stipulate that the Affirmative has to WIN topicality to be upped on the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Depends entirely on what the warrants were in the RVI shell.

 

For example, some RVIs stipulate that the Affirmative has to WIN topicality to be upped on the argument.

 

QFA

 

Generally, the Aff has to win that they're topical or the neg has to drop T (effectively letting the Aff win that they're topical) in order for the judge to vote aff on the RVI. Most RVI's hinge on (a) T is a time suck, (B) T is a must-win issue for the Aff but often just a throw-away for the neg, and © we're topical, dang it! If the neg goes for and wins T, then, obviously, it wasn't a time suck or a throw-away and you're not topical. In that case, you'd lose. If the RVI and T go dropped by the neg, however then that really proves the point of the RVI (it really was just a time-suck) and the Aff should win on it.

 

I would add to this, however, that you should beware: some experienced judges flatly refuse to vote on RVI's and it can also be a little too theoretical for many lay-judges. You really should probably get in the habit of specifically asking your judge (before the round) if they're willing to vote on RVI's if you intend to actually run them. [And, no, "do you have any preferences?" does not adequately cover this. Ask specific questions if you want to know your judge's actual philosophy!]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a prime example of why most judges have a very poor decision making paradigm. There are generally two classes of judges in debate: those that go exclusively off the flow and those who dont. The the former, a dropped RVI is an instant win for the aff (in the given situation). To the latter, it breaks down further: judges who evaluate the warrants and those who dont. To the latter, judges will flatly deny the argument making them no better than the judges who dont vote for critiques or counterplans and only vote on case. Both ideas of exclusionary debate can be justified but remain polar opposites - often with the anti-K group being branded as 'incompetent' or 'unqualified.' Comical at best.

 

The overwhelming minority of judges in debate (and I suspect in the single digits) is the remaining class - judges who evaluate the warrants of the argument. Ironically, these are often what I call "advanced lay judges". These are judges who are often inexperienced with the jargon and technique of debate, but make the motions to the best of their ability. They do their best to flow the round and make sense of the arguments as they are presented and then render a decision which often appears flaky to the debaters in the round. More often than not, they will say something like "I was persuaded by the ___ side on this argument and I think its the most important argument of the round."

 

But its important to realize that it is only through these judges that debaters truly gain the gift of being exposed to a true audience representative of the real world. Years from now, when you are giving a lecture or presentation about your work to a group of strangers, they will not be bus drivers (unless you're in politics), they will be colleagues in your field of expertise. And though they may be colleagues, they will be learning from you through your presentation, therefore making them the 'advanced lay.' They are attentive because they want to be there. They have a rudimentary (and even advanced) understanding of the general topic, but may be completely lay for the topic at hand. Convincing THIS individual of your position is, in my opinion, the truest artform of persuasive speaking because its not about charisma (you arent Sean Penn) and its not purely about logic (and drops) - its a hybrid.

 

And that makes the best debaters. It is the most challenging style of debate. If you can win this middle ground of judges, you can certainly win the lays AND you can win the flow judges. This breeds a champion.

 

IMO.

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...