Jump to content
Zachary

Situation - perms?

Recommended Posts

Hello. I have a question on what you would do in this situation. Say the aff has their plan in the 1ac, then in the 1nc the neg reads a CP. Then, in the 2ac, the aff says the perm "perm:do both". Throughout the neg block the perm is dropped. Then, the 1ar gets up and says "They concede perm - don't let them make new responses - forces new 2AR arguments and is unfair". In the 2nr, the neg talks about why the perm doesn't work. Then, the 2ar says that you should ignore everything the 2nr says about the perm because it was dropped and it is a new argument.

 

So, the question...

 

If both the plan and the CP can't be done together, and as a judge you know that, can you still vote aff on the perm because the neg dropped it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moved to help me. Very few people read the judges forum, especially not on a regular basis. Here you will get more answers to your question, probably even more so from people who judge then you would in the judges forum.

 

 

And to answer your question, yes, absolutely. No legitimate judge would vote on arguments that were not made in the round. If an argument is made and conceded, it is held as fact in the round. This is true for all arguments. Judges should not intervene their own knowledge, opinions, and judgments into the round at expense of the arguments actually presented within the round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And to answer your question, yes, absolutely. No legitimate judge would vote on arguments that were not made in the round. If an argument is made and conceded, it is held as fact in the round. This is true for all arguments. Judges should not intervene their own knowledge, opinions, and judgments into the round at expense of the arguments actually presented within the round.

^^^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hello. I have a question on what you would do in this situation. Say the aff has their plan in the 1ac, then in the 1nc the neg reads a CP. Then, in the 2ac, the aff says the perm "perm:do both". Throughout the neg block the perm is dropped. Then, the 1ar gets up and says "They concede perm - don't let them make new responses - forces new 2AR arguments and is unfair". In the 2nr, the neg talks about why the perm doesn't work. Then, the 2ar says that you should ignore everything the 2nr says about the perm because it was dropped and it is a new argument.

 

So, the question...

 

If both the plan and the CP can't be done together, and as a judge you know that, can you still vote aff on the perm because the neg dropped it?

 

Yes, it is possible that the judge will vote for the aff on the dropped perm. Even if the judge knows that the cp is mutually exclusive with the plan, if no argument against the perm is made until the 2nr, it's basically late for the neg to win the perm debate if they still go for the cp in the 2nr. If the judge does vote neg, it's an obvious display of judge intervention, which of course, most debaters hate. The only other way the neg could possibly win win is if the aff drops perm solvency at some point, but otherwise, ballot goes aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moved to help me. Very few people read the judges forum, especially not on a regular basis. Here you will get more answers to your question, probably even more so from people who judge then you would in the judges forum.

 

 

And to answer your question, yes, absolutely. No legitimate judge would vote on arguments that were not made in the round. If an argument is made and conceded, it is held as fact in the round. This is true for all arguments. Judges should not intervene their own knowledge, opinions, and judgments into the round at expense of the arguments actually presented within the round.

 

 

To answer this post, no, absolutely. While I admire your claim that "Judges should not intervene their own knowledge, opinions, and judgments into the round at expense of the arguments actually presented within the round", we have to remember that this isn't a perfect world.

 

As a judge, I would never vote on an argument that is simply and undeniably untrue. In this case, if the cp was truly mutually exclusive, I wouldn't care if the neg answered the perm or not - if the perm is impossible, I would feel dirty for picking the aff up on it. To pre-empt your "but that's judge intervention, dude!!!", I say who gives a fuck? What if the 2ac said "and I just saw a flying pig out the window - independent voter!", and the 2nc dropped it...? Would you really vote aff on that? I can't think of a single "legitimate" judge in the world who would simply ignore common sense and all reality to try to be an impartial judge...

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one case where I find this to be less cut and dry is exclude CPs. For example, while a dropped perm is a dropped perm, doing RPS w/ and w/o wind doesn't really make any sense to me.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To pre-empt your "but that's judge intervention, dude!!!", I say who gives a fuck? What if the 2ac said "and I just saw a flying pig out the window - independent voter!", and the 2nc dropped it...? Would you really vote aff on that? I can't think of a single "legitimate" judge in the world who would simply ignore common sense and all reality to try to be an impartial judge...

 

If it's that bad of an argument then the teams in round should be able to point it out. It is not and has never been the job of a judge to evaluate arguments that way. Doing so is to only flatter your own ego and priding yourself in understanding the absurdity of certain arguments over the debaters in round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a judge, I would never vote on an argument that is simply and undeniably untrue. In this case, if the cp was truly mutually exclusive, I wouldn't care if the neg answered the perm or not - if the perm is impossible, I would feel dirty for picking the aff up on it. To pre-empt your "but that's judge intervention, dude!!!", I say who gives a fuck? What if the 2ac said "and I just saw a flying pig out the window - independent voter!", and the 2nc dropped it...? Would you really vote aff on that? I can't think of a single "legitimate" judge in the world who would simply ignore common sense and all reality to try to be an impartial judge...

If this is true you are a terrible judge. The way in which you describe judging legitimates any form of judge intervention, no matter how slight. What Micah said is accurate. Do not base your decision in a round on absolutely anything other than the arguments presented in the round and the rules and traditions of the tournament, league, etc. If a debater makes a factually untrue argument it is the job of the opponents to dispute it, not yours.

 

There are reasons why it's okay to not vote up a dropped perm, but if it is made in the 2AC, dropped in the block, and extended in the 1AR and 2AR with warrants and analysis, even if you think that analysis is unture, it doesn't matter. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I can think of very few occasions in which judge intervention is justifiable.

Edited by King of All Cosmos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If it's that bad of an argument then the teams in round should be able to point it out. It is not and has never been the job of a judge to evaluate arguments that way. Doing so is to only flatter your own ego and priding yourself in understanding the absurdity of certain arguments over the debaters in round.

 

If this is true you are a terrible judge. The way in which you describe judging legitimates any form of judge intervention, no matter how slight. What Micah said is accurate. Do not base your decision in a round on absolutely anything other than the arguments presented in the round and the rules and traditions of the tournament, league, etc. If a debater makes a factually untrue argument it is the job of the opponents to dispute it, not yours.

 

There are reasons why it's okay to not vote up a dropped perm, but if it is made in the 2AC, dropped in the block, and extended in the 1AR and 2AR with warrants and analysis, even if you think that analysis is unture, it doesn't matter. Maybe I'm missing something here, but I can think of very few occasions in which judge intervention is justifiable.

 

 

Well, I guess we have different definitions and thresholds for what an "argument" is. I was taught that debate is a game where we make arguments, and an argument is a claim + a warrant. For example, if a debater asserts "their plan won't solve", that's a claim. If the 2ac conceded an assertion like that, would you vote neg? I'm going to assume the answer is no... That's why for an argument to even be considered by the judge in the first place, it has to meet a certain threshold. If the neg read an elections disad with uniqueness like "McCain winning now", no credible judge would vote neg.

 

You say it legitimizes any type of intervention, but that's not true. If the aff/ neg either reads a card or makes an analytical argument based on the FACTS OF REALITY, ie not something that's blatantly impossible (like Vladimir Lenin will lead a Communist revolution…), then judge intervention isn't legitimate. Maybe I'm a terrible debater and you can call me a terrible judge, but if you could ever find yourself voting on an argument like "the 2ac conceded that they should lose because I said so", you might want to reconsider your judging paradigm...

Edited by CBHS Debater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes and no.

 

If the CP is mutually exclusive or the perm links isn't beneficial and anaylsis that explains this is elsewhere in the block, i'd be ok with it. If its not anywhere and completely new, I'd vote aff. Its intervening in my mind because the team is doing work which may make sense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I guess we have different definitions and thresholds for what an "argument" is. I was taught that debate is a game where we make arguments, and an argument is a claim + a warrant. For example, if a debater asserts "their plan won't solve", that's a claim. If the 2ac conceded an assertion like that, would you vote neg? I'm going to assume the answer is no... That's why for an argument to even be considered by the judge in the first place, it has to meet a certain threshold. If the neg read an elections disad with uniqueness like "McCain winning now", no credible judge would vote neg.

 

You say it legitimizes any type of intervention, but that's not true. If the aff/ neg either reads a card or makes an analytical argument based on the FACTS OF REALITY, ie not something that's blatantly impossible (like Vladimir Lenin will lead a Communist revolution…), then judge intervention isn't legitimate. Maybe I'm a terrible debater and you can call me a terrible judge, but if you could ever find yourself voting on an argument like "the 2ac conceded that they should lose because I said so", you might want to reconsider your judging paradigm...

I agree that you should not vote on a claim with no warrant, this is a very good aspect of a paradigm. I disagree that it is your job to make factual distinctions about the truth when the nature of that truth is not disputed in round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a perm is ME but the neg doesn't point it out and basically dropped the perm in the block, the aff just has to briefly explain the perm in the 2ar and i'll vote for it.

 

I refuse to judge based on whether or not something may or not be true in my mind. if my flow says that there's a perm and the neg doesn't argue it, it's game over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then, the 1ar gets up and says "They concede perm - don't let them make new responses - forces new 2AR arguments and is unfair".

 

This is the most important part of your message, and one I haven't seen addressed yet. The 1AR is doing a great job at shutting the door. As a judge, this discussion in the 1AR makes it crystal clear that the 2NR is way too late to discuss the perm from the 2AC (most "experienced" judges would not really need this in the 1AR, but it's a good habit for lay judges especially).

 

As a judge, I'm 99.9% sure that I would not vote neg on the perm debate as it is set up (99.9% just because you never know where a morphing takes place in the 1AR which changes the actual context/wording/meaning/etc. of the perm, which would make it slightly possible to debate the "new" perm in the 2NR).

 

If both the plan and the CP can't be done together, and as a judge you know that, can you still vote aff on the perm because the neg dropped it?

 

In this case, the judge's knowledge (at least for me... I see there's some discussion on this point) should not come into question... the dropped perm in the block (with the small exception mentioned above) means it's game over for the c/p. Now the neg could win somewhere else on the flow, so it's not necessarily the end of the round, but the c/p flows to the aff in the case.

 

You say it legitimizes any type of intervention, but that's not true. If the aff/ neg either reads a card or makes an analytical argument based on the FACTS OF REALITY, ie not something that's blatantly impossible (like Vladimir Lenin will lead a Communist revolution…), then judge intervention isn't legitimate. Maybe I'm a terrible debater and you can call me a terrible judge, but if you could ever find yourself voting on an argument like "the 2ac conceded that they should lose because I said so", you might want to reconsider your judging paradigm...

 

Who's to say that someone with name Vladimir Lenin doesn't lead a revolution? (You never said "THE" Vladimir Lenin.) With all of the epistomological kritiks flying around in the debate world, what are these "FACTS OF REALITY" you speak of? I'm just curious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If both the plan and the CP can't be done together, and as a judge you know that, can you still vote aff on the perm because the neg dropped it?

 

It is up to the Aff to explain how their perm works just like it is up to the neg to explain how their counter plan functions. If the Aff simply says "perm do both" and indeed you can't and there is no explanation or clarification from the aff. the fact that it was dropped in the block would not by itself be enough for me to vote on the perm. I would give the 2NR lots of flexibility and if the 2NR actually explained that doing both was impossible a 2AR response of nothing other than the 2NR arguments were new and should be dropped would not be enough. The 2AR would have to explain how both could indeed be done. The 2AR would also get a lot of flexibility there.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that you should not vote on a claim with no warrant, this is a very good aspect of a paradigm. I disagree that it is your job to make factual distinctions about the truth when the nature of that truth is not disputed in round.

 

 

Let's see how clear the bright line really is between not voting on a "real argument", and making "factual distinctions about the truth". Remember, I'm a shitty judge, so I will appreciate any of your feedback/ advice.

 

Would you vote neg if the aff conceded "they don't solve their case"?

 

Would you vote neg if the aff conceded an analytical argument that they won't solve because penguins will intervene?

 

What if the neg read a card?

 

Would you vote on a politics disad without a link card?

 

What if the aff answered it and the neg extended the disad like normal?

 

Would you vote on a disad that's terminally non unique (like elections)?

 

Would you vote on condo bad if the cp was dispo?

 

Would you vote on a T violation if the aff plan text simply didn't violate?

 

Would you vote on a perm on a mutually exclusive counter plan?

 

 

 

Who's to say that someone with name Vladimir Lenin doesn't lead a revolution? (You never said "THE" Vladimir Lenin.) With all of the epistomological kritiks flying around in the debate world, what are these "FACTS OF REALITY" you speak of? I'm just curious.

 

 

This made me cry on the inside. To think that judges like you don't have enough intelligence to evaluate simple facts and historical events with the intelligence of a dog really makes my head spin...

 

 

 

It is up to the Aff to explain how their perm works just like it is up to the neg to explain how their counter plan functions. If the Aff simply says "perm do both" and indeed you can't and there is no explanation or clarification from the aff. the fact that it was dropped in the block would not by itself be enough for me to vote on the perm. I would give the 2NR lots of flexibility and if the 2NR actually explained that doing both was impossible a 2AR response of nothing other than the 2NR arguments were new and should be dropped would not be enough. The 2AR would have to explain how both could indeed be done. The 2AR would also get a lot of flexibility there.

 

 

I agree with this post completely. There's a difference between making new "arguments", and just pointing out facts that are based on reality. For example, even if you concede a disad, you should be allowed to point out things like "their impact card says a few people might die - that's not even close to genocide", and other such comparisons in your impact calculus. If the neg dropped a perm in the block but explained how even if the aff was given the full weight of the perm's solvency, the perm is impossible, then only a robot would vote aff.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I agree with this post completely. There's a difference between making new "arguments", and just pointing out facts that are based on reality. For example, even if you concede a disad, you should be allowed to point out things like "their impact card says a few people might die - that's not even close to genocide", and other such comparisons in your impact calculus. If the neg dropped a perm in the block but explained how even if the aff was given the full weight of the perm's solvency, the perm is impossible, then only a robot would vote aff.

 

I think there's some truth there. If the CP is actually Mutually Exclusive then the aff will have a pretty difficult time giving reasons why the perm solves. I don't think I can vote aff if its just "perm do both, it was conceded". Granted, if the aff can actually explain why they can perm a mutually exclusive CP then I'm fine, even if it's a sketchy reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dude

 

if you drop the perm in the block, all you have to do is cross apply the link to the disad and say "the perm still links - crossapply our link explanation"...

 

not a new argument

 

regardless of what judges should do, the judges i've seen don't vote aff on the permutation unless there's an actual warrant about why the permutation solves the net benefit...most judges default neg on the question of the perm linking to the net benefit

 

its the aff's burden to show why the perm overcomes something like politics - even if its just a shitty shielding assertion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's assume the 1AC was just a bunch of taglines with no warrants. Now let's assume the negative has cards and warrants and reads a CP. The 2AC stands up, perms the DA's and CP, extends the taglines because they didn't have cards, etc. The block stands up and kicks everything, and reads a new K - this time, only with taglines and no warrants to the argument. Then the 1AR stands up and extends conceded impact turns on ptix by tagline. The 1AR also kicks the plan and defends watching Friends as an acceptable, topical policy option. The 2NR reads a new XO CP and Politics, fully carded, warranted. The 2AR preempts topicality to watching Friends and says "but Friends is funnier than politics!" and nothing further. Who wins?

 

Sadly, I think the above is about as constructive as this whole "do you vote for a claim without a warrant" discussion. I'm still convinced this whole "imagine the worst debate imaginable - who wins?" style conversations are both inane and without a lot of educational merit.

 

No duh - if the aff says perm and it goes dropped, then they get to weigh the discussion of the perm debate that was conceded. If it lacked warrants/explanation, the 2NR probably gets new arguments to answer it. This should all be normal knowledge.

 

 

The real question, however, and this has happened with some frequency in rounds I have been in: The 2AC says "perm: do the CP" and it goes dropped in the block. The 1AR is like "they dropped perm: do the CP - no severance theory. Solves all their offense - vote aff on presumption." Is this an instance where the 2NR gets to answer the perm? OR is this really conceded and the aff wins if the neg goes for the CP?

 

The real question is not "do you vote for a claim without a warrant if it's conceded" - the real question is "what do you constitute a full argument?" In the above scenario, at least something like 65% of the judges that watch me regularly would say that perm debate is game over for the neg - no questions asked. The rest would be puzzled, and probably agree after thinking about it for a while. But since when did saying "perm" before a word make it an argument?

 

I think that's the real question you all should be discussing instead of these hypotheticals of "a universally bad debate happened - who sucked less?"

  • Upvote 1

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...

×
×
  • Create New...