Jump to content
codyarmstrong

Reverse Voting Issues

  

74 members have voted

  1. 1. What would you have voted?



Recommended Posts

Let me start off by saying that I am aware of the stigma that comes attached to Reverse Voting Issues as well as the legitimacy issues that people bring up concerning this argument.

 

Now, this weekend I had a round where I was aff. the 1NC was 3 T's: beyond, mesosphere, its, as well as 2 DA's: China co-op, Russia relations. The 2NC was 32 oncase analytics.

 

My 2AC consisted of me answering all off case with defense and offense. On T's I did an RVI for each one(as well as the usual we meets, standard defense and counter standards, etc.). The 2nc didn't address anything in the 1NC, it was all new oncase. The 1NR got up there and said, "we agree they are topical, we are kicking all three T's now on to the first DA.." My partners 1AR spent about 30 seconds on T, why RVI's are legitimately an issue and then went on to answer all of their stuff. Their 2NR was "There is no reason why we should lose on T, moving onto the DA's." My 2AR was 5 minutes on RVI. "Nothing else matters after you evaluate RVI."

 

We lost on a 1-2.

 

So my question is this, if you were judging this round and the negative dropped three offensive "a priori" arguments, but also saw the affirmative drop everything else but that, what would you have voted? I ask simply because I am curious as to whether it was a strategically acceptable risk to do so. It still irks me that we lost because I view it as one, but people of the Cross-X community know far more than I do, so I'd like your opinion.

 

If you vote on the poll please tell my why you would have voted that way, I', asking for learning purposes. Also, if you need any further information I am happy to answer any questions. Thanks.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Topicality is a burden of proof for the aff. To say the negative has to continue to try to prove the aff untopical is logically dumb. OR if you framed it as "the neg has to defend their arguments against the aff throughout the debate", that's obviously also dumb because it kills the whole strategy aspect of debating.

 

In short, RVI's are dumb.

 

It would have been infinitely more efficient for your partner's 1ar to not include ANYTHING about T because they conceded you're topical. That's 30 seconds that could have been spent more on the 32 case analytics and the 2 DA's.

 

And yeah, it sucks when the 2nc is a few minutes of new case arguments, but A) it's a constructive and B ) it makes being a 1ar more stressful/exciting. It also gives you a chance to showboat how much more strategic you can be by strategically grouping and conceding arguments, massively improving your image.

 

I mean, if your judges said they'd evaluate the RVI, then fine, go for it, I guess. But they aren't really voting issues, and any sort of abuse story of having to spend time on the T's was immediately killed when the neg said "not going for it" in the block and saving the 1ar (the most difficult and hair pulling speech) from having to cover the T arguments.

 

I would've voted neg because I don't evaluate RVI's. You can say that I'm intervening, especially since I am generally a tab/flow person when evaluating the round, but there probably wasn't much of an abuse story and unless you really hammered in the "potential abuse is a voter" arguments, then it wouldn't have been a thing in how I evaluate the round.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you spent a legitimate amount of time and made even a halfway terrible argument as to why T was an RVI you should have won the round. I don't evaluate RVIs when they're obviously attempts to cheat by making a small blippy argument and hoping the other team will drop it, but it sounds like you weren't doing that. I agree that RVIs aren't great arguments, but that's more a reason that the other team shouldn't be given slack for dropping them.

 

Rawrcat seems to be saying that he won't intervene, except when he will, because it's just so obvious that your argument was really bad. This mindset is common, and it's a problem because there's no brightline whatsoever as to what constitutes an obviously bad argument. It thus legitimizes all instances of judge intervention. The same argument that Rawrcat uses is routinely used by bad interventionist judges when they're attempting to legitimize their bad interventions. I think everyone here knows the standard arguments as to why judge intervention is bad and should be minimized.

 

My interpretation is that judges should intervene only when intervention is necessary.

This occurs:

1. Because of lack of clash.

2. When obvious objective facts (such as Obama's existence) are in question.*

3. When blippy cheapshot arguments are in play.

 

*This is distinct from debates where warrants are articulated by both sides, such as whether environmental destruction is increasing now, etc.

If a team gave a warranted argument "proving" that Obama didn't exist I'd consider it when making my decision.

 

In this instance your RVI wasn't a blippy cheapshot argument but something inexcusable for the negative to drop. That means you should have won. However, obviously, you shouldn't run RVIs in the future unless you know that your judges will vote on them. In an ideal world judges wouldn't intervene as much as they do, but Herman Cain clearly proves that this isn't an ideal world. Adapt to judge preferences if you want to win rounds.

 

Topicality is a burden of proof for the aff.

This would force the affirmative to spend about half of the 1AC fulfilling their burden of proof by reading 2AC T Blocks. T is a negative burden, otherwise debate couldn't function. Regardless, how do burdens impact RVIs at all? Also: burden is a really really weird word. Say it out loud a few times. Weird. Also: also: weird is also spelled weird. Also: also: also: does that last one qualify as a pun?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rawrcat seems to be saying that he won't intervene, except when he will, because it's just so obvious that your argument was really bad.

Let me rephrase what I said more coherently: I'm inclined to not evaluate RVI's unless well expounded on theoretically with arguments like potential abuse is a voter and theory is a voter and given examples of how it could be abusive, as with any theory argument. But there's more of an uphill battle to convince me with RVI's than other theory arguments because it's really not that great of an argument.

 

This would force the affirmative to spend about half of the 1AC fulfilling their burden of proof by reading 2AC T Blocks.

You realize that reading definitions for one's case used to be common in CX like it is in LD, right?

Topicality is an affirmative burden of proof, even if it doesn't become a question unless the neg brings it up. The neg has no burden to prove the aff untopical, which is why they're open to other lines of attack to the aff case. It's the aff's responsibility to prove that they fit within the topic outlined for them by the resolution, it is not the neg's burden to challenge that throughout the debate round, because that could just end up being the neg wasting speech time extending an argument they won't win on. It's the aff's responsibility to prove that their plan is in the topic. Maybe you could articulate a neg responsibility to weed out untopical affs and force affs to debate the topic clearly and concisely, but there's no resolutional warrant for that. The resolution is laid out for the aff to affirm by having an aff that fits within its boundaries and the neg to negate the aff plan and in turn the topic. That's why topicality is considered an a priori issue, because it's a question of whether or not the aff affirms the topic that the negative has to negate.

 

That sounds like an older interpretation of debate, I know, but it's an explanation of the aff's burden of proof of topicality. I'm not opposed to k's of t or anything that brings up other issues that come before t or why the neg's question of t is bad, but there is really no theoretical justification for the neg having a burden to continue extending topicality arguments to prove the aff untopical.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how do burdens impact RVIs at all?

I missed the burdens question and it wouldn't let me edit my last post. I've typically heard more nuanced RVI arguments to say it's a negative burden to try and attack stock issues when the arguments are brought up. And that's part of how I answer RVI's, there's no neg burden to prove the aff untopical.

 

Also, any arguments of fairness are pretty ridiculous. Maybe there's a timeskew, but there's also a theoretical requirement for the aff to prove that it is topical, if the neg is willing to concede that, then that's good for the aff position and then the aff can spend more time answering other arguments. And there is no way there is education loss by NOT debating over semantics. Getting to spend more time debating substance arguments over arguments that the neg agrees there isn't fairness or education loss from is blatantly more educational

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how do burdens impact RVIs at all?

I missed the burdens question and it wouldn't let me edit my last post. I've typically heard more nuanced RVI arguments to say it's a negative burden to try and attack stock issues when the arguments are brought up. And that's part of how I answer RVI's, there's no neg burden to prove the aff untopical.

 

Also, any arguments of fairness are pretty ridiculous. Maybe there's a timeskew, but there's also a theoretical requirement for the aff to prove that it is topical, if the neg is willing to concede that, then that's good for the aff position and then the aff can spend more time answering other arguments. And there is no way there is education loss by NOT debating over semantics. Getting to spend more time debating substance arguments over arguments that the neg agrees there isn't fairness or education loss from is blatantly more educational

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me rephrase what I said more coherently: I'm inclined to not evaluate RVI's unless well expounded on theoretically with arguments like potential abuse is a voter and theory is a voter and given examples of how it could be abusive, as with any theory argument. But there's more of an uphill battle to convince me with RVI's than other theory arguments because it's really not that great of an argument.

You're inclined to not vote on certain arguments unless well expounded upon with a certain set of criteria that you only perceive as necessary because of preconceived arguments that the people in the debate aren't aware of. It's possible to articulate a coherent theoretical argument that doesn't include your criteria. You would choose to reject that argument, even in the absence of arguments by the negative as to why your criteria are necessary. That is interventionist judging. None of your below arguments justify that.

 

You realize that reading definitions for one's case used to be common in CX like it is in LD, right?

Neato.

 

Topicality is an affirmative burden of proof, even if it doesn't become a question unless the neg brings it up. The neg has no burden to prove the aff untopical, which is why they're open to other lines of attack to the aff case. It's the aff's responsibility to prove that they fit within the topic outlined for them by the resolution, it is not the neg's burden to challenge that throughout the debate round, because that could just end up being the neg wasting speech time extending an argument they won't win on.

the aff affirms the topic that the negative has to negate.

You're posing a false dichotomy. Topicality can be neither team's burden, just as DAs and Ks are neither teams burden. Neither team is required to read DAs, neither team is required to read Topicality arguments, neither team is required to read K arguments. Burdens are things that if unaddressed by either team result in a certain team losing. Topicality is not one of those things. It doesn't make sense to say that Topicality is an affirmative burden but it's okay if the affirmative doesn't prove their case topical, that's a contradiction in terms. What do you mean by burden, because I think you're conflating two distinct things?

 

It's the aff's responsibility to prove that their plan is in the topic. Maybe you could articulate a neg responsibility to weed out untopical affs and force affs to debate the topic clearly and concisely, but there's no resolutional warrant for that. The resolution is laid out for the aff to affirm by having an aff that fits within its boundaries and the neg to negate the aff plan and in turn the topic. That's why topicality is considered an a priori issue, because it's a question of whether or not the aff affirms the topic that the negative has to negate.

If the negative cannot prove that the affirmative is untopical the affirmative wins. The affirmative has no burden to prove that their interpretation is better than the negative's, only that it's at least equal. Framing topicality as the affirmative's burden eliminates the possibility that the affirmative wins on defense, and does so for no good reason. This is distinct from the offense defense paradigm, it's a question of presumption.

 

That sounds like an older interpretation of debate, I know, but it's an explanation of the aff's burden of proof of topicality. I'm not opposed to k's of t or anything that brings up other issues that come before t or why the neg's question of t is bad, but there is really no theoretical justification for the neg having a burden to continue extending topicality arguments to prove the aff untopical.

It's up to the debaters to articulate this, not the judges.

 

I missed the burdens question and it wouldn't let me edit my last post. I've typically heard more nuanced RVI arguments to say it's a negative burden to try and attack stock issues when the arguments are brought up. And that's part of how I answer RVI's, there's no neg burden to prove the aff untopical.

Agreed, there's no negative burden to prove the affirmative untopical.

 

Also, any arguments of fairness are pretty ridiculous. Maybe there's a timeskew, but there's also a theoretical requirement for the aff to prove that it is topical, if the neg is willing to concede that, then that's good for the aff position and then the aff can spend more time answering other arguments. And there is no way there is education loss by NOT debating over semantics. Getting to spend more time debating substance arguments over arguments that the neg agrees there isn't fairness or education loss from is blatantly more educational.

If the negative team isn't making these arguments, why don't they deserve to lose? Does substance education justify intervention? If so, why isn't intervention justified on all topicality standards? Why isn't it justified against those hippy uneducational Ks? Shouldn't we intervene for the sake of the debaters' education? Maybe while we're at it we could stop that ridiculous spreading too? Or maybe we just shouldn't do any of those things.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're inclined to not vote on certain arguments unless well expounded upon with a certain set of criteria that you only perceive as necessary because of preconceived arguments that the people in the debate aren't aware of. It's possible to articulate a coherent theoretical argument that doesn't include your criteria. You would choose to reject that argument, even in the absence of arguments by the negative as to why your criteria are necessary. That is interventionist judging. None of your below arguments justify that.

I wouldn't vote the neg up for saying "extend the standards and extend the voters" on a t argument (note, this is a general example, not an example of the OP's round) just as I wouldn't vote the aff up for saying "Well, I had to spend time on thing" without a clear impacting of the abuse story and how it relates to the rest of the round.

 

You're posing a false dichotomy. Topicality can be neither team's burden, just as DAs and Ks are neither teams burden. Neither team is required to read DAs, neither team is required to read Topicality arguments, neither team is required to read K arguments. Burdens are things that if unaddressed by either team result in a certain team losing. Topicality is not one of those things. It doesn't make sense to say that Topicality is an affirmative burden but it's okay if the affirmative doesn't prove their case topical, that's a contradiction in terms. What do you mean by burden, because I think you're conflating two distinct things?

The affirmative has the responsibility to prove that they're topical if the question is brought up by the negative team. It is only a burden on the aff because they have to prove why they fit within the topic with their plan, as the resolution is the only guideline for debate beyond basic logistical ideas like teams and speech times. It's been pretty much left assumed that the aff is topical if the neg doesn't challenge it in contemporary debate practices. A burden is something that a team has to win in order for their argument to be legitimate, just as links on DA's are neg burdens to win in order for the DA to have any weight in the round.

 

Framing topicality as the affirmative's burden eliminates the possibility that the affirmative wins on defense, and does so for no good reason.

The aff can win on defense if they win framing of topicality with reasonability. Even so, you would be hard pressed to find a judge who would vote up an aff team who doesn't have a counter interpretation, the primary form of aff offense on a T flow, and just presses hard on the we meet and no in round abuse.

Also, T being an aff burden doesn't mean T is a jurisdictional voter, which is what you seem to be trying to be cornering me into framing it as, it means that the aff is responsible for proving that they fit within the topic in a non-abusive way and have to be able to answer the neg's questioning of their topicality.

 

It's up to the debaters to articulate this, not the judges.

It's an understanding of debate theory. And yes, this does need to be articulated in round.

 

If the negative team isn't making these arguments, why don't they deserve to lose? Does substance education justify intervention? If so, why isn't intervention justified on all topicality standards? Why isn't it justified against those hippy uneducational Ks? Shouldn't we intervene for the sake of the debaters' education? Maybe while we're at it we could stop that ridiculous spreading too? Or maybe we just shouldn't do any of those things.

What I said there wasn't something I would have a part of an RFD or a justification of intervention, it was my framing of fairness arguments with RVI's as in a way I'd frame it in round.

Also, K's aren't uneducational :(

And it's spelled "hippie"

 

 

 

And fine, you got me, after this discussion I would have voted aff because they did a ton more work on the RVI. As I said, I'm not opposed to voting on it if articulated well, but I wouldn't be happy about it.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, we have different definitions of burden. I'll operate within yours from now on.

 

The aff can win on defense if they win framing of topicality with reasonability. Even so, you would be hard pressed to find a judge who would vote up an aff team who doesn't have a counter interpretation, the primary form of aff offense on a T flow, and just presses hard on the we meet and no in round abuse.

I don't understand how this is compatible with your statement that "the affirmative has the responsibility to prove that they're topical if the question is brought up by the negative team". Just as an extended counterplan will lose without a net benefit because competition is a negative burden and thus presumption goes affirmative, so would the affirmative lose without a net benefit if topicality was their burden. A reasonability framework is thus a reason that the judge shouldn't make T an affirmative burden.

 

Presumption always goes opposite the burden because if the burden isn't proven then the argument is illegitimate and has no weight in the round. That is the definition of burden that you gave me. That means that the affirmative can't win without proving their interpretation(s) of the topic best if topicality is a voting issue. That eliminates the possibility for defense.

 

You say that the affirmative only has this burden if the negative raises the issue of T. This just seems implausible to me, as I feel like it somehow contradicts your earlier statements, but I don't see a reason why you're wrong except that this condition might be slightly ad hoc. There's no substantial reason that I've thought of as to why your argument is wrong. If I think of something I'll let you know, otherwise I'll concede this point.

 

Also, T being an aff burden doesn't mean T is a jurisdictional voter, which is what you seem to be trying to be cornering me into framing it as, it means that the aff is responsible for proving that they fit within the topic in a non-abusive way and have to be able to answer the neg's questioning of their topicality.

I wasn't trying to frame it as this at all, although I see how it looks like I was. I acknowledge that these are different things.

 

Also @OP: no one is smart enough to think of 32 legitimate distinct analytics against your case unless your case is really bad or they are a space expert. You probably could have addressed them by grouping them and strategically extending certain arguments. New in the 2 bad may have also been a decent choice in this scenario, if you don't think you could have responded well to the arguments. Alternatively, improve your case. You can't rely on theory to save you.

 

Underlined for Rawrcat.

Edited by Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand how this is compatible with your statement that "the affirmative has the responsibility to prove that they're topical if the question is brought up by the negative team"... A reasonability framework is thus a reason that the judge shouldn't make T an affirmative burden.

A reasonability argument is a loosening of the standards of topicality over competing interpretations because the particular aff case doesn't cause in round abuse. Basically that the aff is topical or close enough to it that there's no abuse toward the negative. That doesn't contradict the burden of topicality for the aff, it's a reinterpretation and reframing of topicality in the round to work within that burden.

 

Presumption always goes opposite the burden because if the burden isn't proven then the argument is illegitimate and has no weight in the round. That is the definition of burden that you gave me. That means that the affirmative can't win without proving their interpretation(s) of the topic best if topicality is a voting issue. That eliminates the possibility for defense.

There are "T not a voter" arguments that go hand in hand with affirmative arguments that there isn't in round abuse. Also, neg interpretations are generally going to exclude the aff plan, making it necessary for a counter interpretation that includes the aff case and solves for neg offense. This is also where reasonability comes in to counter the neg's competing interpretations framing of t.

 

Also @OP: no one is smart enough to think of 32 legitimate distinct analytics against your case unless your case is really bad or they are a space expert.

Or if they're just bad analytics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A reasonability argument is a loosening of the standards of topicality over competing interpretations because the particular aff case doesn't cause in round abuse. Basically that the aff is topical or close enough to it that there's no abuse toward the negative. That doesn't contradict the burden of topicality for the aff, it's a reinterpretation and reframing of topicality in the round to work within that burden.

So absent a reasonability argument you wouldn't vote affirmative even if they had a 100% risk of defense via a conceded "we meet"? Your explanation of reasonability portrays it as resulting in a shift in the affirmative burden, but given the definition of burden you provided it's not a shift at all, it's the elimination of the burden because the defensive affirmative arguments are considered legitimate despite the existence of the topicality arguments.

 

There are "T not a voter" arguments that go hand in hand with affirmative arguments that there isn't in round abuse. Also, neg interpretations are generally going to exclude the aff plan, making it necessary for a counter interpretation that includes the aff case and solves for neg offense. This is also where reasonability comes in to counter the neg's competing interpretations framing of t.

I don't understand how this interacts with my analysis at all.

 

Presumption always goes opposite the burden because if the burden isn't proven then the argument is illegitimate and has no weight in the round. That is the definition of burden that you gave me. That means that the affirmative can't win without proving their interpretation(s) of the topic best if topicality is a voting issue. That eliminates the possibility for defense.

???

 

Or if they're just bad analytics

See new underlining.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So absent a reasonability argument you wouldn't vote affirmative even if they had a 100% risk of defense via a conceded "we meet"? Your explanation of reasonability portrays it as resulting in a shift in the affirmative burden, but given the definition of burden you provided it's not a shift at all, it's the elimination of the burden because the defensive affirmative arguments are considered legitimate despite the existence of the topicality arguments.

It's an idea of lenience toward the aff plan fitting within the topic. Reasonability at its simplest is "the aff plan is topical or is close enough to not be abusive and warrant a neg ballot." It's either "in or out" like competing interps. I suppose if I was to adjust my interp on the burden of proof for T on the aff, I would say "the aff has to prove it's topical or non-abusively close"

 

I don't understand how this interacts with my analysis at all.

There's still a possibility for defense, but as with winning any argument, defense more of backs up offense. Offense from the aff is a necessity to win T, otherwise they're left to default to the neg interp of the round which clearly excludes the aff. Perhaps theoretically one can win with just a we meet, but unless the neg interp is just really crappy and open no judge will likely vote on it. One of the best 2ar's I've ever heard was against a 2nr that was 5 minutes of T, the 1ar was spread out and didn't have time to extend much other than the we meet and reasonability against the t argument. Every judge in that round said that 2ar was the most convincing speech they've heard, but without the counter interpretation, there was no way to for the aff to garner enough offense to win the debate. If the neg has the only interpretation in the debate round, then the judges have to look to that first on evaluating T, and if the aff can't challenge that ans prove that there are other ways of evaluating the topic, then there's no way to give backing to their reasonability claims.

 

 

Just a quip outside of the discussion, I feel like we either went way off on a tangent, or we went so deep into the discussion that it feels like we got off topic.

 

See new underlining.

Oddly enough, I scored well on the SAT critical reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on what your RVI was if it was a time skew RVI then I think that sort of argument would be legit. Even if they did drop it, I wouldn't have went all in on that. I would have spent perhaps 45 secs to a minute on it then answered everything else. Also you would have had to prove the time skew in order to win that argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would vote negative, because there's the whole strategic value of debate, and while it is slightly unfair to run 3 T's, 2 DA's in the 1NC, and then make 32 new oncase analytics in the 2NC, I think that when they conceded T you should have dropped it and answered the rest of their arguments. There may be some strategic aspects to an RVI, but only if they go for T. Considering that they conceded the T, and that most of your voters were probably on education about the topic, you might have linked to your own voters considering they were trying to get into substantive debate on the topic and you were debating something that was dropped in the 1NR. It may have been strategic to extend the RVI, but not to spend the entire 2AR on it. You should've extended your answers and had at least one alternative that would've won you the round that wasn't an RVI, especially because not all judges see RVI's as legitimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In an ideal world judges wouldn't intervene as much as they do, but Herman Cain clearly proves that this isn't an ideal world.

 

Oh Chaos, you make me laugh. Remind me to spread the rep.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The 2NC was 32 oncase analytics.

 

You should use the cross-ex of the 2NC to make some of these go away--or otherwise group them. One key way....which arguments on the case are offensive? Focus your time on them--but still answer the others.

 

Figure out what they under covered or what you are clearly winning.

 

Read add on advantages in the 2AC ****

 

This neg. strategy was common in the early 1990s in college debate I believe (using the block to attack case).

 

The 1ar should probably re-give that speech. This strategy probably isn't going away....you should be ready for it. Together you should decide what were legit arguments and what were filler arguments. (ie does your affirmative need to be fixed....)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This neg. strategy was common in the early 1990s in college debate I believe (using the block to attack case).

It's pretty much the expected neg strategy in Texas UIL debates. UIL debaters are generally taught that the 1nc is off case and the 2nc is on case and covering one or two off case positions, and the 1nr takes the rest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To clear some stuff up-

 

The 32 oncase analytics weren't difficult to answer whatsoever, there were some really bad arguments within them. The reason I went for RVI isn't because I was going to be COMPLETELY unable to cover everything that they were going for, but really because I felt it was an issue that needed to be expanded on. I used some RVI theory block I found in a back file-

 

 

1. No Risk Issue - The neg doesn’t risk anything from T if we can’t win reverse voters, it’s better than running disads and encourages a violation for every word.

 

2. Time constraints - By breathing the word topicality the neg forces us to overcover a disad with a weak link, that trades off with answering other positions and slays my strategies

 

3. T triv - by blowing topicality out of proportion when its not a real issue (e.g. now), the neg decreases its respect and value when it is an issue (e.g. when we run it)

 

4. Court analogy - a court holds a separate hearing to determine jurisdiction, by contesting T. the neg converts the round to a jurisdictional hearing, if we win that we win it all

 

It was more of an, "I'm angry that they found it unnecessary to even address this argument and I'd really enjoy seeing them lose on it," kind of moment with in a debate round. It's not about the inability to answer arguments, but an attempt to stop this kind of debating. RVI's generally are considered a ridiculous argument, however most judges would say SOMETHING(ANYTHING) must be said about by the neg. I just don't want to participate in an activity that allows such judge intervention and decided to stick with my principals and go for it. My question is/was if it was a strategically sound idea, which both Chaos and Rawrcat have helped me with, so thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was more of an, "I'm angry that they found it unnecessary to even address this argument and I'd really enjoy seeing them lose on it," kind of moment with in a debate round. It's not about the inability to answer arguments, but an attempt to stop this kind of debating.

 

I'm always a bit baffled that high school debaters get angry when negatives attempt to skew the affirmative's time allocation, since this is what the negative should be attempting to do to the affirmative every single round. The fact that there were three original violations would have been my first clue that the negative was not serious about T. The debaters choose their own time allocation, and if they are unable to cover, that sounds more like a whine than an argument to me. I suspect I'm not alone in this sentiment. Similarly, the 1AR decision to devote a significant amount of his/her speech to a dead argument, far from proving the "abuse," only seems (without the benefit of having watched the round, of course) like a foolish strategic decision. Had I been the negative, I would have been high-fiving my partner as it became apparent that the 1AR was going to undercover elsewhere in order to go for an RVI "abuse" story. Best time trade-off ever.

 

Nor do I understand the idea that just because you devote a lot of time to something that it automatically turns an unpersuasive argument into a persuasive one. If the round went down as you described (where the argument was dismissed out of hand from the get-go), then you might have a legitimate grievance, but if the 2NR dismissal was really an extension of a previously articulated argument against RVIs (not a reciprocal burden, etc.), even if it was hastily articulated, then that was probably more than enough to convince the two judges on top of the decision (who were almost certainly actively looking for a reason *not* to vote on an RVI anyway). You can give thirty thousand reasons why the negative skewed your time allocation, but if the negative can win one reason why RVIs are crap (spectacularly easy to do in front of *most* judging), the debate is over for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would vote aff. I may have a stigma against stuff like this because my local circuit is similar.

 

If it is clear that the Ts are run as a way to waste time, the 2NC makes all new arguments, the 1NR kicks the Ts and I'm guessing poorly extend the offcase if it follows what I see, then I vote aff. It seems that you spent a lot of time on the RVIs so they aren't just shady cheating voters. If you combined it with the kind of "all new 2NC arguments is abusive" theory argument then you win it.

 

On my circuit our squad has a few teams that on the bottom of the 1AC now read "A dropped argument is a dropped argument, if the 1NC drops an oncase argument then the 2NC can't make it"

 

I guess most of my anger here comes from people thinking splitting the block means the neg gets two constructive to attack case with totally new and separate arguments when the affirmative gets one to defend it. I know someone will say that's what a good 1AC is for but a 1AC that does nothing but preempt arguments makes for awful debate in my opinion. You have to be offensive rather than reactive and the 1AR answering the equivalent of 21 minutes of negative arguments.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you combined it with the kind of "all new 2NC arguments is abusive" theory argument then you win it.

 

On my circuit our squad has a few teams that on the bottom of the 1AC now read "A dropped argument is a dropped argument, if the 1NC drops an oncase argument then the 2NC can't make it"

 

On this part OP, did you make any arguments regarding the new in the 2NC theory? If you did, it'd be different, I'd probably vote aff, especially if they answered it the way they answered the RVI in the 2NR, but it's hard to tell without having seen the round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On this part OP, did you make any arguments regarding the new in the 2NC theory? If you did, it'd be different, I'd probably vote aff, especially if they answered it the way they answered the RVI in the 2NR, but it's hard to tell without having seen the round.

 

Wait? Since when were new arguments in the 2nc bad? Do you know what would happen to neg win percentages if they weren't able to make new arguments in the 2nc? If answered, late developing debates usually go aff due to the speech order structure. When the 2nc is only making new arguments, it is *advantage* for you - it is time they could have spent developing round winners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait? Since when were new arguments in the 2nc bad? Do you know what would happen to neg win percentages if they weren't able to make new arguments in the 2nc? If answered, late developing debates usually go aff due to the speech order structure. When the 2nc is only making new arguments, it is *advantage* for you - it is time they could have spent developing round winners.

 

I also don't really think new arguments isn't too bad. I mean, it kind of makes the debate more fun on the aff. You have to look at your flows and think "what arguments can I just drop and still make it through the round and which ones do I really have to answer?" It makes it more fun. I mean, yeah, 8 minutes of new case args with both cards and analytics is stressful, or a new DA or CP, but it kind of makes the debate more exciting to have to adapt to that and it forces you to think a lot more. And it's not like people don't throw in some new arguments in the block anyway. I mean, a new flow may make it all seem tough, but like belakor said, they aren't going to be able to clarify those arguments as well and develop them and relate them to the rest of the round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing is wrong with some new arguments in the 2NC, but the way I see it, according to OP at least, there wasn't any on-case at all in the 1NC, and I don't think there's any legitimate claim to making an 8 minute speech completely on case after none in the 1NC. I understand that's how they did it in the 90's (?) and I guess Texas UIL, but I just don't think that's a legitimate way to debate. If the aff ran theory on that and on the RVI, I might have a harder decision, but with just the RVI, not an affirmative ballot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait? Since when were new arguments in the 2nc bad? Do you know what would happen to neg win percentages if they weren't able to make new arguments in the 2nc? If answered, late developing debates usually go aff due to the speech order structure. When the 2nc is only making new arguments, it is *advantage* for you - it is time they could have spent developing round winners.

 

I see it as bad when the 2NC makes all new arguments that weren't at all in the 1NC. Then the 1AR is expected to answer the full 1NC and 2NC and 1NR extensions. It's the equivalent of a 21 minute block and 5 minutes to answer it. 2AC is the aff's chance to set up offense. If you read some case in 1NC and expand it a lot, say 6 minutes in the 2NC that's probably legit. I also see it as a problem because teams that I see do this just shadow extend all the off-case. It's really abusive in my opinion.

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...