Jump to content
codyarmstrong

Reverse Voting Issues

  

74 members have voted

  1. 1. What would you have voted?



Recommended Posts

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 strategically answer the negblock. It's the equivalent of a 11 minute block and 5 minutes to answer it. The 1ac and 2AC are 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 undoubtedly legit. I also see it as a problem because teams that I see do this just shadow extend all the off-case, although that probably means they'll have undeveloped and easy to beat arguments.

 

Fix'd

 

Also, what kills me with everyone whining about new in the 2nc is that they make it sound like the 1ar has to answer EVERY SINGLE POINT on every single flow, which both displays their need for more experience and need for more thinking on 1ar tricks in rounds.

Edited by Rawrcat
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fix'd

 

Also, what kills me with everyone whining about new in the 2nc is that they make it sound like the 1ar has to answer EVERY SINGLE POINT on every single flow, which both displays their need for more experience and need for more thinking on 1ar tricks in rounds.

 

This. Get more experience and this shouldn't be a problem. Embedded clash can answer several arguments both effectively and simultaneously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the best way for the 2AC/1AR to operate is to utilize the case a lot. People are generally reading as many independent advantages as possible instead of bolstering a fewer number of advantages so they'll be more useful later in the debate. The first strategy allows the negative to spread you out and to only extend points they're winning on, the second forces the negative to debate on your terms. Making the debate about depth instead of breadth is generally good for the affirmative because they'll have more specific arguments than the negative will because the negative researches arguments against all cases but the affirmative only researches the affirmative side of one case.

 

For example, on last years topic I spent a significant amount of time arguing that an intentional nuclear war wasn't probable in order to bolster the comparative probability of my accidental war impacts. One argument I used was the existence of the nuclear taboo, however the card which I read proving the existence of the nuclear taboo also mentioned reasons that deterrence theory was flawed and couldn't explain empirical evidence. I never had a single negative team contest the reasons that deterrence was flawed when answering the card, which meant that the 2AC had an extremely easy time answering deterrence based DAs. The card had utility for multiple different arguments, cards like these are ideal for affirmatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fix'd

 

Also, what kills me with everyone whining about new in the 2nc is that they make it sound like the 1ar has to answer EVERY SINGLE POINT on every single flow, which both displays their need for more experience and need for more thinking on 1ar tricks in rounds.

 

Okay I get it. When teams shadow extend stuff it's easy to answer. And yes good case args and grouping do help. I still think if good teams are allowed to do that then it gives the neg too much flexibility. And I don't see national circuit, consistently successful teams do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Why does this argument exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does this argument exist?

 

Lol.

 

On the original point, if we're talking about courts, a good counterexample is Marbury v. Madison. Marbury directly appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming that Madison violated the Judiciary Act by withholding his commission. In the ruling for that case (not a separate one), the Court ruled two things:

1) Marbury was right; Madison should have sent the commission.

2) However, the Court didn't have the ability to make him do it; the part of the Act that allowed the Court to see such cases was unconstitutional.

 

Just an interesting historical example illustrating how a judge can agree with the core Aff claims and still vote Neg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like most experienced debaters would probably agree, an RVI is just not a good argument. It helps the negative more than it hurts them.

However, any judge who won't vote on an RVI on principle doesn't belong in debate and the same goes for a judge who refuses to listen to a critique.

 

If the argument is cold conceded, and the argument is logically supported (i.e. it actually is an argument - see Toulmin), and you claim victory on it, there is no reason why any judge should ignore it. Period.

 

You got stuck with bad judges. C'est la vie.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't wrap my head around the idea that one team should lose because they introduced an argument that the other team had to answer. This is the same whether it's the 2AR crying about how 2NC CPs are a VI because "the 1AR lost time answering it" or the negative demanding the aff lose the debate because a severence perm skewed the 2NC. I see nothing wrong with establishing very minimal thresholds for intervention that are premised upon logical understandings of how argument operates. The burden of proof is on the team proving something, and I believe it's acceptable for a judge to quickly establish that the burden of proof for any theory debate is whether or not rejecting the argument resolves the issue. I think in almost every single case except for conditionality and topicality the rejection of an argument is sufficient. It is therefore the burden of the team going for the theory argument to prove a voting issue is necessary, something that is nearly impossible for an "rvi" on T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't wrap my head around the idea that one team should lose because they introduced an argument that the other team had to answer. This is the same whether it's the 2AR crying about how 2NC CPs are a VI because "the 1AR lost time answering it" or the negative demanding the aff lose the debate because a severence perm skewed the 2NC. I see nothing wrong with establishing very minimal thresholds for intervention that are premised upon logical understandings of how argument operates. The burden of proof is on the team proving something, and I believe it's acceptable for a judge to quickly establish that the burden of proof for any theory debate is whether or not rejecting the argument resolves the issue. I think in almost every single case except for conditionality and topicality the rejection of an argument is sufficient. It is therefore the burden of the team going for the theory argument to prove a voting issue is necessary, something that is nearly impossible for an "rvi" on T.

 

 

Don't get me wrong, I am with you on the aspect of RVIs being poor arguments. And almost any decent line of reasoning offered as clashing logic would probably be acceptable counterpoint to squash it. But in this situation, based on the cursory description of the round, the negative effectively ignored the argument. If the opposing team doesn't even make a good faith effort at countering an argument, how is that an acceptable practice? And why are you rewarding it? What would you say to a team simply ignoring a disad and then saying "well, its a stupid argument, we win". Any disad (and there are lots of them) which ends with Walter Russell Mead is by definition a pile of bullshit. There is no author used in debate who has been proven wrong more times than Mead. His logic doesn't even pass the test of common sense. So why would you not give the aff the ballot after saying "well, its a stupid argument, we win"?

 

If the judge states they do not vote on RVIs in the pre-round discussion of judging philosophy, thats fine. Otherwise, its a wholly reprehensible action. You standard for "acceptable intervention" is arbitrarily selected at a threshold which you decided without alerting debaters to your willingness to do so. It really isnt any different a practice than a lay judge saying post-round, "I don't think critiques belong in policy debate... so I go aff." So you compound the fact that you are rewarding bad debating with interventionist judging. Two wrongs don't make a right, even if RVIs ought to simply vanish from debate.

 

A better practice would be to disclose pre-round that RVIs are not worthy of the ballot. If you forget to do so, judge without intervening and then in post-round, depending on what occurred, teach the team running the RVI why its a terrible argument and why they should never do it again... and then try to remember to disclose it in the future.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I would have to

 

1. Hear the 2AR

 

2. See the plan text

 

To fully make my decision, but basing it upon

 

1. The terrible, clearly not actually testing the affirmative resolutionality as per the words in the resolution the negative tested. Beyond? Mesosphere? MAYBE a legit one was its, but I don't know, like I said, I'd have to see the affirmative. However looking at this, the base negative answer of "testing the affirmative" I don't think applies.  I think the affirmative can make a very good, persuasive argument as to why the negative wasn't actually testing them and they were just being jerks.

 

2. It was conceded.  Within my paradigm of judging, even if it is stupid, a dropped argument is a true argument.  If it is a stupid argument, you should be able to answer it fairly easily. Is the RVI typically stupid? Yes.  However, if 5 minutes is put into a functionally conceded argument in the 2AR, it should be given a good amount of weight in the debate round.

 

I am a 2N, therefore I think reverse voting issues are very very stupid, and the affirmative needs to stop whining that I can outspread their team.  However, debate is not necessarily a battle for who "won" the round, because the negative substantively won the round, but it comes down to what the ballot reads, "Which team did the better debating?" If a team debates in a style that is theoretically illegitimate, the other team should be given the ability to take the ballot away from them as a punishment.

 

If I was the fourth judge on the panel, I would've voted aff and made the teams have a relay race to determine the winner after the 2-2.

  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone voted on an RVI in the instance where it was completely dropped in the 2NR? Also my opinion is that RVI's are stupid. I have refrained from reading the argument because judges tend to give you low speaks.

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...