Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jimjam456

1AC with only tags and source

Recommended Posts

We've hit a squad that only reads tag lines and gives the source for the evidence but never actually reads the evidence. They are able to win because of the volume of evidence they extend from the 1AC. This seems abusive. It forces the neg to use all of their prep time to actually read the evidence if they want to go line by line and attack warrants. What is the best thing to do against a case like this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've hit a squad that only reads tag lines and gives the source for the evidence but never actually reads the evidence. They are able to win because of the volume of evidence they extend from the 1AC. This seems abusive. It forces the neg to use all of their prep time to actually read the evidence if they want to go line by line and attack warrants. What is the best thing to do against a case like this?

 

You should make a theory argument that the aff doesn't even pass the litmus test of an argument because they have not read the evidence which substantiates their claims. A few possible standards

1. No brightline to evidence. You could put a stack of books on the table and proclaim your K to outweigh the case without having to read any of the evidence. What is the judge supposed to do in that situation?

2. Debate is a speaking activity - participants ought to read their evidence because they are supposed to try and persuade, not just play the "game" of debate.

3. Infinitely regressive - if the aff is just tags, so can the 1NC, and so on, until we reach the final rebuttals and realize no one has actually made an argument yet.

4. In-Depth argumentation requires comparison of evidence. This is impossible when they have no read their evidence in the debate (possible impact to number 1)

 

Really, the only good response to this is the first argument. As someone who has done this before (albeit in a much more creative way than a tagline 1AC), most theory arguments are laughably bad. I am, however, highly persuaded by the brightline argument. Even if the judge should only evaluate warrants extended into the last rebuttals, the 1NC/2AC have absolutely no idea how many warrants were in the 1NC books and which warrants they need to present answers to. It becomes the blind leading the blind where everyone is just Dutch Rutter-ing instead of debating and nothing gets done and then we name pizza a vegetable and force water bottles to remove advice that water can prevent dehydration. And that, my friend, is pandemonium.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What the actual fuck?

 

This is definitely abusive. Call them out on it, first of all. Academic dishonesty, time skew, predictability, etc.

 

Also, by not reading the evidence, they're not verbally saying anything warranted. Debate is a communication activity at its base; the phenomenon of calling cards is not there for a judge to look at every single card after the round. If all they do is read tags and cites, they're not making warranted claims; this is more of a debate issue than a theoretical issue. Set up a framework where the judge should only evaluate what is said in the round, not what they cite; a lot of debate judges would sympathize with you, especially after such shenanigans.

 

Also, DO THE SAME THING LOL. Read like 40 off-case positions with only tags and evidence. If they're shifty enough to try and run a 1AC like that, they're probably not prepared to answer 40 off. It's funny, and it demonstrates abuse. Either you lose on the flow, and you can use this as a performative example as to why this shouldn't be allowed, or you win on the flow by outspreading+exploiting the block. You'd think it would be a perf con, but they justified such acts initially, so the judge should vote the aff down first.

 

Asides from debating, if I were a judge, I would have serious problems voting this team up...

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hit them with something hard... <_<

 

Short of physical violence, explain that the NFL rules state that citations must be available for all evidence read in round, and that this is because evidence is assumed to be quotations from the authors themselves. Not reading direct quotations from the authors is liable to be considered a distortion of the author's statement (which is why NFL rules require that citations come in full form with context and without ellipses). Also challenge them. I have lost rounds from having read a tag without reading a card (it's a long story) but the point is that there is a precedent of failure to read a card amounting to distorting evidence. Good luck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From a judge's perspective: I can't think of anybody who will read evidence that wasn't actually verbalized. Given that there's no warrant to anything that came out of the 1AC, the AFF is unlikely to have compelling arguments in the back end of the debate. I have to imagine any team doing this is giving you an easy win in front of a judge with any sense of academic rigor. You're perceptually in a very good position. I wouldn't sweat it too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Say that its like a 1ac thats all a narrative by one of the debaters, without evidence to back up their claims then they could be lying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've hit a squad that only reads tag lines and gives the source for the evidence but never actually reads the evidence. They are able to win because of the volume of evidence they extend from the 1AC. This seems abusive. It forces the neg to use all of their prep time to actually read the evidence if they want to go line by line and attack warrants. What is the best thing to do against a case like this?

 

No kidding? Someone is really doing this? Wow.......

 

My 3rd year of HS debate (1966-67) the topic dealt with reducing military aid to other countries. Aff plans started getting more and more complex, with plans phasing out aid to different countries on different schedules, all trying to avoid country-specific disads. One local team finally printed their plan up into a 10-page booklet, giving copies to each Neg debater and each judge, saying "We don't have time to read our plan into the round; read it yourself." Our response was to take every piece of evidence we had in our files that we were not going to be using in the case-side debate and put it on Aff's desk, saying "Those are our disads to your plan. There are 650 of them and they all end in nuclear war. Read them yourself." All 3 judges laughed out loud and tossed their copies of "the plan" on the floor.

 

Fun times.......

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As someone who has done this before (albeit in a much more creative way than a tagline 1AC), most theory arguments are laughably bad.

I'm curious as to how you did this and when and why. Are you willing to describe it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm curious as to how you did this and when and why. Are you willing to describe it?

 

On our wiki we have an argument called The Allegory of the Squirrel. While the 1NC and block take dramatically different forms depending on who we are debating and what the 2AC looks like, for a long time one of the major unchanging components was an argument about difference and repetition. We said repetition was inevitable, but it was valuable only in so far as it contained difference (pronounce that with a French accent for full effect). The argument, in terms of a debate round, was that constructives were worthless. There is 0 pedagogical value in reading evidence incredibly fast, and instead we should seek the model of the rebuttals earlier. Our interpretation was that the there was no reason to ever read evidence and instead we should make warrants from the evidence in speeches, and the judge should only evaluate what they heard in the speeches. This meant the 2NC would go slow-ish and paraphrase/explain warrants instead of doing what I normally do and reading 40+ cards at top speed.

A few standards:

1. It's reciprocal - I would much rather deal with a 2AC that just explains the utility of their evidence and the reasoning behind it because it gives the block a much better idea of where the debate is going. The 1AR can also do this with new evidence to answer the block arguments. We actually "read" the 1NC cards (Still slowly, so the judge can write them down) because the 1AC "read" their cards.

 

2. Increases clash and depth of argumentation. The rebuttals are less than half the debate but they contain 95% of the comparative content. It would be exponentially better for debate if we pushed those up 2 speeches so we could go even deeper into the debate before the round is over.

 

3. You are all mindless automatons who are incapable of making a warranted argument. Dispute me by conceding my framework for evidence. Double dog dare you.

 

4. Brightline - the judge can call for evidence to see if warrants made in the debate are substantiated by the card, but they should not extrapolate ANYTHING from the evidence that was not clearly made and developed throughout the round.

 

5. This makes K debate way better for the aff. They no longer have to search through dense DnG '72 cards to figure out what we are saying and instead get a clear explanation of what's happening earlier in the debate. It's better for the judge because they know early what particular interpretation of our authors we are using to win the debate.

 

6. Preferences critical thinking - now YOU have to make the arguments, not Boggs or Walt or whomever.

 

What is really important here is that we did this in a fashion different from the example given by OP, or from the way Loyola did it last year (they just read the tags and cites to cards and moved on as part of a larger performance argument about the over-accumulation of information) because we explain and develop the CONTENT of the evidence from the beginning.

 

 

 

So, why do this? Because I was (and still am) certain that I am more capable of explaining my K cards than my opponents are capable of explaining their answers, and this framework put a huge strategic advantage on our side because of that skill in explanation. Typically in the block on a K I can only read a handful of cards because I'm so busy running circles around the 2AC evidence with extrapolations from the 1NC. This way I could use exactly what I needed from block evidence without having to waste time actually reading it. It is worth noting that speaker points were (on average) 1 standard deviation above average during these rounds. Something to think about.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone! It was my novice team that hit them and I just don't think they were able to articulate why it was abusive. But this will help us write some blocks against it!

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...