Jump to content
Squirrelloid

Team wins a Role for the Ballot Framework that forbids policy-maker...

Recommended Posts

...but everyone argues pure policy.  How do you vote?

 

More specifically, Aff includes a framework that includes gems like 'policy-level isn't real world', 'prefer real world impacts', and 'the role of the ballot is to determine who best questioned methodology'.  Aff is otherwise a garden-variety policy-level plan with no Kritikal harms.  Neg goes pure policy (DAs and a CP).  Neg never even addresses the Framework.  Aff dutifully extends Framework all round.

 

How do you judge that round?

 

The 'solution' I came to was:

-I accept the Framework

-No one questioned methodology at all.

-The entire round after framework ends up being pointless. I'm not allowed to be a policy-maker, so I can't vote on policy-level impacts.

-Therefore both teams deserve to lose.

 

Anyone want to raise any specific objections to that logic?

 

(Tab room made me choose a winner, so I had to intervene to reject the framework and chose the best policy.  But I did feel compelled to ask if I could vote against both teams, and I did note on the ballot that the FW was won by the Aff and should have caused a loss for both teams).

 

If it isn't obvious, i'm pretty close to tabula rasa.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel it is the negs job to beat the aff any way they possibly can and it is the aff's burden to prove their advocacy/plan/song and dance solves if framework means neither team should be evaluated then the neg should win because they have completed their burden of showing that the aff should not be done.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel it is the negs job to beat the aff any way they possibly can and it is the aff's burden to prove their advocacy/plan/song and dance solves if framework means neither team should be evaluated then the neg should win because they have completed their burden of showing that the aff should not be done.

 

At the policy level I'm comfortable presuming for neg because they have the status quo.  But its not clear to me who should own presumption under this crazy framework, and obviously no team made an argument about that.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the policy level I'm comfortable presuming for neg because they have the status quo.  But its not clear to me who should own presumption under this crazy framework, and obviously no team made an argument about that.

 

Framework didn't include the aff, meaning they get no fiat. No advantage to voting aff under their framework. Neg on presumption. The neg doesn't need to win a reason TO vote for them, you just have to agree that there's no reason to vote aff. 

Edited by JosephOverman
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the policy level I'm comfortable presuming for neg because they have the status quo.  But its not clear to me who should own presumption under this crazy framework, and obviously no team made an argument about that.

Yay that's understandable but JosephOverman says it best no reason to vote aff means a neg ballot you have to interfere as bad as that sounds to make a decision.

 

I'm a debater not a judge so I may have a skewed mind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alot of times people forget about significance... If the aff's framework makes their impacts insignificant, they've lost a stock issue.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alot of times people forget about significance... If the aff's framework makes their impacts insignificant, they've lost a stock issue.

That's good if the judge is working on a stock issues paradigm. However, this doesn't seem to be the case here. If we're purely looking at which of the teams presents a better methodology, like the uncontested f/w states we should, neither team is winning. To use a different f/w (such as stock issues) would be judge intervention, which the OP is trying to avoid.

 

This seems to be a pretty big thing that everyone's ignoring in this thread. Yeah, neg presumption and neg only needs to disprove the aff f/w are cool and all, but neither were argued in round. So the OP can choose to 1. Just ignore the f/w args made in the 1AC and just look at the rest of the round 2. Intervene, and use some random f/w to find a winner or 3. Vote both teams down, since the role of the ballot was to find who had the best methodology, and since neither team proved that they had a better methodology, neither team won the ballot in accordance to the f/w

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Framework didn't include the aff, meaning they get no fiat. No advantage to voting aff under their framework. Neg on presumption. The neg doesn't need to win a reason TO vote for them, you just have to agree that there's no reason to vote aff. 

 

I disagree, I don't think presumption necessarily belongs to the neg.

 

Presumption exists under a policy maker paradigm because the affirmative is required to present a plan.  Thus the negative gets to defend the SQ, so when the plan is nonexistent or otherwise indifferent from the SQ, the neg wins.  But the critical part here is that part of this framework forces the affirmative to assume a positive advocacy.  That's the only reason presumption works.  (And once the Affirmative has presented a plan which does something not in the SQ, they get presumption, because absent negative offense you presume for the Affirmative).

 

The Aff's articulated framework requires both teams to assume positive advocacy via methodological inquisition, and determine who performed best at this task.  There is no viable SQ defense post-framework, because the SQ is not questioning, which auto-fails the framework.  A SQ defense (existing methods are good) is an argument against the framework, not an argument post-framework to prefer the negative, and since AFF won the framework, that argument was clearly lost! 

 

(Strangely, the Framework never really questions the normal methodology of policy debate, so articulation of the framework itself didn't fulfill the framework.  It says the policy discussion isn't real world, but they never elaborate on these claims or investigate further.  And, imo, reading a prepared block written by obviously-not-you does not qualify as 'questioning' in the round.  The framework asked the judge (me) to weigh real world impacts of questioning on the debaters, and the conduct of the round pretty much refutes any notion that the debaters engaged in any meaningful or real world questioning).

 

Edit: I'm not sure what Fiat has to do with anything here.  Given framework, Aff never needed to present a plan at all.  It could have been 6 minutes of Heidegger in the 1AC followed by 2 minutes of FW, and I totally vote for that if they win FW.  Heck, they could have read their 1AC as is, then kicked out of the plan and run 8 minutes of Kant (K of Pure Reason stuff) in the 2, and I still vote for that if they win FW.  (Or choose your favorite and appropriate K author.  Pure epistemology aff, to make judges angry?)

 

Edit2: I can't wait for the next tournament to hear such brilliant answers to their framework as:

1. We grant their framework.

2. PerfCon - they tell you questioning methodology is the only way to decide the ballot, but then engage in no questioning of methodology.  Their Aff doesn't meet and should be rejected.

3. T/ We just questioned their methodology of case construction, so we win under their framework. 

4. And the Aff has failed in its burden to present a case which establishes a legitimate position on their framework.  Having a relevant position after the 1AC is a prima facia burden, so this is sufficient reason to vote negative right now.  Go ahead and fill out your ballot judge, the round is over. 

5. Standards (Time skew/wastes our 1NC, Destroys clash by not letting arguments develop before rebuttals, Can't make links if there's nothing to link to, new 2AC kritikal position is abusive since they made it the only thing that matters - just watch them commit abuse in the round in their next speech!, etc...)

 

Then 7 minutes of K.

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree, I don't think presumption necessarily belongs to the neg.

 

Presumption exists under a policy maker paradigm because the affirmative is required to present a plan.  Thus the negative gets to defend the SQ, so when the plan is nonexistent or otherwise indifferent from the SQ, the neg wins.  But the critical part here is that part of this framework forces the affirmative to assume a positive advocacy.  That's the only reason presumption works.  (And once the Affirmative has presented a plan which does something not in the SQ, they get presumption, because absent negative offense you presume for the Affirmative).

 

The Aff's articulated framework requires both teams to assume positive advocacy via methodological inquisition, and determine who performed best at this task.  There is no viable SQ defense post-framework, because the SQ is not questioning, which auto-fails the framework.  A SQ defense (existing methods are good) is an argument against the framework, not an argument post-framework to prefer the negative, and since AFF won the framework, that argument was clearly lost! 

 

(Strangely, the Framework never really questions the normal methodology of policy debate, so articulation of the framework itself didn't fulfill the framework.  It says the policy discussion isn't real world, but they never elaborate on these claims or investigate further.  And, imo, reading a prepared block written by obviously-not-you does not qualify as 'questioning' in the round.  The framework asked the judge (me) to weigh real world impacts of questioning on the debaters, and the conduct of the round pretty much refutes any notion that the debaters engaged in any meaningful or real world questioning).

 

Edit: I'm not sure what Fiat has to do with anything here.  Given framework, Aff never needed to present a plan at all.  It could have been 6 minutes of Heidegger in the 1AC followed by 2 minutes of FW, and I totally vote for that if they win FW.  Heck, they could have read their 1AC as is, then kicked out of the plan and run 8 minutes of Kant (K of Pure Reason stuff) in the 2, and I still vote for that if they win FW.  (Or choose your favorite and appropriate K author.  Pure epistemology aff, to make judges angry?)

 

I would still think that presumption exists in the world where the aff presents this framework. Since they brought up the argument that the judge must evaluate the round in that fashion, I believe that it's their burden to provide and offensive reason as to why they win under that framework. I don't think that's necessarily judge intervention, although that's debatable.

 

In the end, I think you should've completely ignored F/W in your final decision. Novices make stupid mistakes and even if it could be "technically" considered a double loss, I think it would be most beneficial to them to simply give a normal policy decision, then provide emphasis on the point that they shouldn't read that framework argument. 

Judges should be given the ability to intervene in such matters on the novice circuit if it's beneficial to both teams. For example, I "technically" clipped cards at my very first tournament. I had no knowledge of the concept, and I was reading at conversational speed so it didn't cause any unfair advantage. I COULD have been automatically voted down and I was "technically" doing something wrong, but that would've mooted the entire round and provided unnecessary disruption. 

 

tl;dr- Judges should be allowed to intervene in novice debates if it's in the best interest of both sides

Edited by JosephOverman
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the end, I think you should've completely ignored F/W in your final decision. Novices make stupid mistakes and even if it could be "technically" considered a double loss, I think it would be most beneficial to them to simply give a normal policy decision, then provide emphasis on the point that they shouldn't read that framework argument. 

Judges should be given the ability to intervene in such matters on the novice circuit if it's beneficial to both teams. For example, I "technically" clipped cards at my very first tournament. I had no knowledge of the concept, and I was reading at conversational speed so it didn't cause any unfair advantage. I COULD have been automatically voted down and I was "technically" doing something wrong, but that would've mooted the entire round and provided unnecessary disruption. 

 

tl;dr- Judges should be allowed to intervene in novice debates if it's in the best interest of both sides

 

Slight problem, this was a varsity round.  (Two very poor record teams at a non-national tournament, but Varsity).

 

Yeah, if its Novice I just eject the FW.  Heck, I just tell Novices I'm a policy-maker, because I don't want to hear incomprehensible Ks mangled beyond my ability to *recognize* them.  But Varsity?  They get to make their bed and sleep in it.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-The entire round after framework ends up being pointless. I'm not allowed to be a policy-maker, so I can't vote on policy-level impacts.

-Therefore both teams deserve to lose.

 

 

You can have discussions about policies and what the government SHOULD do without pretending to be a policy maker. Considering their ROTB is about who best questions "methodology" you vote for the team that has the biggest "solvency" deficit the other team. Their arguments about the real world would almost certainly mean if a team says the DA causes nuclear war you disregard it in favor of the teams ability to solve the most predictable/relevant "internal link"

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread reminds of me a story a friend told me about (he debates/judges policy) when he and another policy judge were forced to judge an LD break round at a local tourney.  Apparently the round came down to some dumb theory vs. RVI (or something like that, I don't know exactly what happened).  These were the results

 

Judge 1: Votes for neither team

Judge 2: Voter for both team

Judge 3 (actual LD judge): Votes aff.

 

So aff wins

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The neg should win on presumption, because the aff hasn't done anything to prove that their impacts are existent or why they can solve for them. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can have discussions about policies and what the government SHOULD do without pretending to be a policy maker. Considering their ROTB is about who best questions "methodology" you vote for the team that has the biggest "solvency" deficit the other team. Their arguments about the real world would almost certainly mean if a team says the DA causes nuclear war you disregard it in favor of the teams ability to solve the most predictable/relevant "internal link"

 

Without going into terribly much detail about the remainder of the round, to protect the guilty, I will simply emphasize that these were very much not strong teams.  The policy level argumentations was really bad, and at no point was *methodology* ever questioned.  There was a bare minimum of disagreement over evidence, but I never even got a 'their position is bad for these reasons' argument, which I would have voted for as an instance of questioning methodology.  There were significant issues with running and responding to a basic CP, for example.  Neither of these teams should have been anywhere near a framework argument. 

 

The neg should win on presumption, because the aff hasn't done anything to prove that their impacts are existent or why they can solve for them. 

 

Given the framework... Solvency? Impacts? The framework tells you to discard that as part of the illusory nature of the policy-level.  The framework doesn't require solvency for *anything*. 

 

Sorry, it feels like you don't understand the framework.  The framework doesn't even require the two teams to clash at all.  They could agree on everything and spend the round hashing out a theory of epistemology or formulating a communist utopia or something, and the judge would vote for whomever best questioned methodology during the cooperative discussion.  It's a really weird framework.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This debate is an example of why a lot of judge philosophies say "an argument is a claim, warrant, and implication."

 

In this debate, if the affirmative was continually extending a FW w/o explaining what it meant for the rest of the round (ie, an implication), I would likely disregard it in favor of what seems to be the "presumed framework"--CP v plan desirability.

 

Is this intervening? Yeah. But so is taking a framework argument and applying it in a way that means "both teams loose" when, despite it being logically correct that given the way the debate went down and given the FW interp read both teams would lose, the argumentation supporting this was never made.

 

The former intervention (what I would do) presumes that an argument without an implication should be disregarded, the latter intervention (what you did) presumes that an argument without an explicit implication to the rest of the debate should be evaluated through the lense of "truth"--ie the judge should be able to figure out what the implication of this argument is through interjection of what seems to be the most logical implication. One of these methods of judging intervenes in a logic-induced way, the other intervenes in a more communicative-based way. Likewise, the logic-intervention sacrifices a paradigm that priviledges communication, and vice versa. To each their own, both methods seem to have aight justifications behind them. I do what I do b/c it seems like the easiest way to simply avoid making a decision that is not based in the "thesis" of either teams 2nr/2ar's. I would rather, as a judge, give a decision that seems like it's based in the decisions made by the 2nr/2ar than in my own interpretations of the arguments in the 2nr/2ar. 

Edited by liampirate
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Is this intervening? Yeah. But so is taking a framework argument and applying it in a way that means "both teams loose" when, despite it being logically correct that given the way the debate went down and given the FW interp read both teams would lose, the argumentation supporting this was never made.

 

The argument was made supporting it in the 1AC and extended throughout the round. Although they didn't logically tie it to their arguments, the f/w was still fully argued for. If following the uncontested f/w in the round and making a decision based off of it is intervention, then literally every decision involves intervention.

 

Think about the alternative you're saying we should evaluate the round based off of. You're criticizing the team for "not giving argumentation supporting the 1AC f/w", but where is there ANY argumentation regarding a policy f/w? Although it is assumed, NO ONE in the round talked about the framework or why it should be used, or at least not in the constructives. In what world is it fair to based the round off of a f/w that wasn't presented when there was a different f/w presented and not argued against. You would be taking a completely new f/w, an argument not made in the round, and inserting it into your decision. That is judge intervention. Making a decision based off of the f/w presented in round that makes both teams lose is not. Just because neither team talked about why they fit the f/w does not mean that the f/w doesn't still stand.

Edited by reconrose
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This debate is an example of why a lot of judge philosophies say "an argument is a claim, warrant, and implication."

 

In this debate, if the affirmative was continually extending a FW w/o explaining what it meant for the rest of the round (ie, an implication), I would likely disregard it in favor of what seems to be the "presumed framework"--CP v plan desirability.

 

Is this intervening? Yeah. But so is taking a framework argument and applying it in a way that means "both teams loose" when, despite it being logically correct that given the way the debate went down and given the FW interp read both teams would lose, the argumentation supporting this was never made.

 

The former intervention (what I would do) presumes that an argument without an implication should be disregarded, the latter intervention (what you did) presumes that an argument without an explicit implication to the rest of the debate should be evaluated through the lense of "truth"--ie the judge should be able to figure out what the implication of this argument is through interjection of what seems to be the most logical implication. One of these methods of judging intervenes in a logic-induced way, the other intervenes in a more communicative-based way. Likewise, the logic-intervention sacrifices a paradigm that priviledges communication, and vice versa. To each their own, both methods seem to have aight justifications behind them. I do what I do b/c it seems like the easiest way to simply avoid making a decision that is not based in the "thesis" of either teams 2nr/2ar's. I would rather, as a judge, give a decision that seems like it's based in the decisions made by the 2nr/2ar than in my own interpretations of the arguments in the 2nr/2ar. 

 

Should anyone running a FW make an argument 'we meet the framework'?  Yes.  I don't see why I should reject the framework because they don't.  The other team could easily embrace the framework and win on it.

 

Consider the following silly example:

Aff runs a performative Pirates are Awesome case with a FW: "Vote for the best hat"

Neg, not seeing a hat, doesn't remember to answer the hat framework

Aff, who had hid a captain's hat in a tub, pulls it out for the 2AC.

(And neg tries to argue 'no new hats in the 2AC' - okay, I'd laugh).

 

I clearly vote for the Aff right?

 

Or neg runs a Ninja counter-performance, and manages to steal the hat without the Aff noticing, then the shocked Aff can't find it, and team Ninja wears it in the 2NC.  Vote for Neg, right?

What happens when the Aff forgets to pack the hat for the tournament, and only notices as they're prepping the 2AC?  No hats at all appear in the round.  Its not that the framework wasn't conceded - it was - so the role of the ballot is still to vote for the best hat.  There's just no one to vote for.

 

That's not intervention, that's a failure of the teams to make a relevant argument for the RFD.

  • Upvote 9
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think my default is to vote negative in this case.

 

I think the level of intervention varies (arguably) with the level of ballot accessing cards read by the neg.  (ie the quality & quantity of evidence that tell the judge to reject a particular type of evidence).

 

I guess the argument that both teams link....**might** open this up more.  Especially given that the round seems to be executed so poorly.

Edited by nathan_debate
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should anyone running a FW make an argument 'we meet the framework'?  Yes.  I don't see why I should reject the framework because they don't.  The other team could easily embrace the framework and win on it.

 

Consider the following silly example:

Aff runs a performative Pirates are Awesome case with a FW: "Vote for the best hat"

Neg, not seeing a hat, doesn't remember to answer the hat framework

Aff, who had hid a captain's hat in a tub, pulls it out for the 2AC.

(And neg tries to argue 'no new hats in the 2AC' - okay, I'd laugh).

 

I clearly vote for the Aff right?

 

Or neg runs a Ninja counter-performance, and manages to steal the hat without the Aff noticing, then the shocked Aff can't find it, and team Ninja wears it in the 2NC.  Vote for Neg, right?

What happens when the Aff forgets to pack the hat for the tournament, and only notices as they're prepping the 2AC?  No hats at all appear in the round.  Its not that the framework wasn't conceded - it was - so the role of the ballot is still to vote for the best hat.  There's just no one to vote for.

 

That's not intervention, that's a failure of the teams to make a relevant argument for the RFD.

 

Hahaha! thats easily one of the best explanations of anything on this website, up rep +

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The argument was made supporting it in the 1AC and extended throughout the round. Although they didn't logically tie it to their arguments, the f/w was still fully argued for. If following the uncontested f/w in the round and making a decision based off of it is intervention, then literally every decision involves intervention.

 

 

 

Every decision--especially this one--does, in fact, involve intervention. Most of the time this intervention is assumed--i.e., DA o/w case is presumed to be a reason to vote negative when the debate is presumed to be a policy debate. 

 

Intervention is inevitable in this decision. 

 

Think about the alternative you're saying we should evaluate the round based off of. You're criticizing the team for "not giving argumentation supporting the 1AC f/w", but where is there ANY argumentation regarding a policy f/w? Although it is assumed, NO ONE in the round talked about the framework or why it should be used, or at least not in the constructives. In what world is it fair to based the round off of a f/w that wasn't presented when there was a different f/w presented and not argued against. You would be taking a completely new f/w, an argument not made in the round, and inserting it into your decision. That is judge intervention. Making a decision based off of the f/w presented in round that makes both teams lose is not. Just because neither team talked about why they fit the f/w does not mean that the f/w doesn't still stand.

 

I'm not criticizing the team for not giving argumentation supporting the 1ac framework, i'm criticizing the team for not applying the FW to the rest of the debate. I

 

Taking the FW that the aff read and applying it to the debate in a way not argued is also "taking a completely new f/w, an argument not made in the round, and inserting it into your decision." Judge intervention is inevitable under both "paradigms"--your priviledges the presumed logic behind what someone says, I priviledge the strategic decision making behind that the 2nr/2ar said. 

 

I decided to presume a new framework because, even though it wasn't explicitly explained, all debaters continue to debate in a way that seems to mean that, if the plan/CP is better, they win. This is preferable for me because it's more predictable for the debaters--it engages in the way the debaters debated, not in a way that a random argument that is extended, not really explained, and it is clear that neither team understands the implications of, is the deciding point. 

 

 Making a decision based off of the f/w presented in round that makes both teams lose is not. Just because neither team talked about why they fit the f/w does not mean that the f/w doesn't still stand.

 

wow much warrante

 

A framework "stands" (whatever that means), but what does it standing mean for the debate?

 

You answered that question for them. I didn't, because the debaters didn't. 

 

Should anyone running a FW make an argument 'we meet the framework'?  Yes.  I don't see why I should reject the framework because they don't.  The other team could easily embrace the framework and win on it.

 

I don't reject the FW b/c they don't make a we meet, i reject the FW because neither team has explained how them winning on the framework matters for my ballot

 

 

What happens when the Aff forgets to pack the hat for the tournament, and only notices as they're prepping the 2AC?  No hats at all appear in the round.  Its not that the framework wasn't conceded - it was - so the role of the ballot is still to vote for the best hat.  There's just no one to vote for.

 

That's not intervention, that's a failure of the teams to make a relevant argument for the RFD.

 

I would probably just evaluate the rest of the debate because of the lack of the teams to make a relevant argument for the RFD. When there's a failure of the teams to make a relevant argument for the RFD, I don't make that argument for them. It seems like you and reconrose would. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would probably just evaluate the rest of the debate because of the lack of the teams to make a relevant argument for the RFD. When there's a failure of the teams to make a relevant argument for the RFD, I don't make that argument for them. It seems like you and reconrose would. 

 

I'm not making an argument for them.  I'm noticing the lack of an argument.  That's just checking my flow. 

 

You seriously consider noticing lack of an argument equivalent intervention to imagining a substantive argument in defense of a normal policy framework to defeat an uncontested FW?  I'm not sure I have words.  We seem to have a fundamental disagreement on what 'intervention' means.

 

Seriously, you're making the debaters speech act of running a framework meaningless if you can just decide that someone magically ran a 'policy framework good' argument against it, and then decide to go for the imaginary argument.  Might as well intervene every time someone drops T or theory to make reasonability and no in-round abuse arguments for them, and then choose to side with the Aff on those not-in-evidence arguments.  Why even have the debaters debate at that point?

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would probably just evaluate the rest of the debate because of the lack of the teams to make a relevant argument for the RFD. When there's a failure of the teams to make a relevant argument for the RFD, I don't make that argument for them. It seems like you and reconrose would. 

 

 

 

 

 

 
I think this requires (as a general rule) a line or three in your judge philosophy.  To me, thats something thats unique which debaters should know about or otherwise be made aware of.  They shouldn't find out during the decision.  To me its about being fair to these two teams and all the teams I judge--and being as transparent as possible--so they know what the target is rather than having to guess what it is.   Just my two cents (aka IMHO)
Edited by nathan_debate
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 
I think this requires (as a general rule) a line or three in your judge philosophy.  To me, thats something thats unique which debaters should know about or otherwise be made aware of.  They shouldn't find out during the decision.  To me its about being fair to these two teams and all the teams I judge--and being as transparent as possible--so they know what the target is rather than having to guess what it is.   Just my two cents (aka IMHO)

 

Basing your decision off of the framework given in round is something unique? I don't anyone should have to specify that... It should be the reason you're running the framework. So that the judge will vote for with that framework in mind. Just because they didn't meet it with the rest of their argumentation doesn't mean that it goes away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not making an argument for them.  I'm noticing the lack of an argument.  That's just checking my flow. 

 

Actually, you're noticing the lack of an argument (the application of the RoB), and then making the argument of how the RoB applies to the debate for them. 

 

Seriously, you're making the debaters speech act of running a framework meaningless if you can just decide that someone magically ran a 'policy framework good' argument against it, and then decide to go for the imaginary argument.  Might as well intervene every time someone drops T or theory to make reasonability and no in-round abuse arguments for them, and then choose to side with the Aff on those not-in-evidence arguments.  Why even have the debaters debate at that point?

 

Actually, I think you're making the debaters speech act of running a plan, policy advs, a DA and a CP meaningless if you can just decide that someone magically read an argument about why a teams framework applied to the debate and their ballot. This isn't akin to making reasonability when a team drops T--one is making a new argument for a team, what i'm doing is making an incomplete argument irrelevant to the debate because the sufficient arguments weren't made. 

 

I'm not sure I have words. 

 

so why'd you even...

 

I think this requires (as a general rule) a line or three in your judge philosophy.  To me, thats something thats unique which debaters should know about or otherwise be made aware of.  They shouldn't find out during the decision.  To me its about being fair to these two teams and all the teams I judge--and being as transparent as possible--so they know what the target is rather than having to guess what it is.   Just my two cents (aka IMHO)

 

I say in my philosophy that an argument needs to have an implication in terms of my ballot. That means an RoB should, too. 

 

Basing your decision off of the framework given in round is something unique? I don't anyone should have to specify that... It should be the reason you're running the framework. So that the judge will vote for with that framework in mind. Just because they didn't meet it with the rest of their argumentation doesn't mean that it goes away.

 

While i'm impressed with your impeccable warrants here, I disagree that the judge votes for teams with a framework in mind--the judge votes for a team for a reason that is framed through a framework. I don't think that the team in this example framed why the framework meant they won the debate. 

 

 

 

side note: This'll be my last post on the issue b/c i have finals, a tournament to prep for, etc, and because this discussion is starting to turn hostile, and I don't want to continue a discussion that seems to have turned into a swamp of assertions. You asked how people if they wanted to raise objections to a form of logic you used to reach a decision, squirrelloid. Then you decided to dive into a pit of assertions, disengagement, and inability to see even the justification for other's views. That's not how this forum should go down. This is what a lot of cross-x.com looks like and it's making me realize that the forums aren't as civil and put-together as when they functioned as a pretty good safe place for me back when i was a younger debater. I'm still checking it every day, even though most of the college debate community laughs down on it, but i'm wondering time and time again if it's worth it. I talked to a few people about this issue. I spent time thinking about this. After I showed some people that agreed with me this thread, they commented that it would be useless for them to share their own opinion because it wouldn't serve to change the viewpoints shared in this thread, it would only serve to give a few internet people an opportunity to say the same few lines. Agree with my viewpoint or not, that's not the sort of mindset that creates productive discussions. 

Edited by liampirate
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, you're making the debaters speech act of running a framework meaningless if you can just decide that someone magically ran a 'policy framework good' argument against it, and then decide to go for the imaginary argument.  Might as well intervene every time someone drops T or theory to make reasonability and no in-round abuse arguments for them, and then choose to side with the Aff on those not-in-evidence arguments.  Why even have the debaters debate at that point?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 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...