Jump to content
danieljhndz

How do you answer debaters who use no evidence?

Recommended Posts

IMO:

 

A. Use Evidence if you have any to disprove their claims.

B. Say their Claims are unwarrented with any evidence or anybody else who believes these claims.

C. Say that non-Evidence based Debates just lead to a debate of morality and feelings. Not truly evidence, degrades the level of debate that you have.

D. Extend Case and do Impact Calc/ Case S K or Case O/W the K

E. Framing.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are they also spreading? Insist on a copy of their speech if so.

Otherwise, I'm not sure what the problem is. Evidence is important insofar as it prevents debaters from telling lies about raw statistics or it represents some credible authority's scientific opinion. Those generally aren't hugely relevant to K debates. If they want to make arguments without cards, you should be fine with that, as long as they're still providing warrants. If your judges are very oldschool, you can probably read a theory argument against them if you really want to, but generally deflections are less strategic than directly rebutting someone's position.

A bit more specificity might be helpful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will depend largely on the type of team, if you're referring to k teams, I definitely wouldn't follow all of the above advice, specifically:

 

"C. Say that non-Evidence based Debates just lead to a debate of morality and feelings. Not truly evidence, degrades the level of debate that you have." -Preeves22

 

Doing that is probably a link into a hell of a lot of offense you don't need to get yourself into- you don't need to link into respectability politics, elitism, or other fun k arguments by degrading their form of debate. 

 

Instead- treat it like you would any other argument, k or otherwise- even if there's no evidence, there should be warrants. 

 

Respond to those warrants (or the lack of) with arguments of your own (you don't always need evidence!) and do what you usually do- an argument is an argument. 

 

I'm with Beau Larsen from USC on this- k debate is evolving and with it we're starting to realize we have things to say too, no evidence needed. With that, we need to think of how to respond and engage with different strategies in a more critical way (not even talking the k here). 

 

Any k or k aff has a method- contest it:

 

"What does X do for the people you're talking about?"

 

Think of how their argumentative method actually engages with the forms of violence they criticize- often it can pretty easily be reasoned that a lot of alts don't do a ton. 

 

They also have links- contest em just like you would a regular link, make your link turn and no link args like you always would- even if it's a nontraditional strat like poetry or rap, there's some thing or structure they criticize- figure out what it is if it isn't evident. 

 

 

TLDR: K debate is moving forward, and our engagment strategies need to follow. An argument is an argument, treat it like one- don't look at it as no evidence, look at it searching for links, warrants, and their method.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

100% agree with everything Mason has to say - take a look at USC v Kentucky (R8 of the NDT) to see how a team responds.

 

Kentucky doesn’t do a great job (and Beau is one of my top 3 favorite debaters lol), but it should set something of a baseline for responses.

Edited by Bayernuard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will depend largely on the type of team, if you're referring to k teams, I definitely wouldn't follow all of the above advice, specifically:

 

"C. Say that non-Evidence based Debates just lead to a debate of morality and feelings. Not truly evidence, degrades the level of debate that you have." -Preeves22

 

Doing that is probably a link into a hell of a lot of offense you don't need to get yourself into- you don't need to link into respectability politics, elitism, or other fun k arguments by degrading their form of debate. 

 

Instead- treat it like you would any other argument, k or otherwise- even if there's no evidence, there should be warrants. 

 

Respond to those warrants (or the lack of) with arguments of your own (you don't always need evidence!) and do what you usually do- an argument is an argument. 

 

I'm with Beau Larsen from USC on this- k debate is evolving and with it we're starting to realize we have things to say too, no evidence needed. With that, we need to think of how to respond and engage with different strategies in a more critical way (not even talking the k here). 

 

Any k or k aff has a method- contest it:

 

"What does X do for the people you're talking about?"

 

Think of how their argumentative method actually engages with the forms of violence they criticize- often it can pretty easily be reasoned that a lot of alts don't do a ton. 

 

They also have links- contest em just like you would a regular link, make your link turn and no link args like you always would- even if it's a nontraditional strat like poetry or rap, there's some thing or structure they criticize- figure out what it is if it isn't evident. 

 

 

TLDR: K debate is moving forward, and our engagment strategies need to follow. An argument is an argument, treat it like one- don't look at it as no evidence, look at it searching for links, warrants, and their method.

I assumed this wasn´t a K round, based off of they arent using evidence. The argument I proposed was just offense against their presentation, and the way the other team looked at debate. Generally, I find that evidence helps further your argument and prove a lot of claims. I think most of the time that it proves inherency, or moreso,proves that other people find that it will work. I agree that if it was a K Debate, then that´s a lot of offense you probably would not want to get yourself in with and I totally agree with Virumstein here. (Like if its a narrative of their life on like antiblackness,or queer theory etc.) But, I just viewed it as rit-large and not anything specific.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Answer the way you would answer any other Kritik: F-POSTAL. The only difference is that you have the advantage since they have no lit to back their claims.

F-POSTAL is as follows:

  • Framework
  • Perm
  • Offense
  • Solvency Deficit -the K alt doesnt solve.
  • Theory
  • attack the Alt
  • attack the Link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with pointing out that their claims are unwarranted. Offer counterpoints that have evidence and also offer that with no cards, the validity of their statements is impossible to determine which is unfair. You can turn it into some dumb theory and if they don't use cards they'll have a hard time answering it meaning you'll win reject the arg.

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...