11/8/2022 Communication error occurred please try connecting again resident evil outbreak pcRead NowI think teams are more successful at impact turning framework, and making reasons why only the aff's model of debate is beneficial. It makes it easier in my mind for neg teams to win that the resolution is compatible with the aff's offense and that resolutional debates are good as the aff is already half of the way there. I think K affs tend to lose more of these debates when they adopt a middle ground perspective in which they try to do something with the topic but not affirm the entirety of the resolution. This is because most of these scenarios are where the theory "arguments" are not arguments. Rather, I will just reject the argument if the theoretical objection is well argued and explained. I believe strongly in technical debating, but a conceded blimpy theoretical objection won't be a reason to reject the team. teams read the same conditionality block regardless if they have read one or four conditional options). I feel that counter interpretations are largely self serving (not a reason to not make one) and that interpretations on theory debates are much more persuasive when your offense is centered around your interpretation, which I feel has become largely lacking (ex. The impact level needs to be clearly articulated, especially by the affirmative if you want my ballot. Theory: I resolve these debates much like topicality. That means good impact analysis, good explanations of standards and how I should evaluate each team's vision of the topic. Explain how you want me to evaluate the debate. If you have good cards to substantiate your args that goes a long way and matters for me. Some arguments can be more persuasive to me than others, and I will try my best to avoid any intervention on my part, and I feel that you as a debater should do what you feel is best. While I try to adopt the ideology of a 'tabula rasa' I find that it is not entirely successful. I find that while judging, if the debaters can isolate and clearly articulate the nexus questions of the round, it becomes easier to judge, regardless of any predilections. Take that as you will, but make sure to place an emphasis on clarity. I have never participated or judged a virtual debate prior to this tournament. I have been removed from the debate community since 2019. Label the subject line as: Tournament - Round # - Aff Team vs Neg Team Northwestern Law - put this one on the chain for high school - put this one and the above on the chain for college debate. University of Kentucky 2018/Assistant Debate Coach for UK 2018-2019 Even though it isn’t just a game, strategy and competition dictate much of what we do in debate, and that matters Topic education usually seems less relevant and less strategicĭebate is a competitive activity. The aff needs a strong defense of why reading this particular aff is key (its methodology, theory, performance, etc), why reading this argument on the aff as opposed to the neg is key, and why debate in general is keyįairness and skills impacts are fine. TVAs don’t have to include the affs precise method or the totality of the 1ac, but create access to the affs literature base The aff should read a topical example of the resolution. Its hard to imagine voting aff unless there are 4 or more conditional advocacies introduced. When it seems absurd it probably is, and its not impossible to persuade me to reject the team, but it is an uphill battle. I’d suggest slowing down in the 2NR/2AR and isolating the debate to a narrow set of relevant questions.Ĭonditionality is fine within reason. T is an important strategic weapon, particularly on large topics and you should go for it when necessary. Community norms shouldn’t be relevant and are subject to group-think and path dependency. Quality evidence should dictate topicality. Limits only matter to the extent they are predictable. Weighing those links against the aff is both possible and desirable. But that doesn’t mean questions of epistemology or justifications are irrelevant. Solvency/internal link presses that aid your link arguments are extremely powerful.įiat is good and the aff should be weighed. This can be their primary justifications, representations, mechanism, etc. I like any critique that makes calls into question some core aspect of the aff. No solvency advocate – if its an intuitive advantage CP, particularly when based on the aff evidence, that seems reasonable Immediacy/Certainty/Any Process CP – Probably illegitimate If you have evidence that compares your CP to the plan, it's probably legitimate In an equally debated situation, I will strongly err towards sticking the negative with the 2nr I'll will *not* kick the CP for the negative unless explicitly told to do so and only when uncontested by the aff. My general presumption for CP solvency is sufficiency, but I can be persuaded by well-articulated/evidenced aff arguments that in certain contexts, and offense/defense paradigm for evaluating solvency deficits is inappropriate.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |