Another Silly Hypothetical

Anytime someone asks one of these hypothetical “in the worst debate ever these 4 crazy things happen…” scenarios it always takes me back to the first such diddy that literally destroyed about 3 months of the emory debate team. Explanation below the fold.

The negative Reads a politics disad as such

A. uniqueness

B. Impact- X is good

The affirmative responds by straight impact turning and saying X is bad.

The 2 sides proceed to debate this out, furiously arguing whether X is good or bad. But then <record scratch>, in the 2AR the aff says “hold the phone, the neg didn’t read a link, therefore there is no link and this isn’t a disad”.

The question is- is this 2AR strategy legitimate/would you allow it if you were the judge?

This seems like a simple battle of “you must present a complete argument” vs “the aff should of said that earlier/the neg doesn’t get a 3NR/would of read links if pressed on it”, but there are many more layers of minutia that got dug into in order to avoid doing any work.

I won’t say what side we fell on- but this may also be the only time Roy and I ever agreed on anything… ever.

48 thoughts on “Another Silly Hypothetical

  1. Alex Tran

    Well, if the only argument on the flow from the Aff and Neg each (after the shell) is the impact turn, it can't really be a voting issue anyways. I don't think the 2AR is allowed to do so, as there isn't a 3nr or any clarification after the 2nr to go against a claim made in the last speech, but as the judge, I wouldn't up the Neg on it. I'd throw it out I guess. Some might call that interventionist, but even if you didn't intervene, the disad goes neither way. Even if you bought that X ptx scenario was good, the Aff does nothing to prevent X bill from passing and it's the burden of the neg to present a complete argument.

    Ex:
    LOST will pass
    LOST k/t heg

    Well…so? Aff should've picked up that there's no link, but still, there's no risk of offense by the Neg to garner a ballot. It is bad debate practice to allow the 2ar to make new arguments, so..just don't suck at debating. Take 5 minutes to cut a card saying X will derail Y ptx scenario, and actually use CX for clarification.

    On the other hand, it could be strategic. Allow the straight turn to happen, and in the block, read a card saying Aff k/t LOST. But that's an entirely different debate and it didn't happen here so..yeah.

  2. mike

    True not new?

    I don't see how the judge can vote on a coherent impact argument if there was never a link. Maybe the threshold for a link would be really low. Like, really really really low. If there was even a tag for 'link' I would say the 2AR is disregarded.

    But if there was really never any link or mention of one, vote aff…

    I think? Obvi this is a tough one.

    -Mike

  3. Tom Tom

    I don't think it would be possible for the negative to give a winning 2NR without explaining some reason why X bill being good warrants a negative ballot. Without a link, that reason would probably be stupid; if it were conceded by the aff in an earlier speech I would not allow the new 2AR argument, otherwise I would allow the aff's no link as a response to the negative's reason the disad impact should affect the judge's decision. If the negative did not present a reason that it should influence the judge's decision, then I don't see a way to vote negative.

  4. Richard

    I'm with mike. If the neg never, ever, ever (you can see the threshold here) said a single thing about a link, then it should be obvious that it's an aff ballot. If there was even a hint of a link discussion, however, then that 2AR argument isn't justified.

  5. Layne Kirshon

    i think this becomes a lot more complicated when you consider what it means for there to be a link presented. what if in the 1nc the 1n read a uniqueness card, then said "the plan links" and then read LOST key to heg etc. there was no explanation, nothing. just lost will pass card, lost key to heg card and the words "plan links" does this constitute a link argument? by most people's standards this does not include a claim and a warrant, which is the minimum threshold for an argument.

    if you think it does constitute a link argument, then every sentence in the speech constitutes an argument and if the 2NR finishes the speech with "vote neg" and the aff never says "vote aff" you have to automatically vote neg.

    on the opposite end if this does not constitute a link argument, what does? what if the neg said the plan links and read a card that said absolutely nothing about the plan and LOST. if you don't think this constitutes an argument, why isn't it the aff's burden to point it out?

    any thoughts?

  6. lazor

    If the negative never mentioned a link, then I wouldn't weigh the disad at all. As the judge, I probably wouldn't weigh it even if the aff didn't bring that point up. If you can't be bothered to tell me why your disad links, even if it's the weakest link ever, then I just won't wiehg the disad.

  7. Alex Tran

    I'd still buy the 2ar argument if the link showed in the 1nc was "the plan links."

    Links…how? What is the reason that they link? Really, "the plan links" sounds like a whiny kid. Of course, at the mention of the word link, CX would've followed with "so how do we link" and the dis-ad could've been taken down right there. In fact, the debate could've been potentially different at the mention of a link.

    All in all, "the plan links" isn't a link. I'd have been more accepting of the straight turns or just thrown out the disad altogether by the 1nc.

  8. Layne Kirshon

    no but that's my point. is it not the aff's burden to make that argument in the 2AC, b/c there's no difference in my opinion between saying "the plan links" and reading a ptx DA where the link evidence says some GOP members hated something related to the plan during the clinton administration and reading an internal link card that says "some congressmembers aren't persuaded to vote for hc". unfortunately, that's the way a lot of ptx link/internal link sotries go down. in fact, i've debated multiple ptx DAs where the 1NC didnt even include an i/l card – the neg just asserted the claim was in their UQ ev.

    if that were the situation and the 2AR started saying that the link and i/l stories were incoherent when the 2AC/1AR straight impact turned no judge in their right mind would vote on it. But in reality, neither saying "The plan links" nor reading "the plan costs pc" [card that says something about clinton doign something like the plan] and and "pc key" [card that says some congressmembers aren't persuaded] constitute a coherent DA

    I don't have an opinion on the issue, nor am i arguing with anyone. i just think this discussion needs to include a side-bar about what constitutes making a link argument.

  9. Roy Levkovitz

    Before I post my thoughts on this, I'll ask some more questions based on some of the discussion points made both when we fought about this at Emory and here.

    1.) Is it a disad? does the absence of a link preclude it from being one?
    2.) What does voting aff or neg mean in general? For those of you who've judged before what does it say at the bottom of the ballot?

  10. Tom Tom

    1) No. It is a uniqueness argument and an impact argument. Absent a link, or some bizzare framework which establishes the relevance of the direction of that impact in a different way, it is, to be redundant, irrelevant.

    2) I haven't actually judged of course, but I believe the bottom says to vote for the team that does the better debating. For me, that would not mean solely winning the direction of the impact, but also includes establishing the relevance of that victory.

  11. John Smith

    Let me contextualize this so that it is somewhat real world-
    1N or 2N(whoever is physically constructing the 1NC) grabs their politics shell without remembering to put in the link from the case neg. Plausible. 2N is prepping during the 1NC, doesn't notice, 1N is reading, doesn't notice. Aff is straight-turning, so during 2AC/1AR prep they don't make link analysis, since they're conceding the "link". 2NC reads impact overview, doesn't go to the link debate since its "conceded". 1AR was above. 2NR, gives quick thesis of DA, mentions the link, like "we control uniqueness, blah, and the link, they concede the plan destroys PC", assuming the 1NC actually read the link. What is the threshold now? Does the 2NR shadow-explaining the "link" give it enough credence?

  12. Scott Phillips

    People who say they would intervene and just write off the disad without the neg making a link argument- what if the 2AC kicks the case and straight turns the disad- do you intervene and throughout the disad and vote neg on presumption or what?

  13. Tom Tom

    @Scott Phillips

    I think it depends on the situation.

    If the aff wins that the disad is not connected to the aff, and does not have an external impact, then I would vote neg on presumption. The aff has not presented a complete argument as to why the status quo should be changed.

    If the aff does not present the no-link argument, and the neg provides a different reason why the debate is relevant to the ballot which the aff doesn't contest, then I would vote on how that debate is resolved.

    If neither team presents a reason why the debate is relevant to the ballot, I would vote negative on presumption. Same reason as above.

    There's a point where debate gets poor enough that the judge will intervene no matter what – either by throwing out the disad for its irrelevance, or by assuming it is relevant. I think better debating is fostered by having a minimum standard for the quality of argumentation and by not voting on arguments which have no established relevance.

  14. Layne Kirshon

    roy makes a good point (never thought i'd say those words). what if the 1N at the bottom of the case just reads kzad 95 randomly, the 2a reads 4 minutes of heg bad, and the debate collapses to just heg good v heg bad?

    it seems to me that you have to assume that if the 2A doesn't say "This isn't relevant" then you assume it is relevant and "the better debating" is done by whoever wins heg good v heg bad, even if the 2AR is like o hey no link?

  15. Tom Tom

    I think what you're saying also advances a certain conception of debate.

    Why are the negative's arguments a disad with an assumed link? There is no link, there is a uniqueness argument and an impact argument, put together. I don't see this situation as the aff choosing not to address the link. I only see what they are doing: debating an impact argument. Neither team has argued that there is a link which the aff chooses to ignore. It is intervention for the judge to assume there is an ignored link – that enforces a certain understanding of debate. There are many ways to evaluate a debate completely opposed to this. The neg could present a framework that says this debate should be heg good vs. heg bad. In that world, they have established the relevance of that debate.

    Deciding the debate based on who wins the impact turns also advances a certain concept of what debate is: one that does not require context or relevance of argumentation. Establishing what the debate is about is a pre-requisite to deciding that debate. Absent that determination, intervention is inevitable; determining which team does the "better debating" will always be subjective if the debaters do not establish a way to determine that.

    I will grant that the notion of presumption advances a certain form of debate. But not voting on presumption also advances a certain form of debate. I hope I have demonstrated above that it is impossible for the judge to forego doing that absent one of the two teams debating establishing a way to evaluate it.

    The only situation in which my decision would be as such is where there is absolutely no discussion of the relevance of the impact yes/no debate, by either team. If neither team says what is relevant – than the judge has to choose their own way of determining that.

    I think the difference lies in how we understand relevance. For me, nothing is relevant unless it is given relevance. It is the burden of a team presenting an argument to prove it is relevant. However, this probably is too strict of a requirement – most affs do not explicitly argue why the plan is relevant in the 1AC. For you, everything is relevant until it is proven otherwise. Is it the neg's burden to defend the relevance of their argument, or is it the aff's burden to prove the irrelevance of the neg's argument? Does the team presenting an argument have the burden to prove it's relevant?

    Another caveat: if the aff presented 8 minutes of nothing but heg good in the 1ac, and it ensued as an impact turn debate from there to the end, I would unhesitatingly vote on which side won that argument. But the aff presented a plan in the 1AC, which carries implicit connotations.

    The more I think about this, the more uncertain I am; and though I have partially changed my mind at this point, I still posted my defense of that method of evaluation above. As I said, I just don't think it's possible to avoid some form of intervention when debates get bad enough.

  16. Tom Tom

    Agreed. I think in this situation, you have to decide based on arguments not in the debate either way.

  17. Tom Tom

    As you said above, that requires the judge to assume something not argued in the debate. It rests on the assumption that the debate is relevant – even though neither team argued that. If neither team argues context, you have to intervene at some point to determine what should or should not be relevant.

    Just because it's in the debate doesn't mean that's where you should immediately turn. Here's another situation. This time, a good debate, though a similar situation. 95% of the 2NR and 2AR are heg good and heg bad, respectively. But in this instance they are also placed in the context of a plan/disad debate with all the necessary components. Naturally, it is completely possible for the 2AR to be far ahead on the heg bad debate but still lose the round. Even though that is the majority of the debate, it could end up being largely irrelevant depending on what that other 5% consists of.

    Assuming the impact debate is relevant even though neither team argued that favors an issue just because it was the focus of the speech. However, this ignores that context is essential to determine the relevance of that debate.
    If the debaters do not provide that context, by definition the judge has to be intervening in determining what should decide the round.

    Perhaps that intervention is less egregious – but it is still intervention. And determining what forms of intervention are better or worse is without a doubt deciding the round based on something external to it. At a certain point, those decisions become inevitable.

  18. Richard

    The judges who throw the DA out aren't more interventionist than those who would consider making it relevant. If you think of the debate, ALL things being the same (exactly as Scotty P said it was), in fact, intervention is inevitable; the judges who want to consider the impact turn debate is still intervening and making it relevant.

    Consider my logic:
    The neg's stupid enough to read an argument with 0 link, and the aff is stupid enough to not contest that. I actually think I'll even go further to say I'd throw out the DA even without a 2AR argument about the link. The question of the round for a judge without any framework arguments (which I don't see) should be whether the aff is better than the status quo or not, not whether LOST/Heg is good or bad if there is absolutely nothing that changes that.

    example 1NC
    Uniqueness: LOST pass now
    Impact: Lost is good
    So what? Even if the neg won "lost was good" in a random impact turn debate, there is not a single thing that just changed to prove the aff is a bad idea. Again, all things being the same as detailed in the original post, then there is 0 discussion about the framework of my ballot and why I should decide whether LOST is good or bad. Both teams made elementary decisions, and it's my job as a judge to critic that and educate them on how to make link/no-link arguments. After voting that there's 0 link to the DA, of course (which I would rarely do).

  19. Scott Phillips

    "The judges who throw the DA out aren’t more interventionist than those who would consider making it relevant. If you think of the debate, ALL things being the same (exactly as Scotty P said it was), in fact, intervention is inevitable; the judges who want to consider the impact turn debate is still intervening and making it relevant."

    I fundamentally disagree with this. The judge is not intervening to insert a link. 2 sides are arguing an issue, the judge is deciding which side better argued that issue.

  20. Layne Kirshon

    @ Tom Tom and richard

    You guys are fundamentally wrong. there are always parts of the debate that are never debated but never contested and are thus deemed relevant. example: nearly no one in a debate argues whether extinction is good or bad. people say "that causes nuke war" and it's assumed that nuke war/extinction are bad. introducing something into the debate makes it relevant. the 1n getting up reading kzad 95 and sitting down and then having a big heg throwdown makes that a Q of the debate. as was said earlier, ballot says "who did better db8ing" not "is the plan good"

  21. Layne Kirshon

    also, i don't think richard or tom tom, that either of you addressed the point i made earlier which is that every argument (or 99%) of arguments in debate have logical inconsistencies but that if go unaddressed are assumed to be consistent/relevant. here are a couple of exmaples

    a. the neg reads a ptx DA that says
    -CTBT will pass
    -Plan unpopular – card says a GOP congressmember didn't like social services
    -Pol Cap Key – card that says when clinton tried to ratify the CTBT some senators weren't persuaded
    -CTBT good

    in reality, the link and i/l cards don't make a complete argument but b/c people have a very low threshold for ptx i/ls it's considered to be a complete argument. if the 2AC straight impact turned and the 2AR was like wait none of the link i/l args are consistent no judge would ever vote on it. there's no difference between this and not presenting a link, unless you consider simply asserting a link as a link in which case only saying "the plan links" and moving on would constitute an argument

    b. 1NC reads an immigration DA – the impact cards say
    -"immigration reform key to solving terrorism" – card that says immigration reform would limit narco-trafficking
    -"extinction" – card that says a nuclear terrorist attack would be worse than hiroshima or nagasaki. in fact, im pretty sure it says that when nuclear pollution affects the planet WE WILL ALL BE LOSERS.

    These arguments are in no way consistent. lets say for instance the 1A drops the DA and just says we'll outweigh and does a lot of impact calc. if the 2AR stands up and gives a robust impact takeout explanation based on the ev, no judge would find that legitimate

    In both these situations, there is not in fact a complete argument made. however, there is an assumption made by both teams that certain parts of the "arguments" are relevant and true.

  22. Tom Tom

    On you previous post, agreed. I've pretty much changed my mind on this issue.

    However, on your second post there is a distinction to be made.

    In one instance, the negative is presenting two unrelated and unexplained arguments – a UQ card and an Impact card. In the other, they are presenting a complete argument, although it is logically suspect. The difference can be seen in whether or not the negative is attempting to make an argument about why it is relevant to plan passage.

  23. Layne Kirshon

    you dind't make an argument in that post

    the example of the immig reform DA is that EVERY "argument" in debate has holes and inconsistencies, and the threshold for what allows the judge to say "this doesn't constitute an argument" or new 2AR args is indeterminate. No dif to not presenting a link and having i/l cards that dont' assume the link, or having impact cards that have gaping holes like the dif between narcotrafficking and nuclear terrorism

    and, scott's shpiel is in a situation where you have nothing else to say, and is not relevant to this discussion.

    a. judge intervention not inevitable – lost good v lost bad. doesn't take intervention to decide that 1
    b. ballot answers who did better db8ing not is plan good – all your arguments rest on the idea that it asks is plan good proven by your distinction between relevance to plan passage or not
    c. your f/w for judging devolves into judges being able to assess for themselves logical inconsistencies in arguments, such as i/ls to ptx having nothing to do w/the plan, etc.

  24. Scott Phillips

    Your point makes sense in certain instances, but not this one. The aff has chosen to forgo evaluating the link- intervention is not requirred to decide the debate, you could decide the debate based on who wins the impact turns. If you chose to intervene that is your preference, but intervention in this instance is advancing what your conception of good debate is, not training the debaters to debate better for any other critic.

  25. Richard

    You're right.
    A. I made no arguments
    B. You're definitely answering my arguments, if I had any.

    My FW is bad because in a bad debate like the one scotty P proposed, I feel that judges should make an educated decision and help teach the debaters wtf they should do.

    Your FW is amazing because it lets debaters debate out an argument that has nothing to do with the resolution or the status quo. Yes to plan: the USFG should pass cap and trade, or either team reading tons of impact cards all around the flow and hoping one of them doesn't get answered by a "no-link" and then their next speech starts with "our impact went dropped and there's no discussion of a no-link, so our impact ouweighs"

    I think this discussion sort of concludes with 3 short points.
    1. No need to be so hostile as soon as I told you I'm not richard day from glenbrook south, but 2 can play that game.

    2. I believe that without a convincing (even the smallest argument, actually, if no one contests it) framework argument, I decide whether the rez/plan is a better idea than the status quo.

    3. You can always try to engage in this discussion. I assume the reason to your "my way or the high way" hostility is based on different debate paradigms, but there's no need to be so hostile and ideological

    If you'd still like to talk, I'm definitely down.
    You're still not answering that this should be considered with all things equal (like economics?), not with "but in X situation, Y normally happens" and "in Y situation, Z normally happens)

    "the immigration DA example" – accusing me that this isn't relevant

    First, your original argument still isn't relevant to what scotty p is talking about, and my quoting "scott's shpiel" is actually relevant to the non-relevant discussion. You brought up the impact calc discussion and I answered that any judge would buy a 2AR impact calc on evidence comparison.

    "the immigration DA example" – explaining that every arg has inconsistencies

    Every argument MAY have inconsistencies, but that still does not answer "why should I evaluate an argument that doesn't even attempt to link versus an argument that atleast tried with bad cards/warrants"? If you really think the former is the way debates should be thrown down, then by all means. Examples of such debates are above.

    "judge intervention not inevitable – lost good vs. bad"
    This example is "judge intervention not inevitable if you don't know what the term status quo means." Neg asserts lost is good and aff asserts lost is bad. In this debate, layne, lost will pass no matter what. And the aff provided you with a plan/rez that's better than the squo. You decide. Hint: "OMGZ LOST IS G00D I VOTE NEG B/C THEY DEB8 THIS BETTER!!11!111" is not the right answer.

    "ballot = who did better debating not plan is good"
    Yes, if that FW argument made. Otherwise, the aff affirms the resolution, and the neg negates it. Debating LOST good vs. bad when it will pass no matter what without any question of what my ballot does = no link.

    "your FW bad"
    Above. Atleast the neg tried to make an internal link, and if the aff doesn't answer that – then that's the aff's fault. If there was no link in the first place and the neg never attemps to remedy this, it's me who rejects that argument.

  26. Richard

    I beg to differ on who’s fundamentally wrong. I guess that now includes tom tom.

    “you didn’t answer my point earlier”
    I fail to see what your main point is other than “it is relevant, and therefore it should be about who did the better debating aka the heg/lost/immigration impact turns”

    My answer was: Not true. You’re not answering MY main points.

    Everything should be based on all things equal (the exact scenario that scotty P put up)
    A. Judge intervention in a bad debate such as this is inevitable, the link was never made. Yes, it was not contested, but never made. The fact that you’re making the impact debate relevant is intervention.
    B. The framework wasn’t made in Scotty P’s scenario. Granted, I agree the term framework is vague, but I’m using it in the context of “your ballot should be endorsing whether heg is good or bad.” Of course, the neg shouldn’t be held to the burden of making this argument in normal situations, but that is probably because they read a link (or atleast attempt to with bad ev, maybe). And then it’s a question of what the aff’s offense will be. Until then, 0 link. The role of my ballot without a single assertion (saying kzad, and then impact turning is not an assertion at all)
    C. Also I think I saw a few more posts concluding the judge is a critic of who did the best debating. In that case, I already mentioned in my previous post that as the judge, you should critic both teams for not making link/no-link arguments and educate them on how to get better.

    Now to answer your example scenarios
    “this ptx scenario that i am talking about has bad links and internal links”
    You are correct. The link, although it has an extremely bad warrant and doesn’t connect to the internal link either, was established. Now the question is “why would you buy that crappy argument versus a link that was never made”? I feel like that question answers itself.

    “this immigration reform da has a bad impact card”
    First, I’m confused – this doesn’t have a thing to do with the hypothetical that Scotty P posted. Please let me know if I’m not assuming something you are. I’m assuming the immigration reform DA that you explained had a link (if it’s also just an impact card, then same as above. 0 link). Even with that assumption, there are a few other assumptions to be made.
    1. Was this DA answered with comparative impact calc in the 2AC? Or was it dropped there and also dropped in the 1AR?
    2. Did that impact calculus have any evidence comparison, aka scotty P provided a good scenario so I don’t have to re-explain in http://spdebate.blogspot.com/2008/12/digging-yourself-out-of-hole.html

    “Yes, we boned politics, but that doesn’t mean game over. Impacts need to be evaluated by a function of probability times magnitude- just because they get 100% of politics doesn’t mean you auto vote neg if we can reduce the probability of thier impact. The 2NR claim that their disad has an extinction impact is false- their evidence says quote “a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability”. Nowhere does it say a middle east war ends every life on earth. Lets talk for a minute about what a “new argument” is. If in the 2AR I said “no link, obama doesn’t push the plan”, that is a new argument. Pointing out a factual inaccuracy or logical hole in the negatives statement is not a “new argument”. If the other team has not made a complete argument, we don’t have the burden of responding to it. Plenty of examples of this exist- judges won’t vote on disads if you don’t extend the impact, they won’t vote on dropped theory arguments if you don’t explain why you have to reject the team and not just the argument etc. You can only vote on a complete argument, and a complete argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and evidence. They have no evidence or warrant for thier claim that middle east war causes extinction. None. Zero. This is not a complete argument and should be given zero weight as such. Second, the claim that war prevents us from solving similarly has no warrant- no explanation has been given at any time for why a war in the middle east would stop domestic production of alternative energy. Finally, their “1 percent” doctrine is ludicrous- you need to weigh the relative impacts- i.e a quantified risk they are winning vs the risk we are winning. Lets assume you give this crappy impact card the weight of killing everyone in the middle east – thats 190 million people. Between the US and china there are 1.5 billion people. Our Bangkok post evidence says a US china war causes an all out nuclear exchange turning all of asia into a sea of fire. Lets assume that only kills 1/2 the total population, 750 million people. In order to win our impact outweighs we only need to win that it outweighs their disad we only have to win a little more than a 25% chance of our advantage. Finally, impact comparison is not a new argument. It’s the job of the final rebuttals to weigh things out and resolve them fore you. The 2NR had a shot to do so, just because they didn’t doesn’t mean we can’t. They don’t need a 3NR- us arguing the case outweighs the dropped disad isn’t only a predictable 2AR argument- its the ONLY argument we could concievably make. That the 2NR didn’t do a better job trying to shut this down is their fault, not ours. ”

    That kind of evidence comparison is good enough impact calc.

    Scotty p also said one more thing on that post
    1. The number of people who think “true not new” > the opposition
    2. The number of hyper strict, line by line oriented judges the number you think would

    Btw, it’s richard min (stratford) –

  27. Holden Choi

    I think the point Layne is trying to make is that at some level there is no difference between, "attempting a link" and not making one. Asserting that you would vote for something that attempted a bad link seems to lead to intervention even more than the alternative of voting for who debated an issue best. If someone said, "Here's a link" does that count as a link? If yes then it justifies voting neg because the 2NR said so and the aff didn't explicitly answer. If it's not a link then where do you draw the line?

  28. Scott Phillips

    Lets try and get this crazy train back on track. I think the most important issue here is- what does debate look like if the aff knows they can sandbag "true" arguments until the 2AR – not giving the neg a chance to respond? How would that change strategy for both sides, for the better or worse?

    And one other thing I've been thinking about- generally in debates I will see teams say things like " yes we read a new link card, but the 1AR only gets new answers to that, nothing else" etc. I assume people who would accept the 2AR making the no link arg would also support the idea that Team A doesn't have to respond to an argument presented by B until it is a complete argument. So if they only read the uniqueness and impact for a disad, they would not have to make ANY answers because it is not a complete argument. Then if the neg later presented a link, they would be allowed new answers to the whole disad, not just the link. This seems to make some sense to me because depending on the strength of the different parts of the DA, you may chose to link or impact turn, whereas if you have to answer the U after they read it, then the link after they read it, and then the impact after they read it you might not be able to put your best set of responses together, since you don't see the argument in its totality.

  29. AMiles

    @ richard "Yes, if that FW argument made. Otherwise, the aff affirms the resolution, and the neg negates it. Debating LOST good vs. bad when it will pass no matter what without any question of what my ballot does = no link."

    you don't need to make the FW arg that the ballot is who did better debating bc that's what the ballot says
    picture this – there's a debate at the NDT between a performance team on the aff that says nothing about the rez and some other team — the 1AC is like "racism bad.. we change debate etc…" and the 1nc goes 1n off cap K or some K giberish—-in your FW the judge would vote neg, even if the neg didn't read T USFG, bc at the NDT you ahve to affirm the rez (I think that's a legit rule)

  30. AMiles

    btw – that may not have been responsvie to anything said here and is based on my 45 second reading of this 5 page convo

  31. Richard

    Holden: False.  What you're saying mostly concludes what I've be saying.  You seem to be ignoring my claim that judge intervention is inevitable meaning that this "what is a little less intervention" is asinine. 

     "your example scenario"
    if the neg just tells me  "aff links, judge", I believe that's an assertion.  It does not constitute an argument. An argument has a claim warrant and impact. Ie reading a craptastic card about some Gop senator hating social services is a bad warrant for "plan partisan" – but a warrant is there nevertheless.  Do you see how this may answer the brightline question?

     Scotty p –
    "can the 2ar sandbag args"
    I believe the answer to that is no.  I revised my position on this that I think I'd reject the DA after the 2NR if there was never a link discussion compared to a discussion of the aff.  The aff read a 1AC how they improve the squo and the neg reads lost good, but it will pass without anything affecting it.  Clearly the better debating under my ballot is for the team who does what they're supposed to unless im told otherwise (aff proves the Rez is a good idea and neg disproves, since that's the only relevant discussion.  

    "Not havin to only answer args when they become complete" 
    I don't know if that was another hypothetical or something you believe, but I think the aff should not be held to a standard of substantially answering am argument when it makes 0 sense, i.e neg reads "lost will pass", I should just say "good for you.". Also, judges should be more leniant to the aff making less args bc it's kind of not their burden to see what the neg would do with an incomplete disad. Besides, i don't actually see a possibility of the meg making a uniqueness in one speech, a link I'm another and an impact in anoter without the aff not being able to make args, like the block could- but the 1ar can then make strategic decisions. If the link/impact is read in the 2NR, sounds like the neg is in some deep shit.

  32. Richard

    Alex-

    Er, the FW in your scenario was made by the aff: if a team like Towson wants to k the Rez on the aff, then they make that point clear (which they do). The debate then follows from there, I.e the neg reads fw and calls them out for not doing what the aff should do, affirming the Rez

    My FW by default, without an arg to tell me to do otherwise, is to decode whether the aff did a better job proving rh Rez is better than the squo vs. the neg disproving that- and the debate that Scotty p proposed includes the aff affirming that with a 1ac and the neg reading that x is good when it will pass inevitably (seeing as there is no link to make x not pass)

  33. AMiles

    why is "My FW by default, without an arg to tell me to do otherwise, is to decode whether the aff did a better job proving rh Rez is better than the squo vs. the neg disproving that" your FW by default ? not supported by the ballot and leads to intervention (both were discussed above, sorry for joining late)

  34. Holden

    Richard:
    I don't see a reason why the alternative framework, which votes for better debating about the issue presented in round, is bad. There are, on the other hand, reasons why forcing the debate back into the context of the resolution makes it worse. It leads to more intervention first of all because it requires the judge to create a "link" or "no link", even if its inevitable that doesn't make it good. Imo, its not the job of the judge to try to shape debate into their ideal.
    Also, I think you're doing too much work for the affirmative when you decide to reject the DA by the 2NR. The aff decided to play the game established by the 1NC, lost good/bad, so they stopped doing their job in the 2AC, assuming case isn't extended.

  35. Richard

    Alex –
    Can we agree that in an average debate the affirmative affirms the resolution (they read a plan that improves upon the squo with claims, warrants, and impacts), and the neg negates it (i.e they read DAs that hopefully link)? My job is to hear them out and decide who debated better. I think we can agree upon that as well. "affirming/negating rez" + "judging who debated better" = "judging who debated better between affirming/negating rez."

    You seem to be pretty convinced my FW of judging leads to intervention, but it only does so when
    1. there's no other FW discussed: this means I'll have to, by default, believe that the aff argues that the resolution is a good thing and the neg argues otherwise. This actually is less interventionist, if you think about it.
    2. the neg actually never attempts to read a reason (link) to what the aff does to hurt the chances of why lost may pass, when lost is good.

    Holden & Alex –
    [EDITED after reading Holden & scotty p's earlier post]
    This means what I said before still remains true. If the debate is just about who does better debating without any question of the resolution, then the aff never has to read a FW justifying what they're doing. Either team can just read kzad or any other impact by itself and claim it outweighs if the other team forgot to make a no-link argument, because to you, that makes the link argument no longer relevant to this debate.

    There wasn't a discussion about the aff kicking their case, which scotty p mentioned later, so that only means the aff did affirm the rez and still affirms it. The risk of "who did better" can only go to the aff.

    Also, since I just saw scotty p mentioning "what if the aff kicks their case" – I can't say how much shit the aff is in, but wow…No link to the DA (lost passes no matter what), no arg telling me how to judge, no aff case to affirm the rez and no argument to negate it (simply because there isn't an affirmative to negate) = I'd vote neg on presumption.

    [edited once more] Finally, it may seem that I'm doing too much work for the aff here. However, bring back the example I did from above: if the 2AC throws a mead card out there, any flow, Neg drops it and the aff gets up, says mead outweighs. That means you would have to vote on it because the neg never made a no-link. Same with if the neg starts de-deving that mead card which never linked in the first place. Same logic, no?

  36. AMiles

    i don't really have time to respond, but i'm interested – would you be fine voting for whoever did the better debaating if they established a "FW" by saying at the top of the 1nc "FW = heg good or bad, well take heg good" and the aff just goes w/ it

  37. Holden

    I guess we differ on whether the framework has to be explicitly stated. I think that if the 1NC just says that x is good and the 2AC just says x is bad the question of the debate has changed. Unless the 1AC had a framework contention then the debate has also changed.

  38. Richard

    You're ignoring that the aff still has their case while also impact turning X disad. It's not that I look at some arbitrary framework. The aff did their job, and the neg didn't.

  39. Holden

    I assumed that case went away after the 2AC when they started just straight impact turning and the only 2AR argument in question was if the new "no link" was legit.

  40. Rajesh Inder Jegadee

    This is a ton of comments. I'm not sure if this has been brought up, from my quick read of the comments it hasn't, but the negative has *not made an argument at any point in the debate* if they do not read a link. Would you vote negative if the 1NC said "potato, extinction" and the aff dropped it? No.

    If a team read a DA without an impact at all, and the aff dropped it, would you vote negative? No, that's not an argument.

    More realistic example, if a team randomly read a US-German relations bad card on case, and the AFF didn't contest it, would you vote negative? I really don't think you could justify that decision. "I feel like the risk german relations could arbitrarily be bad outweighed case." Just because the AFF engages the argument doesn't make it germane to the debate, insofar as a reason why it's a consequence of the plan.

    Layne, your point boils down to, as I understand it, there are holes in all DA's, the aff doesn't point out any usually and would be ridic to do so in the 2AR. On face, this is a seemingly compelling argument; large parts of judging require a suspension of common sense and this one instance would just be clearly interventionist/arbitrary. BUT, there is a distinction. In your examples, the negative has put forth a claim, albeit unwarranted and logically false, that there IS a link, internal link, impact etc., once the AFF drops these in the 2AC it makes them, as a result, true. The negative has asserted a link, and the affirmative has not contested the argument so it's automatically true. This doesn't matter whether their DA was "link plan unpop w/ GOP," and "internal link–political capital key" or if it was "link the plan unpop w/ GOP" and "internal link–ross gordon kt agenda" — in these examples, assertions were made which did not follow that were dropped. In the other example where no link was read, not even an assertion was made.

    I think that for a claim w/o a warrant to be dismissed, the opposing team has to call the team out. It's massively interventionist to do it any other way–think of your typical bad K debate round.. no judge could ever vote NEG if you approached debate with that understanding.

  41. Scott Phillips

    Rajesh,

    Your comment falls prey to the same problem outlined above. This isn't a bad argument that the aff dropped, they engaged it in a calculated, strategic manner. They had the option to say "no link, not a complete argument" and foreclosed it.

  42. Layne Kirshon

    "I think that for a claim w/o a warrant to be dismissed, the opposing team has to call the team out."

    "Would you vote negative if the 1NC said “potato, extinction” and the aff dropped it? No."

    Regaroosh,

    I highlighted the 2 points u made above b/c while i think your point about not making an argument is compelling, I don't think you've answered the argument i've been making which is that by that standard, nothing ever said in a debate makes an "argument"

    in 2 different paragraphs, u said 2 completely opposite things – in 1 instance u said making warrantless claims bad, and in the other instance u said there is at least a claim so lack of a warrant is the other team's responsibility to call out.

    This proves the larger point that in debates things become relevant when both teams agree they are relevant. in reality, saying plan solves nuke war isn't an argument b/c neither team has made an "argument" why nuclear war is bad – both teams have just agreed on it. Why does a debate include a plan-text and what determines if it's topical, or even if topicality is good? these are all things that both teams simply agree on

    going to case and saying german relations solves war [card] – that actually is making a complete argument. Now is it related to the aff? probably not, but in reality there's no reason why a "debate" must be about the plan – c/a lincoln douglas and other stupid speech activities. you could definitely have a debate about whether doing ITER was better/worse than having a robust cooperative relationship with germany. this is proven by how if the 2A doesn't "perm" a CP you could just have a debate about whether the states or feds should do it, which is the same as making a no-link arg to thE "german relations good, fyi" arg. if the 2ac gets up and says german relations bad, nothing else, same w/the 1ar, both teams have agreed that it is not only an argument but a relevant argument.

    By your logic, the 1ac could read an aff w/a moral ob adv, the neg could go for a DA w/a nuke war impact, and the 2ar could get up and say "hold your horses, buddy. you haven't made a complete argument b/c you haven't said why nuke war was bad. SPARK"

Comments are closed.