[eDebate] idea #1 (reply donald)

Kevin Sanchez let_the_american_empire_burn
Wed Jun 20 17:11:53 CDT 2007


-- donald -- http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2007-June/071128.html 
:

"Yes, I agree that the fact that debaters are taught to run some sort of T 
violation in every round is absolutely ridiculous."

i'm guessing a lot on this list would agree, but what does anyone intend to 
actually do about it?

here's my proposal: encourage more and more judges to weigh all procedural 
abuse violations as ethics challenges. if you accuse your opponent of, say, 
fabricating evidence, and your accusation is shown to be false, then you 
automatically lose the round. there's no chance of your being voted up on 
any other issue; the round is then only about whether or not evidence has 
been fabricated.

likewise, when you accuse your opponent of violating one of the most basic 
rules of discussion (a violation for which tim mahoney is willing to call 
you "an uninvited party crasher" and perhaps willing to 'show you the 
door'(http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/2007-June/071158.html)), what 
you're saying is that the debate cannot continue as usual. once such an 
accusation is made, the round can only be decided upon that basis, nothing 
else.

if judges notified debaters of this paradigm before the round, it'd 
immediately cut down on timesuck topicality violations, because the team 
would be unable to run it and then kick it in later speeches. that'd be an 
automatic loss. it'd also make students more mindful of calling their 
opponents 'plagiarists' for running plan-inclusive counter-plans, or other 
oft-unconsidered in-round implications of typical theoretical 'abuse' 
stories.

you'll say the affirmative team will simply refrain from answering all other 
arguments once a procedural argument is run, and you'd be right. however, 
this then encourages the negative team to run their procedurals in the 2n.c. 
*after* the affirmative has committed whatever infractions - say, swarmily 
no-linking out of a generic disadvantage.

if even a small number of judges adopted this decision-calculus, my guess is 
the effect on argument quality would be substantial. who'd be willing to 
sacrifice a single ballot on a tight panel in an out-round by running a 
frivilous topicality violation?... nobody interested in winning tournaments, 
that's who.

_________________________________________________________________
Get a preview of Live Earth, the hottest event this summer - only on MSN 
http://liveearth.msn.com?source=msntaglineliveearthhm




More information about the Mailman mailing list