[eDebate] argument #1
Mon Jun 25 12:58:46 CDT 2007
there were two arguments flying below the radar in josh hoe's recent posts
which i thought needed to be addressed more explicitly; this is the first
one, and i'll save the second for later to cut down on length.
argument #1 -- 'you shouldn't win just because your topical'.
this argument has ample rhetorical appeal until you note the obvious fact
that you can't win by virtue of being topical *unless the negative team runs
ask yourself a question: why're judges reluctant to pull the trigger on a
dropped case argument when the 2n.r. goes for topicality?... widespread
feeling here appears to error on the side of requiring the negative to
concentrate entirely on topicality in their final rebuttal. what i'm
proposing (judges should weigh topicality similar to how they weigh evidence
challenges) simply takes this often unspoken convention to its logical end:
before the round, demand that the negative team not accuse their opponents
of being non-topical unless they intend to win that argument.
here's article 18, section D, subpoint 2 of the c.e.d.a. constitution: "When
a[n evidence] challenge is made within the time limits of a given round, the
challenge ought to be initiated by the opposing team and resolved by the
judge(s). Given the nature of the accusation, it is advised that the round
should focus solely on the challenge once that challenge has been made. The
round need not be halted, however, as both sides should be allowed to
provide full explanations. It is advised that if the challenge is found to
be true, the judge should award the offending team a loss and zero speaker
points, and if the challenge is found to be false or unsubstantiated, the
judge should award the accusing team a loss and zero speaker points."
to automatically vote against a team that brings up an unsubstantiated
evidenciary challenge isn't a 'reverse voter'... i'm not trying to convince
debaters to run an in-round position (an r.v.i.), but trying to convince
*judges* to alter their preferences. and argument #1 is as silly as saying
'you shouldn't win just because your evidence isn't fabricated'... that's
true; you win because your opponents argued you violated a rule and failed
to prove it -- no one but them chose to bring it up.
imagine what might happen if evidence challenges were seen as mere 'tests'
to be raised or kicked at will. consider what a colossal waste of time would
result if such arguments were run in every single round, and you'd have some
idea of how much time is being wasted now on topicality and other procedural
Picture this ? share your photos and you could win big!
More information about the Mailman