Gun violence epidemic

[onejayhawk]

So, I can't call on prima facia arguements like topicality or inherency? What if I offer a counterplan?

Those are not prima facia arguments. What's the point you are trying to make?

If you are not at least addressing the other sides talking points, you are losing the argument because their logic and facts are unchallenged.

J

[Fresno Bob]

Those are not prima facia arguments. What's the point you are trying to make?

If you are not at least addressing the other sides talking points, you are losing the argument because their logic and facts are unchallenged.

J

I competed nationally in debate at the high school level. 2 person team debate, one person "Lincoln Douglas" style was different, and possibly what you were judging.

For example, here is one of the topics I debated

• 1983 – Resolved: That the United States should significantly curtail its arms sales to other countries.


In 2 person policy debate there are 5 "Prima Facie" issues that the affirmative team must meet. If the opposing team can win just one of them, they win. They were

Topicality: You'd argue that the opponents plan to curtail the sale of armored trucks and helicopters to Morocco weren't "arms" but civilian tech
Significance: You'd argue that curtailing $50M of weapons to Paraguay isn't "significant" in terms of overall arms sales, making it an unfair topic to have to research from the opposing side
Inherency: You can't propose cutting arms sales to a country that we are already cutting arms sales to, a better example would be the year the topic was consumer safety was the same year that airbags were being mandated, you couldn't propose mandating airbags, or anything that was already happening. The point was that it had to be a problem that wasn't being addressed
Solvency: Does the plan being presented actually solve. Banning the sale of arms to North Korea doesn't significantly curtail the sale of weapons by the United States
Justification: Does the case and plan presented by the affirmative actually justify the resolution.

We used to run these arguments all the time in the negative. You could have the greatest case in the world, but if I'm arguing that it isn't topical, or significant, I'm not going to touch your arguments, because it actually hurts my "topicality" argument if I have a bunch of prepared evidence against your case.

I could also offer a "Counterplan", agreeing with the affirmative case, but proposing a better, non-topical answer to the resolution. For example, creating a UN Arms Commission which all arms sales to UN Nations by UN Nations must go through after Human Rights violations examinations.

Policy Debate is serious stuff, for your debaters sakes, I really hope you were judging 1 person Lincoln Douglas debate

[Fresno Bob]

and that's how you end an argument!

[Gregg]

and that's how you end an argument!

No its not...

All kidding aside I really enjoyed post #92.

[TranaGreg]

an argument isn't just saying "no it isn't"

[Ken]

an argument isn't just saying "no it isn't"

I disagree

[onejayhawk]

and that's how you end an argument!

With a badly phrased impossibility? Why should that score points? As debaters say, you can have your own opinion but not your own facts.

I don't like your terminology, but with the explanation I understand it. We did not use the bullet points you specified, but the difference was simply in the verbiage. Getting back to your point, you did not make a prima facia case for topicality nor for inherency. If I was to concede one, it's topicality. You are very much overbroad, but the point is in there somewhere. On inherency, you're not close.

I guess that means you are conceding Solvency and Justification.

J

[Fresno Bob]

With a badly phrased impossibility? Why should that score points? As debaters say, you can have your own opinion but not your own facts.

I don't like your terminology, but with the explanation I understand it. We did not use the bullet points you specified, but the difference was simply in the verbiage. Getting back to your point, you did not make a prima facia case for topicality nor for inherency. If I was to concede one, it's topicality. You are very much overbroad, but the point is in there somewhere. On inherency, you're not close.

I guess that means you are conceding Solvency and Justification.

J

Now I'm confused. How am I being overbroad? If you judged 2 person policy debate, and forced the negative side to confront all the affirmative side's points or lose, then you are a bad judge, by the rules of 2 person policy debate which 100% allow "off-case" arguments like the ones I offered. Direct conflict is different, and mandatory for Lincoln/Douglas style debate. Which did you judge?

Guess what the high school policy debate topic is for 2019-20.......https://www.nfhs.org/articles/arms-s...-debate-topic/

you guessed it....

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce Direct Commercial Sales and/or Foreign Military Sales of arms from the United States.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Now I'm confused. How am I being overbroad? If you judged 2 person policy debate, and forced the negative side to confront all the affirmative side's points or lose, then you are a bad judge, by the rules of 2 person policy debate which 100% allow "off-case" arguments like the ones I offered. Direct conflict is different, and mandatory for Lincoln/Douglas style debate. Which did you judge?

Guess what the high school policy debate topic is for 2019-20.......https://www.nfhs.org/articles/arms-s...-debate-topic/

you guessed it....

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce Direct Commercial Sales and/or Foreign Military Sales of arms from the United States.

I also judged High School debate in Texas................I had NO business doing so, as Byron Cox can attest to--Though I competed for Texas at Nationals 3 consecutive years in interpretive speech (Poetry, Prose Dramatic Interp) I was never qualified to judge debate--at the HS level they ask anyone with who's sniffed a communications curriculum and lives in the area.

Not disputing One Jays debate credentials but then again...................

[Fresno Bob]

in my day, they took anyone willing to judge high school debate, they tried to get the better, more experienced judges for the later rounds, but you could very easily get Aunt Tilly as your judge, judging her first debate round ever

[In the Corn]

I judged Lincoln-Douglas numerous times after participating in Individual Events in college. Judging LD is pretty simple. Judging Policy Debate...no thank you!

[onejayhawk]

Now I'm confused. How am I being overbroad? If you judged 2 person policy debate, and forced the negative side to confront all the affirmative side's points or lose, then you are a bad judge, by the rules of 2 person policy debate which 100% allow "off-case" arguments like the ones I offered. Direct conflict is different, and mandatory for Lincoln/Douglas style debate. Which did you judge?

Guess what the high school policy debate topic is for 2019-20.......https://www.nfhs.org/articles/arms-s...-debate-topic/

you guessed it....

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reduce Direct Commercial Sales and/or Foreign Military Sales of arms from the United States.

Two teams. That is literally the standard that was given, almost in those words, "they must rebutt each and every point...yata yata". Mark was in debaete for three years, so I gained a fair amount of experience.

If you are trying to demonstrate nfhs is left leaning, you are making a good case.

J

[Fresno Bob]

Two teams. That is literally the standard that was given, almost in those words, "they must rebutt each and every point...yata yata". Mark was in debaete for three years, so I gained a fair amount of experience.

If you are trying to demonstrate nfhs is left leaning, you are making a good case.

J

to no surprise, this doesn't make any sense....

[onejayhawk]

to no surprise, this doesn't make any sense....

I had a stepson in debate for three years, so I was drafted to judge quite a few debates both practice and live.

We were told, in so many words, that "negative side [must] confront all the affirmative side's points or lose."

I am aware that HS debate topics typically champion liberal causes. You underscored the point.

What was hard to understand?

J

[Fresno Bob]

I had a stepson in debate for three years, so I was drafted to judge quite a few debates both practice and live.

We were told, in so many words, that "negative side [must] confront all the affirmative side's points or lose."

I am aware that HS debate topics typically champion liberal causes. You underscored the point.

What was hard to understand?

J

finally some clarity.....

If someone told you that the negative side must confront all the affirmative side's points or lose, then they are doing it wrong, in fact, it is the exact opposite. The presumptive burden of refutation is on the affirmative, not the negative.

in doing some digging, I see that some rules may differ from state to state, but here's a judging guide for the national level of two person policy debate

https://debate.uvm.edu/dcpdf/NFL_policy_judging.pdf