l-d nationals

[amc17@cornell.edu (Adam M. Chud)]

(oh, by the way, the final round came down to the 2NR (actually it's the
"NR," because the negative only gets one rebuttal) going for "there is no
structural barrier" for six minutes and the 2AR saying "so?"  I voted aff)

Some oddities:  the affirmative gets to speak longer.  (They have a six
minute constructive, a six minute rebuttal, and a three minute rebuttal,
while the neg has only a seven minute constructive and a six minute
rebuttal).  I voted aff eight times and neg none.  Part of it was probably
because the standards for winning arguments were so much different than I'm
used to.  EVERY negative strategy consisted of presses (sometimes with ev)
on inherency, solvency and significance.  That's it.  A little T.  I was
left waiting for the reason NOT to change.

Disturbing things:  first, there is a little blue pamphlet all judges were
given before the first round (about five pages long) with the RULES.  These
were not "instructions for judges" to help those unfamiliar with the
activity, but actual rules which must guide a judge's decision.  There is
an "official decision-making paradigm."  It's stock issues.  Those are
listed as inherency, solvency and harm (advantage or goals).  The negative
may present one counterplan (must be non-topical).  Of course speed is a
no-no.

I'm undecided what I think about such strict rules on the way debates
should be held.  Some of the debaters were pretty good, but there
definately seemed to be a dismissal of analysis related to critical theory
arguments in the rounds.  Most of the time the students waved the blue book
in my face and said "this is the way it is."   In fact, the final round
decision focused on this issue.  The negative claimed in his constructive
that the blue book said a structural barrier must exist.  The affirmative
said this was silly.  The negative was probably winning the argument, but
didn't pull the "blue book governs this debate" argument in the NR.  He
lost.

I hope this enlightens some to this type of L-D.  Others may disagree about
the restricting nature of these rules.  I hope it allows us to have an
informed view of the many views of debate which exist for use when
discussions of "mergers" exist.  Later.

Adam Chud
Cornell University

---

• Prev by Date: Ethical Discussion
• Next by Date: Emporia partyRe: the "ethical discussion"
• Prev by thread: UNSUBSCRIBING
• Next by thread: Emporia partyRe: the "ethical discussion"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page