Re: No Subject

[BLechtreck@aol.com]

>>>>>>>>>>
When Garmon chooses to ignore the negative's argument that "saying the word
perm dejustifies the rez", because, in her opinion it is shallow and lacks
justification, she becomes an active participant in the debate round.
>>>>>>>>>>

Two very important things escape Mr. Ross. First, Meredith can also be a
man's name. And second, that there were other considerations in the round
besides the one dropped argument.

>>>>>>>>>>
THEY should be making Garmon's arguments, not the critic. The decision to do
so marginalizes negative discourse.
>>>>>>>>>

Since Meredith and I agreed on the decision in this mock ballot (kind of  a
shock huh Meredith), I will explain the process. The judge in this round was
faced with responsibility to "evaluate" ALL the arguments in the debate. The
decision to NOT vote for a blip response with no analysis was predicated by
an aff response WITH analysis that I understood. Had the answer "perm means
the rez is dejustified, vote neg", been dropped AND been the only argument in
the round, I would surely have voted for it. HOWEVER, as aff gives me a
reason to vote aff, and neg gives me a reason to vote neg, I must now
evaluate the arguments to see which are better. On th basis of the arguments
as Tim posted them, aff's analysis was better, thus writing my ballot
affirmatively.

>>>>>>>>>>
I, as a debater, would be extremely unhappy (maybe pissed is the right word)
if I am going for a clean dropped voter in 2NR-regardless of the level of
analysis on the initial argument-and it is ignored because it doesn't meet
some mystical level of analysis that I could have no way of knowing.
>>>>>>>>>>

You'd be even more pissed if you were winning case cold and the judge votes
aginst you because your partner (the 1ar) misses an answer in the block that
says "purple haze, vote neg". I think that you would pefer that the judge
base a round on the merits of ALL the arguments, not just some blip that
makes NO SENSE.

>>>>>>>>>>
I do, however, disagree immensely with Garmon's path to her decision. A
debater can't drop arguments labelled voters, just like 
you can't drop arguments labelled turns, regardless of how easily dismissed
they may be.
>>>>>>>>>>

I don't think you read the path very well. It's not that the "voters" were
dismissed because they would have been easy to beat, they were OUTWEIGHED
because they were not explained and made little or no sense. Had aff not made
a better explanation as to why the judge should vote aff, I would agree with
you, but they do. In this case (as in ALL cases), the judge was forced to
evaluate the arguments in the round (I guess you could do the Todd Lewis
method and just add up the number of arguments won by each team and assign
the win to the team that wins the most). Affirmative arguments in this case
were superior and warranted the ballot.

Peace,

Bob Lechtreck
Bakersfield College

---

• Prev by Date: Re: MPJ-more responses
• Next by Date: least intervention
• Prev by thread: No Subject
• Next by thread: No Subject
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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