[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

RE: New arguments and TR pt.2


Just to weigh in on this for you, Sean, I wholeheartedly agree.  Tell Brewer 
he'll just have to "step-up! :-)
 ----------
From: ceda-l%cornell.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: New arguments and TR pt.2
Date: Fri, Sep 30, 1994 6:45PM

Purdy now asks:

>Another question: if 1AR makes a new argument as response to something
>that was put out in the 1NC, and the 2NR doesn't call the response new,
>should the judge then consider it like any other argument??
>I don't think so...if the judge can decide for the 2AR which arguments are
>new and which aren't, they why shouldn't every other rebuttal be subject
>to the same intervention?

Because every other rebuttal is checked by a debater.  A new 1AR argument is
the 2NR's responsibility to catch.  A new block argument is the 1AR's
responsibility to catch.  A new 2NR argument is the 2AR's responsibility to
catch.  Who catches a new 2AR argument?  It ain't the 3NR so it must be the
judge.   The rationale for allowing judge intervention in this highly 
limited
sense is that there exists NO OPPORTUNITY for debaters to serve as a check 
on
the abusive behavior.  That rationale is inapplicable to all other speeches.

Matt

 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------  
 ---
 --
| Matthew K. Roskoski   |  "Roskoski" isn't Slavic.  It's Irish. 

 |
| UMKC Debate Forum     |  It used to be "O'Roskoski" before the 

 |
| Kansas City, MO       |  butchers of Ellis Island got to it. 

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