Difference between revisions of "Hunter TL"
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
Argument diversity, information processing, and academic integrity are key to education because debate is most educational when it emulates the real world. | Argument diversity, information processing, and academic integrity are key to education because debate is most educational when it emulates the real world. | ||
| + | |||
4. ''inclusion'' – forcing debaters to cut cards makes PF less accessible, which prereqs fairness and education because you need to be in debate to access their impacts | 4. ''inclusion'' – forcing debaters to cut cards makes PF less accessible, which prereqs fairness and education because you need to be in debate to access their impacts | ||
| + | |||
5. ''NSDA rules'' – allow us to paraphrase | 5. ''NSDA rules'' – allow us to paraphrase | ||
| + | |||
NSDA rules outweigh because they’re the only source of concrete framework for the activity. that’s why you can’t just get rid of speech times. | NSDA rules outweigh because they’re the only source of concrete framework for the activity. that’s why you can’t just get rid of speech times. | ||
| − | Default '''reasonability''' on theory, the judge is a '''referee''' — the role of the judge isn’t to establish norms but to referee theory violations | + | Default '''reasonability''' on theory, the judge is a '''referee''' — the role of the judge isn’t to establish norms but to referee theory violations. Theory asks you to intervene by not evaluating substance, so you shouldn’t vote on it unless it’s egregious. PF is not for endless procedural disputes, we’re here to debate substance. If you want to debate about debate you should do policy. |
Latest revision as of 02:33, 8 May 2020
Counterinterpretation: Teams may paraphrase evidence if they disclose on the 2019-2020 NDCA PF wiki
Defense on their standards: disclosure solves back for prep skew and evidence misconstruction because they can scrutinize our evidence before the round. Time skew relies on the other standards because if paraphrasing is good then there’s no reason for them to read cards.
Standards:
1. argument diversity – paraphrasing makes us concise which allows us to read more arguments
2. information processing – paraphrasing forces us to parse what our authors say rather than just regurgitating their analysis which is critical to real world skills
3. academic integrity – saying an argument made by someone else as our own analytic is plagiarism even if it’s not a direct quote, so we’re forced to cite when we paraphrase
Argument diversity, information processing, and academic integrity are key to education because debate is most educational when it emulates the real world.
4. inclusion – forcing debaters to cut cards makes PF less accessible, which prereqs fairness and education because you need to be in debate to access their impacts
5. NSDA rules – allow us to paraphrase
NSDA rules outweigh because they’re the only source of concrete framework for the activity. that’s why you can’t just get rid of speech times.
Default reasonability on theory, the judge is a referee — the role of the judge isn’t to establish norms but to referee theory violations. Theory asks you to intervene by not evaluating substance, so you shouldn’t vote on it unless it’s egregious. PF is not for endless procedural disputes, we’re here to debate substance. If you want to debate about debate you should do policy.
We get a RVI, on their shell, i.e. if we win the counterinterp we win the round regardless of substance for 2 reasons.
1. RVIs discourage frivolous theory as a no risk strategy because debaters must commit to their theory. Bad theory trades off with substance debate which is more educational.
2. Lack of RVIs creates a massive time skew because we have to respond to both theory and substance when they can go for only substance or only theory in the next speech, which kills fairness.
