College Policy Debate Forums
November 20, 2017, 09:25:07 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: IF YOU EXPERIENCE PROBLEMS WITH THE SITE, INCLUDING LOGGING IN, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IMMEDIATELY.  EMAIL ME DIRECTLY OR USE THE CONTACT US LINK AT THE TOP.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register CEDA caselist Debate Results Council of Tournament Directors Edebate Archive  
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
Author Topic: ADA Summer Business Meeting  (Read 13229 times)
RGarrett
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 53


« Reply #15 on: April 04, 2011, 07:28:37 PM »

So Gordon Stables got me onto what I consider a pretty good solution to these concerns, I am still refining this proposal, but given the depth of discussion I think it is worth it to present my current thoughts to move the discussion forward. 

There could be two versions of this amendment I advocate the proposal below to allow open source collaborative research but to limit the amount of cards in the overall set.  The second version would just mandate the full open sourcing of any card that could be read, but would not restrict the amount of evidence in the set.  Basically you allow interested schools to submit an amount of evidence restricted by word count.  At the beginning of the season you let each school submit say 30 pages to a place on the wiki (or a new wiki) for the open source sharing of this evidence (whatever number is appropriate that is the part that is very much a work in progress because it was never specified in my original amendment).  That would be around a 20,000 word count based on some checks on files I have, all that can be easily refined.  The great thing about this is you can preserve research by then allowing a lower word count, like 5 or 8 thousand to be submitted for each subsequent tournament.

Some new teams can still participate without having to do a ton of research, and by allowing some research it lets participants guide the evidence set.

Here is my current working text:

All tournaments sanctioned by the American Debate Association shall offer a division of competition that uses a collaborative set of evidence.  Each school shall be allowed to post evidence to a section of the opencaselist dedicated to the division the Wednesday prior to a tournament.  For the first tournament of the year each school will be limited to submitting 20,000 words of evidence, for each subsequent tournament a team may submit 8,000 words of evidence.
Evidence from the set may be underlined, tagged, and combined in any way debaters see fit to construct their arguments.
« Last Edit: April 04, 2011, 07:33:52 PM by RGarrett » Logged
neil berch
Full Member
***
Posts: 153


« Reply #16 on: April 04, 2011, 07:47:12 PM »

Mr. Antonucci:  See Mr. Garrett's revised proposal.  That provides for a closed evidence set without top-down decision-making.  I'm not sure it solves for all my concerns but it certainly beats ADA Executive Committee members Danielle Verney-O'Gorman and Kevin Kuswa (or Samantha Godbey and Jim Lyle) arguing about what goes into the evidence set.  And, selfishly, since Ms. Godbey is my assistant, I don't want her wasting her time on deciding the evidence set!

I think the revised proposal advances the discussion substantially.--Neil
Logged
antonucci23
Full Member
***
Posts: 138


« Reply #17 on: April 04, 2011, 11:16:57 PM »

Mr. Berch:

You are correct in all of your points.  The revised proposal provides for a closed evidence set without top-down decision making.

I agree that the revised proposal advances the discussion substantially.
Logged
Ryan Galloway
Full Member
***
Posts: 119


« Reply #18 on: April 05, 2011, 03:06:09 AM »

I'd like to propose a simple amendment to eliminate an outdated rule:

Section I., Rule 9

Current Rule:  "Debaters may not receive electronic assistance from outside sources or perform electronic research during the course of a debate."

Change to:  Debaters may not receive electronic assistance from outside sources during the course of a debate.

Rationale:  The rule is outdated, and actually serves to frustrate a core value of debate--the teaching of research.  The rule literally bans debaters performing their own research in debate.  It is 100% at odds with those who feel coaches do too much of the work in debates, as it eliminates a debater's ability to say, "I saw an article on this question this morning, let me get a card," OR "I am certain there is a piece of evidence on this question, let me research it quickly."  Those two scenarios illustrate the debater themselves is using critical thinking and research skills to solve the problem.

To be specific, Dan Bagwell researched the "retarded" Kritik against Towson in Round 7 at the NDT.  On the fly, a debater recognized that there would likely be a card to indict something the other team had said, found an article, and cut a card on the question.  This rule prohibits him from doing so.  It turns all the purposes of debate on its head:  an intelligent debater thinks of an argument on the fly, has the trained research ability to find an article in the debate, and cut a piece of evidence on it during prep time.  That skill should be lauded, not punished.

I also feel this rule artificially disadvantages paperless teams.  If I was debating a new case and had read a chapter of my textbook that answered something, it is OK for me to pull the textbook out and read cards.  However, this rule would prevent me from doing so if I had been reading the same book/article on line.  In a bygone era, I actually read cards from books in my backpack against a new case one time.  The rule simply has not adapted to 21st century technology.

I sense the rule was designed to create fairness for students who could not afford laptops.  I literally no of no debater in the current activity who does not carry a laptop at least on their team.  As long as debaters aren't emailing/gchatting/facebook chatting a coach or outside helper in the debate, I can't think of why we would ban electronic research, much as we wouldn't ban someone hearing a new case from pulling an article out of their backpack on a question and cutting a card on it. 

Lastly, I suspect this rule isn't enforced at all.  I am a proponent of the idea of pruning ADA rules that are obviously unenforced/unenforceable, because I think the remaining rules then gain strength.  Let's just zap an outmoded rule that frustrates debaters exhibiting their own critical thinking and research skills, two of the primary rationales for the existence of debate.

RG
Logged
Hester
Full Member
***
Posts: 153


« Reply #19 on: April 05, 2011, 08:11:00 AM »

this rule is impossible to enforce now. what could once be policed by making sure folks weren't sneaking bathroom breaks to get advice from their coach in the next stall is now - in the world of wifi- impossible to stop. i've already judged debates where one team looks up the other team's URL to make a point in c-x (a rhetorically powerful move by Harvard JP in rd 8 at the NDT this year). online research is already taking place, and Ryan's points about whether such restrictions violate the spirit of education are well stated.


two points of divergence, neither of which refute the substance of this post, but which are presented as reminders that "normal means" may not so normal at some schools as at others:

1) laptop usage is not as universal as assumed. on a squad of 12 this season, nearly half (5) of our debaters didn't have laptops. my guess is those of us working at regional universities serving student populations that are not as well off will have a different experience from those who work at private schools with student populations who come from families for whom laptops are as much a necessity as getting a car at 16. laptop usage will no doubt continue to increase - we're not at the saturation point yet, though. allowing research to occur during debates will definitely privilege those who have laptops. but those teams already have the privilege of doing research between rounds that teams without laptops don't have. and such disparities occur within the world of paperless teams. those squads that have mifi are currently benefiting from better internet access than those squads who still rely on 'free' wifi on the host campus or at the tournament hotel (which is spotty at best). thus is the world we live in - debate exists upon and perpetuates socio-economic privileges. the current rule is not the key to leveling the playing field and accounting for such privileges.

2) the rule as currently constituted doesn't disadvantage paperless teams. the example story is a warrant for why the rule currently discriminates against teams that don't bring their textbooks to tournaments - perhaps an unintended consequence we want to leave in place so as to encourage debaters to keep up with their class studies, lol. any debater - regardless of whether they scissors and tape or cntrl+c&v to create blocks - can reach into their bookbag and use what they have. unless paperless teams also attend paperless universities where all of their textbooks are online, then this isn't a disadvantage. what the current does do is prevent paperless teams (with wifi) from gaining an additional advantage over teams without laptops. but as explained in #1, that advantage already exists.

I'd like to propose a simple amendment to eliminate an outdated rule:

Section I., Rule 9

Current Rule:  "Debaters may not receive electronic assistance from outside sources or perform electronic research during the course of a debate."

Change to:  Debaters may not receive electronic assistance from outside sources during the course of a debate.

Rationale:  The rule is outdated, and actually serves to frustrate a core value of debate--the teaching of research.  The rule literally bans debaters performing their own research in debate.  It is 100% at odds with those who feel coaches do too much of the work in debates, as it eliminates a debater's ability to say, "I saw an article on this question this morning, let me get a card," OR "I am certain there is a piece of evidence on this question, let me research it quickly."  Those two scenarios illustrate the debater themselves is using critical thinking and research skills to solve the problem.

To be specific, Dan Bagwell researched the "retarded" Kritik against Towson in Round 7 at the NDT.  On the fly, a debater recognized that there would likely be a card to indict something the other team had said, found an article, and cut a card on the question.  This rule prohibits him from doing so.  It turns all the purposes of debate on its head:  an intelligent debater thinks of an argument on the fly, has the trained research ability to find an article in the debate, and cut a piece of evidence on it during prep time.  That skill should be lauded, not punished.

I also feel this rule artificially disadvantages paperless teams.  If I was debating a new case and had read a chapter of my textbook that answered something, it is OK for me to pull the textbook out and read cards.  However, this rule would prevent me from doing so if I had been reading the same book/article on line.  In a bygone era, I actually read cards from books in my backpack against a new case one time.  The rule simply has not adapted to 21st century technology.

I sense the rule was designed to create fairness for students who could not afford laptops.  I literally no of no debater in the current activity who does not carry a laptop at least on their team.  As long as debaters aren't emailing/gchatting/facebook chatting a coach or outside helper in the debate, I can't think of why we would ban electronic research, much as we wouldn't ban someone hearing a new case from pulling an article out of their backpack on a question and cutting a card on it. 

Lastly, I suspect this rule isn't enforced at all.  I am a proponent of the idea of pruning ADA rules that are obviously unenforced/unenforceable, because I think the remaining rules then gain strength.  Let's just zap an outmoded rule that frustrates debaters exhibiting their own critical thinking and research skills, two of the primary rationales for the existence of debate.

RG
Logged
Ryan Galloway
Full Member
***
Posts: 119


« Reply #20 on: April 05, 2011, 08:26:00 AM »

I like Mike's additions, and I'm glad he's given me some new perspective.  Two thoughts:

1) Given that most paperless teams give the other team a laptop during the debate, I can see no reason why the other team could not use the laptop to research on.  This seems to "level the playing field" in a world where class plays a factor in a debater not having a computer.  I could speak to the inexpensive ways for the team to purchase laptops for their squad, but that's Ross' bailiwick, not mine.  I think having a norm where a team without a laptop can use the other team's viewing computer to research on levels this playing field.

I am reminded of a very bright woman I coached at UGA named Allison Carr.  A team researched an AFF T card against her in the debate.  She responded, I don't have a laptop, I need to borrow yours to research.  She researched a counter-definition and they won the debate on T on that card.

I'd never have the moxie to do that, but I applaud her courage.  Paperless teams should be willing to share their viewing computer with their paper opponents for research in the debate.

2) More and more stuff is online, even for classes.  I think it is absurd that someone might have an e-book for a class and not be able to use it in a debate because it is on their laptop.  My debaters read articles on questions every single morning.  If a team pops a new case or a new advantage, and they go "I read an article on that two days ago for my class, I can find answers to it," it is beyond ridiculous that a rule would prohibit this.

I'm actually kind of old school about the ADA rules.  I think they govern tournaments, and should be treated seriously.  Having rules like this on the books, however, make me unwilling to enforce the rules.  If a team researched a card during a debate, and the other team said "that violates the ADA rules," I would quote Cee Lo Green and say "Forget you."

Or words to that effect, that apparently Hester thinks I should integrate into more decisions.

RG
Logged
Hester
Full Member
***
Posts: 153


« Reply #21 on: April 05, 2011, 08:39:50 AM »

don't forget the movie "Listen to Me," where the Harvard team had their computers in the round. of course, it didn't help when Jami Gertz' character used her personal narrative about her abortion to win the round!
Logged
V I Keenan
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 78


« Reply #22 on: April 05, 2011, 09:24:53 AM »

To echo Hester's non-Kirk Cameron based post, it's good to affirm I'm not the only person who coaches a bunch of debaters without laptops ... and judges a bunch of "paperless" teams who don't have viewing computers (and then I get to explain why just "jumping" files to your opponents computer doesn't work if opponent flows on the computer .... sigh). By the way, this is actually why I don't flow on a computer - I often lend my computer to my teams OR have my rounds use my computer as a viewing laptop.  It happens enough that I assume I cannot use my computer for a full tournament.  Hester is probably right that this division in experience is in part based on the economics of populations.  Because even if I were generous to say that my issues are confined to novices (which they aren't), if 8 of my novice teams move up to JV and open next year, 10 extra laptops will not magically appear.  The family computer is still the family computer, the bills are still the bill - tuition and rent only go up each year. 

(not even going to address tournaments I've been to with an ethics challenge about texting coaches.)

All of that said, I don't object to Galloway's amendment idea either.  I just don't think the concerns related to it should be easily dismissed (also, viewing laptops are often not set up for internet research, but that's a side issue on the equalization analysis).  This is where debate judges have to actively create norms that are educational and coaches need to talk about ethical issues.  Judges need to be vocal that jumping a 50 page file that "some cards" were read in is not appropriate.  Judges don't need to wait for evidence to be jumped to the SECOND computer (because paper people still only hand over 1 copy).  Coaches need to walk through paperless practices in practice debates.  Coaches need to state a clear line about willingness to talk to debaters over electronic means during rounds (not that they don't now). 

-VIK
Logged
Hester
Full Member
***
Posts: 153


« Reply #23 on: April 05, 2011, 09:42:14 AM »

the solution lies in addressing what "prep time" means.

when i debated, "prep time" was defined as "the down time between speeches or c-x."

currently, "prep time" is functionally defined as "the time a debater uses to identify and organize the arguments they will be presenting in their speech." as long as the debater isn't actively working on their arguments, they have come to feel it's their right to not have it count against their prep time.

my initial thought is that we need to expand the literal limits of "prep time" (make it more than 10 min) and narrow the exceptions we make for not running "prep time" (if it doesn't involve a toilet, it's not a legit exception).

15 minutes of "prep time" (defined as "the down time between speeches or c-x") would allow paperless teams the time they need to "jump the speech doc" while reigning in the excesses that are taking place (not exclusive to paperless teams, mind you).



All of that said, I don't object to Galloway's amendment idea either.  I just don't think the concerns related to it should be easily dismissed (also, viewing laptops are often not set up for internet research, but that's a side issue on the equalization analysis).  This is where debate judges have to actively create norms that are educational and coaches need to talk about ethical issues.  Judges need to be vocal that jumping a 50 page file that "some cards" were read in is not appropriate.  Judges don't need to wait for evidence to be jumped to the SECOND computer (because paper people still only hand over 1 copy).  Coaches need to walk through paperless practices in practice debates.  Coaches need to state a clear line about willingness to talk to debaters over electronic means during rounds (not that they don't now). 

-VIK

Logged
V I Keenan
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 78


« Reply #24 on: April 05, 2011, 10:42:58 AM »

Toilet isn't even a legit exception.  That's what the other team's prep time is for Smiley

(Signs I was a high school teacher way too long probably, but it does make rounds more efficient). 

Illness is a legit exception. 

Logged
mph
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 85


« Reply #25 on: April 11, 2011, 10:19:14 AM »

There's been some interest expressed in playing golf on Thursday the 19th, as we've done at many ADA meetings in the past.  I need to get an estimate of our numbers before finding a course and setting tee times.  Reply here or email me if you'd like to play.
Logged
mph
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 85


« Reply #26 on: April 28, 2011, 11:58:18 AM »

Just a reminder that proposals to change the ADA Standing Rules or Constitution need to be submitted by May 4.  Email proposals to mphall at liberty dot edu.
Logged
mph
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 85


« Reply #27 on: May 11, 2011, 07:58:17 AM »

ADA Summer Business Meeting Agenda
May 20, 2011 - University of Mary Washington

Call to Order
 
Approval of Minutes/Secretary's report - Jim Lyle
 
Treasurer's Report - Samantha Godbey
 
Vice President's Report - Adrienne Brovero
 
Topic Committee Representative's Report - Kevin Kuswa
 
Discussion of Possible Topic Wordings
 
President's Report - Michael Hall
 
2011-2012 ADA Tournament Calendar
 
New Business
 
2012 Proposal to Host ADA Nationals - Jim Lyle
 
Proposed Changes to the Standing Rules
 
Old Business
 
Adjournment
 
Logged
mph
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 85


« Reply #28 on: May 11, 2011, 08:08:38 AM »

Proposals to Amend the Standing Rules
May 20, 2011

​1.  Decision Time Rule Proposal - Adrienne Brovero
 
Current Rule I.14, Responsibilities of Judges
[Section to be changed appears bold and underlines]
 
14.   RESPONSIBILITIES OF JUDGES-- RESPONSIBILITIES OF JUDGES--Judges should listen conscientiously and in a manner designed to promote recognition and recall of positions advanced in speeches and question periods. Judges are encouraged to provide verbal and nonverbal feedback to encourage comprehensibility and to discourage violating the rules of debate. Further, judges will attempt to avoid verbal and nonverbal feedback which degrades, humiliates or otherwise belittles the efforts of the debater speaking. Judges should listen to all proofs offered by debaters and render a decision based on the clash in the debate, uninfluenced by the judge's preconceptions about the proposition or the type of proof called for in a given situation. Judges are expected to render a decision within 2:45 of the announced start time. If the judge is unable to make a decision within that time, the tab room should randomly decide a winner by coin flip. Oral critiques by judges are encouraged for all rounds so long as the critique does not delay teams or the judge from getting to the next scheduled round before the forfeit time. Judges should refrain from long critiques when debaters need to get off campus to eat during meal breaks. Judges must render a decision in which one of the teams participating in the debate is declared the winner.
 
Proposed New Version of Rule I.14
[Change appears bold and underlines]
 
14.   RESPONSIBILITIES OF JUDGES-- RESPONSIBILITIES OF JUDGES--Judges should listen conscientiously and in a manner designed to promote recognition and recall of positions advanced in speeches and question periods. Judges are encouraged to provide verbal and nonverbal feedback to encourage comprehensibility and to discourage violating the rules of debate. Further, judges will attempt to avoid verbal and nonverbal feedback which degrades, humiliates or otherwise belittles the efforts of the debater speaking. Judges should listen to all proofs offered by debaters and render a decision based on the clash in the debate, uninfluenced by the judge's preconceptions about the proposition or the type of proof called for in a given situation. In preliminary rounds, judges are expected to render a decision within 2:30 of the announced start time. In elimination rounds, judges are expected to render a decision within 2:45 of the announced start time. If the judge is unable to make a decision within the appropriate time parameters for that round, the tab room should randomly decide a winner by coin flip. Oral critiques by judges are encouraged for all rounds so long as the critique does not delay teams or the judge from getting to the next scheduled round before the forfeit time. Judges should refrain from long critiques when debaters need to get off campus to eat during meal breaks. Judges must render a decision in which one of the teams participating in the debate is declared the winner.
 
Rationale for Change
 
Last year we decided we needed to impose time clock. While well-intended, the 2:45 time clock for both prelim and elim decisions was longer than necessary. The overwhelming majority of the debates don’t come anywhere close to requiring 2:45 to decide. Scheduling is easier around 2:30 increments, and makes the schedule a little easier on competitors. Many tournaments have a 2:30 time clock for prelims, with 2:45 for elims. While the NDT uses 2:45 for prelims, those debates have 3 judge panels which makes the additional 15 minutes reasonable.

2.  Proposal to Lift the Restriction on Researching in Debate

Section I., Rule 9

Current Rule:  "Debaters may not receive electronic assistance from outside sources or perform electronic research during the course of a debate."

Change to:  Debaters may not receive electronic assistance from outside sources during the course of a debate.

Rationale:  The rule is outdated, and actually serves to frustrate a core value of debate--the teaching of research.  The rule literally bans debaters performing their own research in debate.  It is 100% at odds with those who feel coaches do too much of the work in debates, as it eliminates a debater's ability to say, "I saw an article on this question this morning, let me get a card," OR "I am certain there is a piece of evidence on this question, let me research it quickly."  Those two scenarios illustrate the debater themselves is using critical thinking and research skills to solve the problem.

To be specific, Dan Bagwell researched the "retarded" Kritik against Towson in Round 7 at the NDT.  On the fly, a debater recognized that there would likely be a card to indict something the other team had said, found an article, and cut a card on the question.  This rule prohibits him from doing so.  It turns all the purposes of debate on its head:  an intelligent debater thinks of an argument on the fly, has the trained research ability to find an article in the debate, and cut a piece of evidence on it during prep time.  That skill should be lauded, not punished.

I also feel this rule artificially disadvantages paperless teams.  If I was debating a new case and had read a chapter of my textbook that answered something, it is OK for me to pull the textbook out and read cards.  However, this rule would prevent me from doing so if I had been reading the same book/article on line.  In a bygone era, I actually read cards from books in my backpack against a new case one time.  The rule simply has not adapted to 21st century technology.

I sense the rule was designed to create fairness for students who could not afford laptops.  I literally no of no debater in the current activity who does not carry a laptop at least on their team.  As long as debaters aren't emailing/gchatting/facebook chatting a coach or outside helper in the debate, I can't think of why we would ban electronic research, much as we wouldn't ban someone hearing a new case from pulling an article out of their backpack on a question and cutting a card on it.  

Lastly, I suspect this rule isn't enforced at all.  I am a proponent of the idea of pruning ADA rules that are obviously unenforced/unenforceable, because I think the remaining rules then gain strength.  Let's just zap an outmoded rule that frustrates debaters exhibiting their own critical thinking and research skills, two of the primary rationales for the existence of debate.

3.  Proposal to add a open evidence division at ADA tournaments

Create Section II, Rule 9.

All tournaments sanctioned by the American Debate Association shall offer a division of competition that uses a collaborative set of evidence.  Each school shall be allowed to post evidence to a section of the opencaselist dedicated to the division the Wednesday prior to a tournament.  For the first tournament of the year, each school will be limited to submitting evidence consisting of a fixed number of words set by the ADA executive committee, for each subsequent tournament a team may submit evidence consisting of a smaller fixed number of words set by the ADA executive committee.  Evidence from the set may be underlined, tagged, and combined in any way debaters see fit to construct their arguments.

Purpose of the Amendment:

To clarify the purpose of this amendment it is important to note that no one questions the value of research in policy debate.  That is why the ADA should continue to offer open research divisions as it currently does.  For people who love the research part of debate it may be hard to read this amendment and see past this point.

The purpose of this amendment is to promote the ADA’s fundamental goal of increasing participation in debate.  There are several reasons that this type of division may be necessary:

First, it coincides with a long history in the ADA of attempting to limit the content of debate in order to produce educational and accessible debate.  The ADA has experimented more with limitations of argument to foster participation than any other debate organization.

Second, there are many students who wish to participate in policy debate, but because of jobs or other campus commitments cannot participate because of the time demands of the activity.  Our activity has become inaccessible to many bright students because of its time demands.  This division attempts to offer a true version of policy debate, but to control for one of the most time consuming aspects.
These students can be great members of the team and representatives of the team to the general student body.  Additionally, many universities have sought to fund debate teams that can allow more students to participate, and this would also help teams fill that need.

Third, it can be difficult to start debate teams at new institutions.  Many universities will never have policy debate teams without a large push from a faculty or administration member.  This division would lower the barriers for entry for student run programs.  The long term goal would be that teams that participate in this division eventually desire to be able to research their own arguments and compete in other divisions.  In this way it is similar to encouraging novice debate to increase participation, but the main difference is that this division can appeal to those with high school debate experience who no longer have the time or are unsure about fully committing to policy debate.

Fourth, the division would still allow for argument creativity.  By limiting the evidence set debaters will be encouraged to read evidence to discover every argument or warrant that a piece of evidence might support.  In this way debaters might better learn to use both analytical arguments and careful evidence reading to support their arguments.

Fifth, many opponents of this amendment will suggest that without research our activity is useless.  This fallacy is perhaps the most dangerous one in attempting to experiment and improve debate.  While everyone agrees that there should be research intensive policy debate the closest alternative of non-research intensive policy debate still has great value.  It is almost universally agreed that learning the skill of arguing in the context of policy debate is important and this division would still preserve all of those benefits.

While no suggestion to improve debate participation is perfect, this amendment can offer the ADA the ability to create the first experiment in non-research intensive policy based debate.  By preserving separate divisions for research intensive policy based debate the ADA can continue to promote traditional policy debate while adding this division to increase participation.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2011, 08:11:16 AM by mph » Logged
mph
Jr. Member
**
Posts: 85


« Reply #29 on: May 12, 2011, 09:31:27 AM »

Three more proposals to change the standing rules.  Apologies to Kevin Kuswa for not including these in the original list.


4.  Delete text from Section I, Rule 3.

CONSTRAINTS ON THE AFFIRMATIVE-- The first affirmative constructive speaker is expected to present a complete case which includes a topical plan of action and a rationale justifying that plan. The affirmative team must present and defend through the entirety of the debate only one plan, and once presented, this plan cannot be changed, altered, or amended in any way during the debate. This does not preclude permutations. The affirmative team is not obligated to reveal their case before the debate.

Rationale:  I think the aff should have more flexibility to adjust what “plan” means and how they are defending the plan (or changes to it).  The negative has the burden to make these “aff conditionality bad” arguments, but such a restriction should not be written in the content rules.  I also think aff disclosure should be debatable and the norm goes the other way on this now.

5.  Delete text from Section I, Rule 5.

CRITIQUES--If the negative chooses to critique it has the burden of defending an alternative which justifies rejection of the affirmative's proposed plan of action. A unique reason for voting must be clearly identified during the initial presentation of the criticism. If the affirmative team demonstrates that the critique fails to meet any of these criteria the judge must disregard the critique.

Rationale:  The need to present an alternative that competes implies the “voting issue” element—we do not spell out the same things for counterplans.  In addition, the negative should be able to present a voting issue in the 2NC depending on what the 2AC responses look like.

6.  Delete text from Section II, Rule 4.

SECRECY--The tournament staff will keep results secret from tournament participants until the end of the preliminary round. Tournament staff will not disclose round pairings to debaters or coaches or judges prior to the public announcement of those pairings.

Rationale:  Secrecy is not followed in terms of results, but it is good to keep the text about not giving tab people advantages on pairing releases.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMF customization services by 2by2host.com
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!