Compartmentalizing this topic

While true, you could also spend money on something that hurts the
envirnoment; and you could save money and not affect the environment.

Or you could do something else entirely that has little to no bearing whatsoever on the environment (e.g. the case that *I* run).

Thanks Mike (and Phil) for sharing that observation – it does lend itself well to a good generic strategy to have ready for every round.

As someone who voted on a spending disadvantage in the championship round one key that I thought was really important was the argument that the economic benefits of the case presuppose the ability to raise the money without negatively harming the economy. I thought Alex argued very persuasively that this is a precedence issue – that before the economic benefits of the affirmative case could happen, the negative costs of increased deficit spending would happen. Thus, the negative disadvantage should take priority.

Great round to both debaters, I was very impressed and thought it was an excellent example of great nfa-ld debating. I have the video on my computer and will try to get it up in the next week or so.

I didn’t see the card that Alex ran as a DA. He ran one card saying we
have no money. To me, that is a PMN at best. We spent a long time
during the summer talking about funding, but still the final round
shows us that it doesn’t take that much to win the Spending argument.
A Disadvantage usually includes a link, bring, and impact (for this
type of DA). I heard one card read in the entire NEG speech, and it
didn’t explain the entire scenario of spending, it just said we are
broke. While Travis could have prepared a more comprehensive block
against this DA, it really wasn’t necessary given the sparse nature
of the NEG attack.

What I learned was that you can win on an argument of enthymemes, you
don’t necessarily need the evidence.

Whoa Dr Kasle send me to the dictionary on that one! Enthymemes; it also sent the comment box spell checker off the deep end…

I have to ask, what is a PMN? that sounds like something out of the 80′s so I know I should know it, but I don’t.

My personal feelings was I could have done a better job attacking the DA. However I thought the Econ cards I ran as turns that said hundreds of thousands of jobs would be created now and how it would revitalize regions throughout the US was pretty compelling argument against the DA. And the empiric that Bill Clinton deficit spending helped bring us out of recession, which Alex’s only response was since I didn’t have a Clinton card it shouldn’t be considered. I don’t understand why I need a card for every argument. If that’s the case then every debate would just be card reading. His link had no card it was just plan spends a lot of money. However, in no way am I trying to discredit Alex. He did a great job and won. I just saw the round a different way.

PMN = plan meets need

An enthymeme is an unstated argument, kind presumed to be true without evidence. I wouldn’t say it was a universal truth, but a premise that is commonly accepted. A Plan Meet Need argument says “plan does not meet the need”, it is a solvency take out, and can be argued with or without evidence.

I don’t think Alex read a link card that says your plan will spend a lot of money, just that we have no money to spend. I don’t think you need a card for every argument; Alex didn’t. But one thing is to have a set list of answers to Disads. I’ll send you something via e-mail.

Yeah, I think I am going to have have to have my Keynesian “spending good” frontline set for this weekend. Guess who will be writing blocks all week??? The novices!!! love slave labor! I mean, I love teaching novices how to debate…. riiiight. lol
can’t wait to see any/all of you this weekend. I was also a little disappointed to not see alex et al. signed up for apu :’(

Lucky, nerdy, I have no novices and I got about 300 pages of reading plus a five page essay due this week. Plus I’m judging rounds Friday evening for the LAMDL. Grr…no time!

I do think that the spending good argument is viable in this case, and also that recessions are good. I wish I could remember the NYT article from the early 90s, but it essentially argued that rececessions lead to deep cuts, which is the best way to repair the economy. If anyone finds it, please send me a copy!

~cough~ de-dev ~cough~

Please do not forget that one judges RFD on the ballot was, and I paraphrase the one sentence that was written: I find the argument convincing that China wouldn’t do the plan.

Ok. This isn’t a reason to vote. If a claimed advantage is that China is looking to the US to set an example on fossil fuel emissions, Mr. Lamascus argues that the card doesn’t say China will build high-speed trains… yep. When will LD teach argument theory? can someone explain why it is legitimate to allow arguments to be voting issues which are not logically valid as negation? Did losing that debate mean Travis “lost” a stock issue?

First, let me say that I think both Travis and Alex did an outstanding job in the debate and it was close. I very easily could have voted for either debater. My analysis below is not meant to be an attack on either debater, any judge, or anyone who disagrees with me – just my perspective as a judge in the round.

Second, I too found Alex’s argument re: China very persuasive. Both in that Travis’ card didn’t say China will do the plan and that Travis’ use of the card seem stretched from the beginning. That hurts credibility and can wreak havoc all over the flow. If China doesn’t adopt high speed rail and continues to spew CO2 then advantage 1 goes away. So we’re left with Adv2 – economy. As I wrote on my ballot I thought Alex won that debate.

Perhaps the judge should have explained their decision further but in my decision the debate over Global Warming did matter a lot to the affirmative – the economy advantage was 1:24 of the first affirmative speech (5:56-7:20 in the video). Thus, from a perception process the Global Warming position seems much more important. Losing that seems like it would be bad for the affirmative.

Third, in the 2AR, Travis says the China/Global warming is “the most important thing you are going to look at” twice (38:30 and 39:34). As such, I think it’s very reasonable that as a judge, if the econ debate was a wash, which in many respects it was (ie, both debaters made good arguments), and the affirmative debater is telling me Global warming is most important, my decision on global warming decides the round.

Fourth, I think it’s important to emphasize that NFA-LD is not supposed to be a technical rules style of debate, at least in my vision of the activity. Instead, “[i]t is a communication event, by which we mean the philosophy of the activity is consistent with that which governs other individual events” (NFA-LD rules) a more wholistic approach to judging should be encouraged. Indeed, as a judge my mission is to evaluate debaters “on their analysis, use of evidence, and ability to effectively and persuasively organize, deliver, and refute arguments” (NFA-LD rules). In many ways Travis did an excellent job in the round as did Alex. But making the round a technical this argument versus that argument decision misses the true value of NFA-LD both in my mind and the framers of the activity.

Let me emphasize again I write the preceeding words NOT as an attack on any of the debaters but to continue the discussion Phil started from the perspective of a judge. Congrats again to both debaters and I look forward to judging both of them in future debates.

Thanks, Danny. I am trying to better understand the approach of folks more familiar with LD. I do feel that my quick viewing of your ballot provided a more cohesive discussion than the ballot I was referencing. Your fourth point is an important element and one that I embrace. I wonder what formula “most” judges use in balancing all of the categories of analysis. Should the LD ballot have some breakdown of components both presentational and argumentational which ought to be weighed?

You will run into a variety of LD judges, but many of them are from Parli where no evidence is required. While I “get” that the round should be slower, like IE, that’s really the only comparison. If you look at the requirements for the IE rounds, taking into consideration similar activities such as Extemp, Persuasive, and Informative, even Impromptu, the rules are not very specific. While people are rewarded for evidence and such, I do not see the use of evidence listed as a requirement. Moreover, IE is not a combative situation as debate is, and there is no Resolution that hopes to carve out AFF and NEG ground. NFA-LD is now a policy topic, and any LD approach that may have worked back when the topic was fact/value is not applicable. If you are approaching a policy topic, you should be using the stock issues formula to build your prima facie case. After you do that, you use the negative strategies and various methods of refutation. As this is an evidence-based activity, all the standards for acquiring and testing evidence should apply.

When evaluating a case, advantages can be independent. A person can lose one and win the other. If the person loses one, but it is not turned on them (i.e. the plan will cause China to burn more fossil fuels), then the AFF may not win that ADV, but should not be punished for only hoping to win the first ADV on the economy.

In the end, Travis has learned (as we all have) that perception plays into voting quite a bit. Given that the judges are all over the map on what they like to see, and given that there are clearly AFF bias judges and NEG bias judges, and also judges who become bias against a debater for losing one argument in the round, etc., and time allocation and such, debaters can learn a ton this early in the year about how to adapt to judges.

Every decision by every judge is “right”, just ask Michael Miller and his lovely discussion about the mink jockstrap. So debaters are wise to pry and then not get angry but try to adapt. If it is too whacky and unpredictable, then try another venue or just do it to have fun and not necessarily to win.

just do it to have fun?
do I smell RCC running DaDa at apu?