I am so glad this debate is being had. For the first time ever I am agreeing with @debateme13. I will just throw this out there. -It is almost to the point where I would like to know who the RJ is that is judging my round. So that way I know how to cater my debate technique.
@the_peoples_champ You also agreed on your tournament debate hahahah. Unless that was just to convince @debateme13 and not the rest of the RJs? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
@gigi He was like "I'm gonna debate in a way that makes Daniel vote for me, but then I don't want him to be my judge. I'll debate in a way that makes Jamuna and Alidia vote for me, but then I'll ask them to watch/vote so that they can't be judges." lollllllllll
Did I not just have a debate where someone gave this non mutually exclusive craziness where he only said in words "you can pay athletes and do scholarships at the same time.I'm to sensitive right now
@the_peoples_champ clearly ;)
@liamm ohhhhhh liamm I have a list of people who I can't wait to debate. You are on my list. Not at the top though, there are a few others higher than you.
@the_peoples_champ Cool, hit me up whenever - I can even do today if you like, genuinely would like too :)
@liamm Football is on (American Football).
@the_peoples_champ 'Simulated warfare' ;)
@the_peoples_champ Just @me next time
@chandlebrowning ?? I’m so confused.
@the_peoples_champ I did not think someone would have the name me on here lol. But it was just a joke since you were referring to me above.
@chandlebrowning lol, I’m still so confused. Ok let me read ahead.
Oh ok, I get it now.
Alrighty, I very much hope that was enlightening to viewers, cheers @debateme13 , I reckon we covered a lot of ground
Also if anyone has a different perspective on the stuff which Daniel and I agreed on, please hit me up so we can flesh it out in a discussion
On Evidence: I think the purpose of evidence and citations are as follows.1: Expert testimony - to give credence to an argument that someone may be skeptical of without such support.2: Points of Fact - to establish information that is not always widely known or accepted.3: To back up a reasoned argument - THere are many things one can logically claim, but often evidence does not lend them support. Republicans argue that tax cuts should cause government revenue to grow because it creates enough economic growth to offset the cuts. A look at the history of economic growth argues against this contention.Basically, the evidence is there to handle "Yes it is" vs "no it isn't" claims.In my nudity debate, I had a rationale as to why seeing naked people causes more self-esteem. Knowing people might find that claim dubious (having no experience with it themselves) I also had a study that showed a strong correlation between them. (I still lost, though I felt those arguments were pretty rock solid.)
@debateme13 BTW My teacher plan was mutually exclusive. One cannot automatically fire teachers based on survey results and allow school administrators to make teacher firing decisions based on their best judgment. The one precludes the other.
When I did policy in high school, called Cross-Examination back then. It did have a very formal burden for affirmative and Negative. Affirmative had to advocate a plan of action, and Negative had to argue against that plan of action.Affirmative had the advantage of choosing the ground and gathering topical evidence, while negative had the advantage of only needing to show Pro's plan had one or more fatal flaws.Qallout can occasionally have topics like that, but I think it's rare. If pro adopts that burden, fine, but I don't think Con can push it on them here.
When I did policy debate, which was about 90% focused on research and citations, a Squirrel case was one that dealt with an unexpected area of examination... Two examples...When the topic was "Resolved: That the federal government should implement a comprehensive program to guarantee retirement security for United States citizens over age 65."The Con team argued that No, we should not. Such a program placates the proletariat. This prevents a socialist revolution. We need a socialist revolution in the US to stop a nuclear war from breaking out with the soviet union.When the topic was "Resolved: That the federal government should implement a comprehensive, long term agricultural policy in the United States."The Pro team argued that the comprehensive policy should include preservation of Big Foot Habitat. Big Foot was essential to the ecosystem and without him, we would have an environmental catastrophe that would lead to nuclear war with the soviet union.When I was in high school 75% of all debate impacts ended in Nuclear War somehow.But in both cases, their citations were from all manner of fringe publications, Fortean Times and Pravda and the like. And unless you had some kind of counter citation, that crap won debates like nobody's business. You either had a citation to make a claim, or you were just whistling into the wind.
@sigfried when did you do policy, and with which school?
@iantreyparish Diamond High school in Anchorage Alaska. I debated 1987-1989.
@sigfried isnt that kind of why citations are miserable?1, impossible to verify in short time frame2, could be from fringe or non-existant publisher3, gives the veneer of legitmacy none the less
@benmouse42 At their worst, yes.1. I don't really need to verify evidence, at least not for a debate like these, I rather trust people to not be making stuff up. I'm sure it happens in high school sometimes.2. I think using good trusted sources is a best practice and goofy ones should be more or less discounted.3. That can be a real issue. I didn't like the way it was "Citations or nothing" in my HS debates. I also don't like "logic only" I think it should be a balance. I feel like any time you want to establish a claim that is not simply common knowledge, a citation is a good way to do that. And if two people are making competing fact claims, and one has a reliable citation, that has added weight and shows a commitment to research.I also take debate from a pretty holistic perspective. I'm as interested in real-world persuasion as I am in competition. And in most areas of academia, when you make a factual claim, you are obligated to back it up with a reliable source for that information.
@benmouse42 @debateme13 An excellent discussion, I enjoyed watching it. First video is a comment/clarification on one aspect, I agreed with both of you, it was really well done. Second video is advice to debaters on how to make positions as compelling to the judge, regardless of who the judge is, what their background is, and what kind of background the debaters come from.
I’m late but just a couple obersvations.Americans arguments are very heavily based our debate theory. Say for instance like stock issues for TP, if the affirmative doesn’t meet those stock issues generally speaking they’ll lose. There’s nothing in the rules saying you must follow stock issues, but it’s just how argumentation goes down. As for TH resolutions (This House) we get those resolutions frequently in Parli but affirmative is able to change ‘This House’ to whoever they want it to be. So say for instance the res is: “This house regrets it’s actions” you’d change it to Bill Clinton or something. Then Negative would get up a throw 'burdons' on the affirmative and point out different ways that affirmative has to meet the resolution and if they don’t they lose. So for instance burden 1 would likely be: “They have to show that he regrets his actions not that they regret his actions” or Burden 2 might be something like: “he has to initially not regretted his actions then moved to a stage of regret.”Even from my first month here and after a few debates I noticed that American’s style isn’t so much about discussing the topic as it is about winning the round. Which is why we go so heavy into exact meanings of words, burdens, and RA’s. This site is honestly really refreshing tbh because I can move into actual discussion of ideas instead of wether or not the word: Sale means Sale. If you want an example of how a round sort of goes down check out Will and I’s debate: “Save Money Live Better” we went really heavy into specific wordings of the res instead of actually talking about it.
For the record as well I’ve made a career in debate around ‘squirreling’ (people in the south call it bs-ing or running a screwy argument 😂)
Also adding on: I hate the ‘if you don’t meet stock issues you will lose’ lines. Stock issues should be used as ways to organize your arguments, not ways to just shut down debate if you don’t meet one of them.The stool/table argument is by far the stupidest thing i have ever seen run in a debate round. I hate it with a vengeance...
@benmouse42 @debateme13 Since both of you are talking about me I think I have a right to say something. I learned debate in the same league that Daniel used to compete in. I've had extensive experience in Policy and Value as well as American Parli. I'm also reasonably familiar with BP and will be getting into it next year. First, on Policy standards. In America the majority of Policy debate is prepared, so people come in with lots of evidence and studies. At least in high school, studies and statistics are highly prized. That's where the majority of the love of numbers comes from. Of course, in this format, one is expected to know your studies very well and be able to answer questions about methodology, author's credentials, etc. and to produce the full study upon request. Of course people make stuff up but both teams and judges can review evidence in case somebody's lying. That's not the case in Parliamentary debate, since you don't get to review evidence. Of course, Qallout is a lot more like Policy, since people are expected to share sources. But there is not really time to review them in round. So I would tend to agree with Ben that the study needs to be explained, but with Daniel that it is still useful. Most of the time, I don't actually cite studies, but simply statistics or expert opinion. My round with Ben was an unfortunate exception where I got way too research-happy and didn't do enough explanation of the reasoning. Sorry about that. The other big thing is stock issues. Again this is Policy stuff. In America resolutions are phrased as X should do Y. There's almost always a change assumed. Standard theory is as Daniel outlined it (four-legged chair). Of course this is a load of bullcrap. Significance is given way too much importance, and none of the stock issues besides topicality have to be at 100% to pass a plan. The main point behind significance and topicality are to prevent abuse. Topicality is obviously a requirement, and significance mainly ensures that nobody is like "Let's cut $1000 from the President's salary." because there's no point spending an hour and a half debating that. Of course this means that people do lots of stupid stuff. Like falsifying evidence or arguing nothing but significance points. But I don't think it is inherently bad. I do think that it has in many cases gone too far. In America a big debate goes on about whether a counterplan can be legitimate. This is going too far toward technical debate rather than educational debate. I would like a system more toward the Aussie model personally. But I hold the stock issues as a generally good decision framework, and the American emphasis on evidence a generally benign thing.
@noahdfarley Truth be told, wasnt talking about you haha, I've been raging about studies since before you were on the site (see my semi with singalport a few months back)Cheers for the post though! The more perspectives on this the better