Voters in the LOR

[UCSDanny]

Hey everyone,

For awhile I've acted under the guise that the "voters" the LOR brings up is what the Opp is going for and should win on. They are basically conceeding the rest of their argumentation and instead focusing on these issues for the judge to vote on.

In this respect, in a round at Azusa, the LOR got up and identified 3 voters. Clint, the PMR, then addressed these 3 and tried to rebuild case in the minute or so left. I felt we had them answered and the round could easily go our way. However, the judge voted against us on the disad, which was not one of the 3 voters brought up by the LOR.

Was this legitimate? I asked during the disclosure , "but how can u solely vote on the disad when they didn't even make it a voter" and the judge said he felt it hadn't been dropped just because the LOR didn't specifically mention it.

I don't necessarily think the judge was errant in their views it was just a different way of judging then I had found in my past few years in parli and what I had come to expect in rounds.

For me, the huge opp block sets up almost a need for the LOR to condense their case down so the PMR has SOME chance of addressing everything. This is not to imply the MOC is pointless, it's still important as it would make the building back up of case for the PMR that much harder. If the MOC addressed 2 disads and case, and then the LOR says their 3 voters are disad 1, harms turn and solvency takeout, does the PMR have to address disad #2 or they'll lose?

Just wondering what people's thoughts are on the role of "voters" in the LOR... is that it or can a judge still vote anywhere?


Thanks,
danny

[properwinston]

Voters are stupid. Although I hear it less often, some debaters still argue that if a team doesn't label something a voter, then it can't be a part of the judge's decision. Tell me if I'm off on this matter, but isn't every little part of the debate a reason for the judge to choose one side over the other. For instance, if I run a T argument and impact it, does it matter if I label it a voter during the LOC or the LOR? Voting issues are simply tools for summarizing the debate. But of course, like everything else in the world of parli, voters have been interpreted in a literalist manner.

[Gavin499]

Oh the irony... We lost in Quarters at APU specifically on that argument. Two of the three judges (both of the ones who voted against us) said they bought by topicality position, but I didn't label it a voter in the LOC... despite telling them why it was critical to look at first, having the MOC extend impacts (dropped impacts) and call it a voter, and then my re-emphasizing it as a voter... they said that they couldn't vote on it because I didn't call it a voter first... quite strange... especially since it was entirely untouched...

On a similar note, I've tended to almost mock this idea by highlighting what I feel to be the most important issues, and then concluding my LOR by calling on the judge to vote on the issues I've laid out or "any other issues you can find to vote for us." :-) It's less an actual appeal, and more an effort to illustrate the lack of importance the label "voter" has... or ought to have...

Gavin

[properwinston]

I feel for you. This idiotic notion that the label is more important than the actual substance of an argument needs to end. Another example of this is the omnipresent term "non-unique." I heard this phrase stated at APU at least twenty times. When I asked the debater to explain what non-uniqueness was, he had some difficulty. When people say non-unique, they are usually saying, for example, that because murder is currently happening there is no problem with a plan causing more murder to occur. Jargon has taken over debate. Can anyone stop it?