judge intervention on turns in the rebuttle

[USC MissingLink]

Does anyone agree that a judge not considering turns in the PMR because they are new is a bad thing? The specific example I can point to here happened at Point Loma. The MO ran a cluster of new DAs which I straight turned in the rebuttle. The turns were really good, and since they were the only negative implications to the case and the criteria was Net Benefits unrefuted I told the judge that he should vote there. We picked up the round, but the ballot said that the DA's "went away" instead of supported the gov case. The reason was that the judge was only willing to mitigate the DA's and not make them new reasons for voting.

Amy and Dan ran a new voter in rebuttles at NPTE after Danny from NAU refused to take any POI's. Matt Stannard (I think) said that he wouldn't vote there; instead, he docked speaker points. Should this have been a voter or was that an abusive position?

jEd

[Dan6814]

On the first part:

This is the only area in the debate that I think requires judge intervention. Disregarding them isn't fair; the government is specifically allowed to make new arguments in the rebuttal in response to new stuff in the MO, without limitation on whether those arguments can win or not. But on the other hand, it doesn't make sense to grant out the government whatever link they want on the turns. If the DA is "you clog the courts," and my turn in the PMR is "fast courts inescably leads to nuke war," no judge in their right mind should buy that, even if the court clogging argument is new. There's some middle ground needed, and I think the judge has to step in and weigh the legitimacy of the new argument without the hlep of the opposition. Deference ought to be given to the government, but there needs to be a limit.

Dan P.

[pattybar]

I agree with Dan, the judge needs to weigh the turns on new DAs from the MO, but only if they are actual turns and not simply strong answers to the DAs. They must also be reasonable turns to realistic impacts.

The MO is allowed to put new DAs out, and the next place to respond is the PMR, so if the PM can turn them, too bad... the MO should have constructed better DAs. Without this check on the opp, the smart opp strategy seems to be to leave all the DAs for the MO, because at worst the PM mitigates and sucks time from the rebuttal without risk of a turn.

Patty

[Tutakai]

Actually, I disagree with Patty. If someone is running new DAs in the MO, I figure the PMR can respond with any argument they want (regardless with how "unreasonable" the impact may seem). That is the risk the Opp assumes by running new DAs in an attempt to inflict an extreme time deficit on the PMR. Turn 'em all, I say, and impact 'em with independant voters....

[truthisjust]

I agree with Jason. If we don't accept that standard we have two problems:

1. What is the brightline for reasonable intervention?
2. I have seen a lot of teams that strategically give a bad LO speech so that the MG doesn't have a lot to work with and the MO will make all these new arguments and flood the PM out.

[pattybar]

Granted, such a strategy is sucky... but I'm personally not likely to vote for a nuke war impact on a turn concerning a death penalty round.... just about any other impact will do...

Patty

[thedancingbear]

I am curious as to how a competitor would discover whether or not a judge thinks an impact is "sucky."

-tdb

[truthisjust]

exactly... should I stop and ask you first? I think the ice age DA is really good...

[thedancingbear]

So do I.

I like nuclear war impacts because they show cojones. You know that now. Perhaps this is the real solution to the judge philosophy book problem: each and every judge will compile a comprehensive list of impacts they do, and those they do not, believe to be "sucky."

Then 1As always know the prejudices of their audiences and can cater to them perfectly. What a wonderful world that will be.

-tdb

[pattybar]

Ok, y'all may think that a judge who considers the probablility of some outlandish impact an intervener and that interveners are bad.... but the point was that the impact of a turned DA doesn't have to be a very unlikely scenario (nuke war...) in order to win in the PMR.

If an MO puts out a bunch of new DAs -- especially in the last minute (I've seen it...) so gov doesn't have a chance to even try to respond with a POI, then in my world, if they get turned in the PMR, the impact on the turn doesn't need to be the most negative thing possible....(i.e. nuke war...). I'll vote on imacts that seem much more likely...and/or much less the result of a sippery slope fallacy -- in other words, the work needed to link to an unlikely nuke war impact is simply wasted effort.

Patty

[truthisjust]

it is true that they don't always have to be nuc war to win... but what if you are trying to out weigh another nuc scenario?

[Dan6814]

Look, there has to be some sort of standard. I'm willing to grant the gov a lot of leeway on this, but with no standard, you've just made the round meaningless if the MO makes even one new argument. All I have to do is say that that argument leads to the explosion of the planet, after strangling every puppy in the world. My link story (so long as there is one) can be crap, my analysis can be crap, but as long as I end my argument with "100% chance of immediate nuclear war and puppy strangulation," I win the round. What kind of terrible debate is that? Certainly "sucky"...

Dan P.

[Tutakai]

The turn cannot just be asserted as a turn wiht no analysis on HOW it exists or HOW the impact results. However, once the minimal standards for a turn are met, the DA is turned and an unrebuttable voter for the Gov is on the flow.

[thedancingbear]

I am curious. What other bad things, besides a conflict between two or multiple nations which included the use of nuclear weapons (far from outlandish -- consider that many analysts have determined this to be almost a certainty were Pakistan and India to come into conflict), are absolutely verboten and unacceptable turns?

I still think a list of these for each judge ought to be published so we know which arguments are allowed and which not.

Dan, the problem you identify is a problem in the one-rebuttal format of parli, not argumentation theory. You are quite correct that it forces either limited new argumentation in the MO, requires the judge to vote on nonsense, or intervene. A two-rebuttal format solves these problems.

-tdb

[Tutakai]

TDB you are misrepresenting the arguments presented. No one claimed any particular class of argument is "unacceptable" or "verboten".

One of the things that is almost as annoying as judges who intervene or make up rules is people who CLAIM judges are doing that when they really aren't. The gratuitous slamming towards judges (usually by people interested only in pumping up their own ego) gets in the way of legitimate concerns.

[thedancingbear]

While no one may be identifying classes of argumentation as explicitly forbidden, there is certainly a large bias against nuclear conflict scenarios being displayed. Am I wrong?

-tdb

[Tutakai]

I think all you are seeing is some judges who are tired of seeing nuke-war impacts habitually attached to too many disads in an attempt to get the low-risk-still-outweighs game going.

I think nothing is verboten, but disads with good internal logic will weigh better than disads with weak internal logic but baldly asserted world-ending links. Leave that for other forms of debate where individual analysis and consistency is less valued than it is in parli.

[thedancingbear]

Fair enough, certainly a position I can respect.

-tdb

[Corax]

I agree

[RLayne]

I agree... that this is one old thread to resurrect.

[AhhAlegra]

Cute to see Jason-Ian argument from way back in the day.

[Samopolis]

Cute to see Jed's horrible spelling from way back in the day. Rebuttle anyone?