Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Is this a good warrant?

JoanOfSemiCircle
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2014 9:02:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I am going to a national circuit tournament for the first time in my high school life. I placed well in local tournaments (or I would get pretty close to placing) and I wanted to try a "big-dog" tournament before I graduate. I really want to go for the experience opposed to actually placing but I also want to do as best as I can in the debate. I do not spread, or I should say I refuse to spread. I have no problem against theory. I know a LOT of debaters in LD spread as they want to bring Policy debate in into Lincoln-Douglas. An alumnae who is now a volunteer coach for Lincoln-Douglas had a rather spoof case last year entirely against spreading that was hilarious but he did not want to address the other debaters' cases because he HATES spreading with a murderous fury (seriously). I dislike spreading too. I think it takes away from the wonderful value-based arguing that deals with educational philosophies and convincing the judge to vote based on the quality delivery. But I want to make legit arguments against spreading. But I am having trouble deciding whether or not citing the National Forensic Association is a good move.

My question is for the Lincoln-Douglas debaters that do not subscribe to spreading. The National Forensic Association states this about spreading in Lincoln-Douglas: "Rapid-fire delivery,
commonly called "spread delivery," is considered antithetical to the purpose and intent of this event." Since the NFA considers it antithetical or opposite to LD's purpose, I am going to argue my opponent is severely lacking in a case that upholds the resolution. Is that a good warrant to use at a national tournament?

I am sorry if I violated any rules to this site I just really want outside input.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2014 9:23:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/1/2014 9:02:22 PM, JoanOfSemiCircle wrote:
I am going to a national circuit tournament for the first time in my high school life. I placed well in local tournaments (or I would get pretty close to placing) and I wanted to try a "big-dog" tournament before I graduate. I really want to go for the experience opposed to actually placing but I also want to do as best as I can in the debate. I do not spread, or I should say I refuse to spread. I have no problem against theory. I know a LOT of debaters in LD spread as they want to bring Policy debate in into Lincoln-Douglas. An alumnae who is now a volunteer coach for Lincoln-Douglas had a rather spoof case last year entirely against spreading that was hilarious but he did not want to address the other debaters' cases because he HATES spreading with a murderous fury (seriously). I dislike spreading too. I think it takes away from the wonderful value-based arguing that deals with educational philosophies and convincing the judge to vote based on the quality delivery. But I want to make legit arguments against spreading. But I am having trouble deciding whether or not citing the National Forensic Association is a good move.

My question is for the Lincoln-Douglas debaters that do not subscribe to spreading. The National Forensic Association states this about spreading in Lincoln-Douglas: "Rapid-fire delivery,
commonly called "spread delivery," is considered antithetical to the purpose and intent of this event." Since the NFA considers it antithetical or opposite to LD's purpose, I am going to argue my opponent is severely lacking in a case that upholds the resolution. Is that a good warrant to use at a national tournament?

I am sorry if I violated any rules to this site I just really want outside input.

http://i.imgur.com...
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2014 9:26:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
But as for the actual argument:

No. To be blunt, it's a really, really bad warrant.

1. Straight appeal to authority. NFL says its bad, therefore it's bad.
2. No actual warrant to this argument. How is it antithetical to the event?
3. Argument and impact don't match. Even if I buy that spreading is bad for LD, how does that mean that they have a bad case?
4. Easy to solve for. They just stop spreading and you lose your impact.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/1/2014 11:11:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm gonna disagree with Zaradi (as I think we always do when it comes to spreading.)

Personally, I HATE spreading. I did have to spread on occasion, to keep up with fast opponents in front of judges who were fine with spreading. Normally, I preferred not to spread.

I think you card is good insofar as it shows that spreading is against the fundamental premises on which the event was made. In other words, its against the "rules" of the event. CAUTION: If you're in a tournament using rules other than the NFL's rules, this card is pretty meaningless. If the tourney is under NFL rules, then you can say that the debater is violating the rules and the spirit of the tournament by spreading--he knew the rules when he came to the event, and should be penalized for ignoring them.

While you can read the card, don't make it the ONLY thing you do. You need to address your opponent's points regardless. Reading one card isn't enough to invalidate an opponent's entire case. If you're hard on time, lump arguments into groups by theme, and address the groups of arguments rather than having to hit each individual argument on the flow.

Don't worry--not all LDers in the Nationa Circuit spread, and not all judges like spreading. If you fret to much over it, it becomes self-defeating.

Good luck!
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 9:49:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Oh darn, I thought it was going to be some juicy legal trouble.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
JoanOfSemiCircle
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 5:00:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/1/2014 9:26:07 PM, Zaradi wrote:
But as for the actual argument:

No. To be blunt, it's a really, really bad warrant.

1. Straight appeal to authority. NFL says its bad, therefore it's bad.
2. No actual warrant to this argument. How is it antithetical to the event?
3. Argument and impact don't match. Even if I buy that spreading is bad for LD, how does that mean that they have a bad case?
4. Easy to solve for. They just stop spreading and you lose your impact.

I get where you are coming from. But I want to address your points and ask you for a few suggestions:

1. What do you mean by "straight appeal to authority"? Can you give me a link to the NFL rules that states this so I can print it out?

2. According to the National Forensic Association "Lincoln-Douglas Debate is a one-person, persuasive, policy debate on the traditional stock issues of policy debate (harms, inherency, solvency, and topicality). It is a communication event, in which competitors will be evaluated on their analysis, use of evidence, and ability to effectively and persuasively organize, deliver and refute arguments. Rapid-fire delivery,
commonly called "spread delivery," is considered antithetical to the purpose and intent of this event." I believe they mean that the purpose of LD is to analyze values and arguments and persuade the judges in a well-developed way.

3.I am not saying the very case is bad. In fact, I am more than willing to accept that people who spread tend to have very intricate cases but it doesn't uphold the true meaning of what LD is supposed to be.

4. The constructive is the part of the debate where we read our cases. I figured since they will spread their constructive everything that came out of their mouths does not uphold the purpose of what we are supposed to uphold as LD debaters and therefore their case doesn't matter.

Thank you for your honest feedback though. I really appreciate any constructive criticism. I also laughed out loud (literally) to your meme. Very cute.

But I am wondering if the NFA is a good organization to cite from. Do you know anything about it?
JoanOfSemiCircle
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 5:08:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/1/2014 11:11:55 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I'm gonna disagree with Zaradi (as I think we always do when it comes to spreading.)

Personally, I HATE spreading. I did have to spread on occasion, to keep up with fast opponents in front of judges who were fine with spreading. Normally, I preferred not to spread.

I think you card is good insofar as it shows that spreading is against the fundamental premises on which the event was made. In other words, its against the "rules" of the event. CAUTION: If you're in a tournament using rules other than the NFL's rules, this card is pretty meaningless. If the tourney is under NFL rules, then you can say that the debater is violating the rules and the spirit of the tournament by spreading--he knew the rules when he came to the event, and should be penalized for ignoring them.

While you can read the card, don't make it the ONLY thing you do. You need to address your opponent's points regardless. Reading one card isn't enough to invalidate an opponent's entire case. If you're hard on time, lump arguments into groups by theme, and address the groups of arguments rather than having to hit each individual argument on the flow.

Don't worry--not all LDers in the Nationa Circuit spread, and not all judges like spreading. If you fret to much over it, it becomes self-defeating.

Good luck!

Thank you so much! The tournament I plan to go to is a tournament that follows NFL rules. The local tourneys where I live practically forbid spreading in LD because a lot of lay judges ( I have lost some well deserve rounds for judges literally not paying attention and picking someone randomly). I don't want to worry too much, but I want to enter my rounds with at least SOMETHING up my sleeve if my opponent spreads.

Do you think the NFA is a reliable source? Please be honest.
bsh1
Posts: 27,503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 5:12:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 5:08:27 PM, JoanOfSemiCircle wrote:
At 2/1/2014 11:11:55 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I'm gonna disagree with Zaradi (as I think we always do when it comes to spreading.)

Personally, I HATE spreading. I did have to spread on occasion, to keep up with fast opponents in front of judges who were fine with spreading. Normally, I preferred not to spread.

I think you card is good insofar as it shows that spreading is against the fundamental premises on which the event was made. In other words, its against the "rules" of the event. CAUTION: If you're in a tournament using rules other than the NFL's rules, this card is pretty meaningless. If the tourney is under NFL rules, then you can say that the debater is violating the rules and the spirit of the tournament by spreading--he knew the rules when he came to the event, and should be penalized for ignoring them.

While you can read the card, don't make it the ONLY thing you do. You need to address your opponent's points regardless. Reading one card isn't enough to invalidate an opponent's entire case. If you're hard on time, lump arguments into groups by theme, and address the groups of arguments rather than having to hit each individual argument on the flow.

Don't worry--not all LDers in the Nationa Circuit spread, and not all judges like spreading. If you fret to much over it, it becomes self-defeating.

Good luck!

Thank you so much! The tournament I plan to go to is a tournament that follows NFL rules. The local tourneys where I live practically forbid spreading in LD because a lot of lay judges ( I have lost some well deserve rounds for judges literally not paying attention and picking someone randomly). I don't want to worry too much, but I want to enter my rounds with at least SOMETHING up my sleeve if my opponent spreads.

Do you think the NFA is a reliable source? Please be honest.

The NFA is the Collegiate league. You're competing at the High School level--see if you can find something in the NFL or NCFL databases re: a prohibition on spreading.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
JoanOfSemiCircle
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 5:18:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 5:12:55 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 2/2/2014 5:08:27 PM, JoanOfSemiCircle wrote:
At 2/1/2014 11:11:55 PM, bsh1 wrote:
I'm gonna disagree with Zaradi (as I think we always do when it comes to spreading.)

Personally, I HATE spreading. I did have to spread on occasion, to keep up with fast opponents in front of judges who were fine with spreading. Normally, I preferred not to spread.

I think you card is good insofar as it shows that spreading is against the fundamental premises on which the event was made. In other words, its against the "rules" of the event. CAUTION: If you're in a tournament using rules other than the NFL's rules, this card is pretty meaningless. If the tourney is under NFL rules, then you can say that the debater is violating the rules and the spirit of the tournament by spreading--he knew the rules when he came to the event, and should be penalized for ignoring them.

While you can read the card, don't make it the ONLY thing you do. You need to address your opponent's points regardless. Reading one card isn't enough to invalidate an opponent's entire case. If you're hard on time, lump arguments into groups by theme, and address the groups of arguments rather than having to hit each individual argument on the flow.

Don't worry--not all LDers in the Nationa Circuit spread, and not all judges like spreading. If you fret to much over it, it becomes self-defeating.

Good luck!

Thank you so much! The tournament I plan to go to is a tournament that follows NFL rules. The local tourneys where I live practically forbid spreading in LD because a lot of lay judges ( I have lost some well deserve rounds for judges literally not paying attention and picking someone randomly). I don't want to worry too much, but I want to enter my rounds with at least SOMETHING up my sleeve if my opponent spreads.

Do you think the NFA is a reliable source? Please be honest.

The NFA is the Collegiate league. You're competing at the High School level--see if you can find something in the NFL or NCFL databases re: a prohibition on spreading.

That is what I was kinda iffy about. I figured that maybe it might apply for High School debate. But thank you soooooo much I rather know than not know. I will get right to it! :)
Zaradi
Posts: 14,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 10:00:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 5:00:59 PM, JoanOfSemiCircle wrote:
At 2/1/2014 9:26:07 PM, Zaradi wrote:
But as for the actual argument:

No. To be blunt, it's a really, really bad warrant.

1. Straight appeal to authority. NFL says its bad, therefore it's bad.
2. No actual warrant to this argument. How is it antithetical to the event?
3. Argument and impact don't match. Even if I buy that spreading is bad for LD, how does that mean that they have a bad case?
4. Easy to solve for. They just stop spreading and you lose your impact.

I get where you are coming from. But I want to address your points and ask you for a few suggestions:

1. What do you mean by "straight appeal to authority"? Can you give me a link to the NFL rules that states this so I can print it out?

Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy, nothing to do with rules (other than rules to logic). http://www.nizkor.org...

2. According to the National Forensic Association "Lincoln-Douglas Debate is a one-person, persuasive, policy debate on the traditional stock issues of policy debate (harms, inherency, solvency, and topicality). It is a communication event, in which competitors will be evaluated on their analysis, use of evidence, and ability to effectively and persuasively organize, deliver and refute arguments. Rapid-fire delivery,
commonly called "spread delivery," is considered antithetical to the purpose and intent of this event." I believe they mean that the purpose of LD is to analyze values and arguments and persuade the judges in a well-developed way.

Refer to my first issue. You're just arguing that NFA says X, therefore X is true.

3.I am not saying the very case is bad. In fact, I am more than willing to accept that people who spread tend to have very intricate cases but it doesn't uphold the true meaning of what LD is supposed to be.

1. Again, refer to my first issue.
2. This leads me to believe there's no internal warrant either: why should we subscribe to what LD "should be" (if I give you that what the NFA is saying about LD is true) instead of how we view it?

4. The constructive is the part of the debate where we read our cases. I figured since they will spread their constructive everything that came out of their mouths does not uphold the purpose of what we are supposed to uphold as LD debaters and therefore their case doesn't matter.

No. What your argument is saying is that "The method that they are delivering their case is really bad. It's against the purpose of LD. Drop them for it." They solve for this by just not spreading in any more rounds and extending out evidence from their case.

Also, if you run this argument you're going to run into either a) someone just running theory on you, or b) getting it turned on you since the argument you're making is essentially a theory argument outside of a theory shell, which is hardly in line with what LD was created to be. So you're probably not going to find a lot of success with it.

Thank you for your honest feedback though. I really appreciate any constructive criticism. I also laughed out loud (literally) to your meme. Very cute.

But I am wondering if the NFA is a good organization to cite from. Do you know anything about it?
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/2/2014 10:11:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/1/2014 9:02:22 PM, JoanOfSemiCircle wrote:
I am going to a national circuit tournament for the first time in my high school life. I placed well in local tournaments (or I would get pretty close to placing) and I wanted to try a "big-dog" tournament before I graduate. I really want to go for the experience opposed to actually placing but I also want to do as best as I can in the debate. I do not spread, or I should say I refuse to spread. I have no problem against theory. I know a LOT of debaters in LD spread as they want to bring Policy debate in into Lincoln-Douglas. An alumnae who is now a volunteer coach for Lincoln-Douglas had a rather spoof case last year entirely against spreading that was hilarious but he did not want to address the other debaters' cases because he HATES spreading with a murderous fury (seriously). I dislike spreading too. I think it takes away from the wonderful value-based arguing that deals with educational philosophies and convincing the judge to vote based on the quality delivery. But I want to make legit arguments against spreading. But I am having trouble deciding whether or not citing the National Forensic Association is a good move.

My question is for the Lincoln-Douglas debaters that do not subscribe to spreading. The National Forensic Association states this about spreading in Lincoln-Douglas: "Rapid-fire delivery,
commonly called "spread delivery," is considered antithetical to the purpose and intent of this event." Since the NFA considers it antithetical or opposite to LD's purpose, I am going to argue my opponent is severely lacking in a case that upholds the resolution. Is that a good warrant to use at a national tournament?

I am sorry if I violated any rules to this site I just really want outside input.

Don't do it.
JoanOfSemiCircle
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 10:00:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/2/2014 10:00:11 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 2/2/2014 5:00:59 PM, JoanOfSemiCircle wrote:
At 2/1/2014 9:26:07 PM, Zaradi wrote:
But as for the actual argument:

No. To be blunt, it's a really, really bad warrant.

1. Straight appeal to authority. NFL says its bad, therefore it's bad.
2. No actual warrant to this argument. How is it antithetical to the event?
3. Argument and impact don't match. Even if I buy that spreading is bad for LD, how does that mean that they have a bad case?
4. Easy to solve for. They just stop spreading and you lose your impact.

I get where you are coming from. But I want to address your points and ask you for a few suggestions:

1. What do you mean by "straight appeal to authority"? Can you give me a link to the NFL rules that states this so I can print it out?

Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy, nothing to do with rules (other than rules to logic). http://www.nizkor.org...

2. According to the National Forensic Association "Lincoln-Douglas Debate is a one-person, persuasive, policy debate on the traditional stock issues of policy debate (harms, inherency, solvency, and topicality). It is a communication event, in which competitors will be evaluated on their analysis, use of evidence, and ability to effectively and persuasively organize, deliver and refute arguments. Rapid-fire delivery,
commonly called "spread delivery," is considered antithetical to the purpose and intent of this event." I believe they mean that the purpose of LD is to analyze values and arguments and persuade the judges in a well-developed way.

Refer to my first issue. You're just arguing that NFA says X, therefore X is true.

3.I am not saying the very case is bad. In fact, I am more than willing to accept that people who spread tend to have very intricate cases but it doesn't uphold the true meaning of what LD is supposed to be.

1. Again, refer to my first issue.
2. This leads me to believe there's no internal warrant either: why should we subscribe to what LD "should be" (if I give you that what the NFA is saying about LD is true) instead of how we view it?

4. The constructive is the part of the debate where we read our cases. I figured since they will spread their constructive everything that came out of their mouths does not uphold the purpose of what we are supposed to uphold as LD debaters and therefore their case doesn't matter.

No. What your argument is saying is that "The method that they are delivering their case is really bad. It's against the purpose of LD. Drop them for it." They solve for this by just not spreading in any more rounds and extending out evidence from their case.

Also, if you run this argument you're going to run into either a) someone just running theory on you, or b) getting it turned on you since the argument you're making is essentially a theory argument outside of a theory shell, which is hardly in line with what LD was created to be. So you're probably not going to find a lot of success with it.

Thank you for your honest feedback though. I really appreciate any constructive criticism. I also laughed out loud (literally) to your meme. Very cute.

But I am wondering if the NFA is a good organization to cite from. Do you know anything about it?

Thank you so much for your help. I am abandoning the notion all together. I am going to go with a previous option that I did not like and that was to learn how to listen to spread. I just hope your meme doesn't apply too much for me lol.
Zaradi
Posts: 14,121
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 12:47:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 10:00:09 AM, JoanOfSemiCircle wrote:

Thank you so much for your help. I am abandoning the notion all together. I am going to go with a previous option that I did not like and that was to learn how to listen to spread. I just hope your meme doesn't apply too much for me lol.

A wise move.

It's actually not all that hard to get acclimated to spreading. You can look up debate rounds on youtube (they're usually spreading) and just flow them to see if you can get everything. Listening to music with very fast lyrics also helps (rap, some rock and pop, etc.). Just exposure to things coming at you quicker than normal helps your mind perceive it and process it normally, even at the high rate.

Exposure, in this case, helps.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...