Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Homework RFD

fire_wings
Posts: 5,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 6:47:14 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
1: Debate

Resolution: Homework Should Not Be Required

Debate Link: http://www.debate.org...

Opponents: Danielle (Pro) v.s. famousdebater (Con)

2: The Introduction


Now it is the boring introduction. The Burden of Proof is on Pro because she is challenging the status quo, so Con is not required to give offense. If voting Pro, then all of Pro's arguments need to be standing at the end, and if I vote Con, he needs to successfully refute Pro's arguments to win. I will not write "Pro's case", I will just give the argument I will cover in bold, and who's argument it is.

3: Arguments/ Rebuttals

Homework is vital to education: Pro

Pro shows that homework does almost no help to education, and there is no evidence that it is good for your education. Pro shows a study and says that the amount of homework, or if you get homework does not matter your test scores at all.

Con rebuts by saying that the study was very old, around 14-26 years ago (older than me!). Con also says that the study was only 0.00000947368%, which is really little, and that is then a bad test. Con asks a question about the remaining. Con says that the study is not sufficient because it has almost no children, and excluding most of them. Con says that TIMSS was a site which was talking about loads of homework, and in Con's counterplan (I will put it after this one), refutes it.

Pro defends by saying that Con says that it is outdated, but does not say why that refutes her case. Pro says that children have about the same amount of homework as 30 years ago. Pro defends by saying that TIMISS had many countries involved in it. In conclusion, Pro says that all his sources were fine, and not outdated.

Con is very confused in this round, because he clearly said that the source is bad because it examines very little children, and Pro failed to rebut that in his 3rd round. Con says that is this rebuttal that it is too vague amount of children. Con says that her math was wrong, and it was 8 more years before, and Con shows a source that homework changed in the last 3 decades/ 30 years. This is a good rebuttal in Con's case because Con proved that it was from 26 years ago, and homework changed from the last 30 years, so clearly homework must change, so the study must be wrong. Con says that his sources were for more proof. When Pro showed in Con's source a side for Pro, Con said that he disagreeded with part of the source, only that quote/part of it, so it is off-topic.

Pro says that he put in 18000 children, so it is okay, Pro says that they are studying and doing a debate about the U.S., Pro doesn't even mention this in the debate resolution, so I can give conduct to Con if I accept this, because Pro does not say this at all, so I won't accept this claim. Pro says that her sources were better than Con's sources,.

Con defends, by saying that their sources were used differently. Pro's sources were to prove that homework is not beneficial, and Con was for general claims, Pro's sources held the BoP, when Con's didn't. Con says that the children in poverty are still children, so they count, and I have to accept this.

Impact of this argument: I have no choice but to give this argument to Con. Con refutes Pro's sources, and says that they are all false, and the first point was basically a source war, they only refuted each other's sources, Pro failed to defend her sources, only saying that there was 18,000. Pro should have explained why that is a lot, but she only says that it is a lot, and children in poverty do not count. Con gives a logical reasoning that they do count, because they are children. I have no choice to give this argument to Con.

Con already won, because he refuted this first point, and Pro's BoP is too make all his arguments stand until the end, and Con's BoP is to refute them, or any, one, two, whatever.

Conclusion

Con wins, because Con refuted pro"s first argument, and the BoP is if Con refutes at least one argument, they win, and Con did. If anyone wants me to critique other parts of the debate, and other points, feel free to contact me, but I think this is sufficient enough to vote for Con. If anyone wants me to give feedback, because there were still some points Pro failed to recognise, probably because she was very inactive in DDO for almost a year, and a lot changed. Ergo, I vote Con. It was a good debate.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
Udel
Posts: 103
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/5/2016 10:39:40 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
I VOTE PRO. Here is my RFD.

Pro has the bop. She makes 4 arguments.

1. Hw does not fuel academic success.

Pro provides studies that show hw doesnt improve grades and minimal achievement on tests. Con says that hw does show some improvement, but only for older kids, and only a certain amount of hw. Pro says Con cannot control for all teachers assigning the same amount of hw. She says that students spend different amounts of time on hw and so Con cannot account for this variable. So far we see studies have proven that hw doesnt do much, and only the good hw Con is asking for, cannot be implemented across the board.

Con then says that Pro's studies are not good because they are old and account for so little of the child population. Pro points out that her studies are only within 30 years old, so they are relevant, because they are not tool old, and Con says they do not study many kids which Pro says is not true because Con uses the entire world child population which is irrelevant.

Con says "All I need to do is show that the systems of education have changed since then because that affects everything. If homework is different in regards to difficulty (for example), then higher quantity is not as necessary if it"s harder." Con does not prove that the type of education or especially hw assigned was much different then, and in fact Pro showed how his sources and her sources both proved that hw was very similar.

Pro also challenged Con's studies and asked Con to show studies that were more relevant either in size or scope. But Con was not able to produce studies that were newer or more thorough in terms of the population size, so its interesting that he attacked Pro's sources and here we can see that Pro actually uses better sources (better studies). This is why I am awarding sources points to Pro.

* I am also awarding sources points to Pro because Pro was able to find the flaws and inconsistencies in Con's sources, proving she was able to use his own sources against him. She used his own arguments against him when he critiqued her sources but then she was able to show how his sources were actually inferior. And so far on this point, Danielle was able to show that hw has minimal good effects, and only in some cases, so I would think famousdebater wins some slight favoritism in that he has shown some hw is helpful, but Danielle wins some favoritism because she said it cannot be universally applied, and also her studies were better, so I would say just a TINY advantage point in her favor there.

2. Homework inhibits family and parent time.

The debaters talk about Con's "counterplan." Con says that less hw should be assigned. Pro successfully refutes this argument by pointing out students spend different amount of time on hw (especially slower students) which punishes them. Con says this can be accounted for by the teachers, but Pro says hw is done at home where teachers cannot monitor this which is true.

Pro also says that kids time is often determined by the babysitter or parent's time, so when they don't have time to do hw, it looks bad for the kid, but is really a bad reflection on the parents. Con says this won't be an issue when less hw is assigned. This does not answer the argument. Because even if only 30minutes of hw are assigned (which may take some slower students 90 minutes) they might still not be able to do it if they don't have a good environment to do it in, which Pro pointed out, so Pro has proven that parents and care takers schedule are imposed upon and determine the child's hw schedule.

And She also said that parents and care takers can assign their own assignments, reviews, tests and tutors on their schedule which Con did not respond to.

3. Hw infringes on play and rec time


Pro says hw creates a "second shift" of work for children. Con says "My opponent claims that homework cuts time into things and she also claim that it provides a second shift of work for children. This is automatically negated by the counterplan." This is incorrect because his hw accounts for less hw, but less hw still imposes on rec time, so the argument of Pro's is not negated.

Pro also points out that parents have a choice in which jobs they take on work assignments, but students have no choice but to accept the hw given by their teachers whether it is long or helpful. Con says Pro drops his argument about more people working, but Con drops Pro's argument about adults not having to work a second shift, so Con's negation is moot, and so far we can only see that Pro's argument stands of hw cutting into time for other things. However this is definitely not Pro's strongest argument, and I did not give it much weight in my consideration.

4. Hw is bad for learning

Con completely dropped the point about how hw uses drill and kill methods that Pro pointed out, so it discourages learning. He says the purpose of hw is to review school so it doesn't matter what the kids want, but if Pro proved (with sources) that kids hate hw and it discourages their learning, Con has to explain why this doesn't matter but Pro said it's bad because it stifles creativity and imagination.

But most important this is where Pro won the debate, where she proved that hw encourages cheating. She said kids are stressed from hw and the pressure of grades, which she proved with sources, and then she proved sources showing that parents do their kids hw and people cheat on hw. She aruged that kids can cheat by copying off each other or the internet, which Con did not refute at all. He drops the cheating point entirely, as if it does not matter, but Con never denies that people can copy off the intenret very easy with no motiroing at all. He does not deny that websites tell you the answer for math equations either, and he tries to challenge Pros sources as if he does not believe people cheat and lie in school. Pro was able to prove along with her sources that kids do lie and cheat, so hw doesnt really provide any of the benefits if kids are cheating.

Conclusion

Point 1 was only slightly in Pro's favor. Con was able to prove that hw can be useful in some cases. Pro argues yes that might be true but cannot be sure teachers are actually assigning the type of hw that is good. Still I do not think that is a good enough argument for hw to be abolished, but she says it does little to improve grades and scores and Con agrees yes the benefits are kind of small. This is mostly a moot point.

With point 2, Pro aruges that hw infringes on parents and care takers dictate their child's schedule and environment for hw which is true. Pro was able to prove this effectively but I still dont think it was a very strong argument.

Then in point 3, Pro was arguing that kids have a second shift of work that cuts into their other time. And most importantly she proved kids have an incentive to cheat on hw and they often do, or parents do the hw, so in the rare instances beneficial hw is assigned (at the perfect quanity, which is impossible to quantify because every student is different) there is still no way to prove the hw is effective. We also know it burdens teachers. So in the end, Con was able to prove that hw can be effective but only in very controlled circumstances (that realistically cannot be controlled, as Pro pointed out).

Pro was able to prove that hw has very little benefits, in very few instances, that cannot be controlled, and that teachers cannot monitor, and that children resent and do not enjoy or learn and benefit much from, and that students/parents/teachers are all inhibited whereas they should be able to implement better learning and teaching and reviewing methods based on their preferewnces and indicidual child and scnearios. I think it is clear Pro won this debate, but a good job was done by both!
famousdebater
Posts: 3,932
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 8:31:05 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/5/2016 10:39:40 PM, Udel wrote:
* I am also awarding sources points to Pro because Pro was able to find the flaws and inconsistencies in Con's sources, proving she was able to use his own sources against him. She used his own arguments against him when he critiqued her sources but then she was able to show how his sources were actually inferior. And so far on this point, Danielle was able to show that hw has minimal good effects, and only in some cases, so I would think famousdebater wins some slight favoritism in that he has shown some hw is helpful, but Danielle wins some favoritism because she said it cannot be universally applied, and also her studies were better, so I would say just a TINY advantage point in her favor there.

That's a pretty poor reason to allocate sources. You completely exclude the fact that I argued that Danielle's sources were used to justify statistics yet those statistics were outdated. My sources were generic and did not matter in date. There was no argument made in regards to credibility as my sources were credible. Date was the only question made and I argued that date was irrelevant. You completely ignore this rebuttal made.
"Life calls the tune, we dance."
John Galsworthy
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 10:53:37 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/5/2016 6:47:14 PM, fire_wings wrote:
The BoP is if Con refutes at least one argument, they win, and Con did.

How in the world is this the BOP?

That's... utterly absurd. Pro's BOP, simply, is to affirm that "homework is not required." Con's BOP is to affirm that "homework is required." Regardless of number of arguments, whichever side better fulfills their BOP wins the debate. It's that simple. If Pro has one point standing and Con doesn't have any offense, even if all of Pro's other points are refuted, Pro wins. That's simply how burdens work.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
fire_wings
Posts: 5,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 4:17:29 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/6/2016 8:22:42 AM, famousdebater wrote:
At 6/5/2016 6:47:14 PM, fire_wings wrote:
Thank you for a good vote Fire!

no problem.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
fire_wings
Posts: 5,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 4:18:22 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/6/2016 10:53:37 AM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/5/2016 6:47:14 PM, fire_wings wrote:
The BoP is if Con refutes at least one argument, they win, and Con did.

How in the world is this the BOP?

That's... utterly absurd. Pro's BOP, simply, is to affirm that "homework is not required." Con's BOP is to affirm that "homework is required." Regardless of number of arguments, whichever side better fulfills their BOP wins the debate. It's that simple. If Pro has one point standing and Con doesn't have any offense, even if all of Pro's other points are refuted, Pro wins. That's simply how burdens work.

I didn't say that Con refuted one. He refuted the first argument. In fact, Con refuted 3 out of 4 of them.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 4:19:56 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/6/2016 4:18:22 PM, fire_wings wrote:
I didn't say that Con refuted one. He refuted the first argument. In fact, Con refuted 3 out of 4 of them.

If you want, I'll critique the substance of your RFD, but I'm talking about this specific text:

"Con wins, because Con refuted pro"s first argument, and the BoP is if Con refutes at least one argument, they win, and Con did."

I think that's an incorrect interpretation of the BOP.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
fire_wings
Posts: 5,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 4:21:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/6/2016 4:19:56 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/6/2016 4:18:22 PM, fire_wings wrote:
I didn't say that Con refuted one. He refuted the first argument. In fact, Con refuted 3 out of 4 of them.

If you want, I'll critique the substance of your RFD, but I'm talking about this specific text:

"Con wins, because Con refuted pro"s first argument, and the BoP is if Con refutes at least one argument, they win, and Con did."

I think that's an incorrect interpretation of the BOP.

I think that's what famous said the burden was, and it was on the debate, and Pro didn't respond to it, so I think that is the burden.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
Udel
Posts: 103
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/6/2016 8:08:08 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
on sources

I would like to apologize if i awarded sources point, but i used the voting thread explanation. I used the voting standards outlined in the bsh1 Google doc that explains how to judge sources.

"Like S/G points, it is not reasonable to assign sources points based on minor differences that didn't impact the round. Oftentimes sources points are awarded based on quantity alone, but more bad sources is not a good thing. Quantity may inform a decision, but it should not be the only factor assessed. Relevance, credibility, and accessibility are all very important factors that go into awarding sources points."

My rfd had nothing to do with quantity and everything to do with quality and use of sources. Both debaters presented accessible sources. Which debater presented sources that were more relevant and credible? Pro used sources that had more people, and were more up to date (within 26 years old, and Con used sources that often were from the 1950s which is 60 years old). This means pro's sources were more RELEVANT. And they were more CREDIBLE because the studies used bigger sample size students to study, which Con did not deny, and he simply said his studies don't have to be as big or relevant but that's not true for establishing credibilty.

Con said "My opponent has attempted to show that my sources do not account for as many people as hers however my sources are not being used in the same way that hers are. She is using her sources to prove that homework should be abolished using statistical data. I was using mine for general claims that bare the same weight regardless of the amount of people involved since I did not use these for statistic related claims." He claimed his sources did not show hw has changed within the last 30 years like he said. He said he only had to prove education changed (quality) to prove his point, even though his point was on quantity. Pro pointed this out, Con dropped it.

Throughout the debate Pro explained why her sources and studies were more relevant and credible (size and scope) and Con did not. Pro showed that Con's research used just a fraction of pupils as hers did, I don't remember the number but something like 1/18th, even though he criticized her number of sample students studied. He criticized the dates as well but used old studies too.

I also awarded sources points to Pro because Pro was able to find the flaws and inconsistencies in Con's sources, proving she was able to use his own sources against him. She used his own arguments against him when he critiqued her sources but then she was able to show how his sources were actually inferior. That is strategic debate strategy, And another thing was that Con challenged Pro a few times, saying she didn't show or couldn't show that kids cheat on hw, and then she turned around and did provide even more sources proving this which Con dropped. So since con made such a big deal about pro's sources even though she used more and better sources, I thought it was fair to award sources points but mostly for RELEVANCE and CREDIBILITY. Pro used a lot of peer reviewd and academic sources like she said (credible) and relevant based on time frame, and the way she used sources to back up the thesis.
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 1:30:39 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/6/2016 4:21:11 PM, fire_wings wrote:
At 6/6/2016 4:19:56 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/6/2016 4:18:22 PM, fire_wings wrote:
I didn't say that Con refuted one. He refuted the first argument. In fact, Con refuted 3 out of 4 of them.

If you want, I'll critique the substance of your RFD, but I'm talking about this specific text:

"Con wins, because Con refuted pro"s first argument, and the BoP is if Con refutes at least one argument, they win, and Con did."

I think that's an incorrect interpretation of the BOP.

I think that's what famous said the burden was, and it was on the debate, and Pro didn't respond to it, so I think that is the burden.

No. Famous said Danielle had the BOP to show the resolution true, i.e. to show that "homework should not be required." One standing argument is sufficient to do that. So your interpretation of the BOP is entirely different from famous's interpretation of the BOP. And it's completely incoherent, and wrong.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
fire_wings
Posts: 5,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 1:31:26 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 1:30:39 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/6/2016 4:21:11 PM, fire_wings wrote:
At 6/6/2016 4:19:56 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/6/2016 4:18:22 PM, fire_wings wrote:
I didn't say that Con refuted one. He refuted the first argument. In fact, Con refuted 3 out of 4 of them.

If you want, I'll critique the substance of your RFD, but I'm talking about this specific text:

"Con wins, because Con refuted pro"s first argument, and the BoP is if Con refutes at least one argument, they win, and Con did."

I think that's an incorrect interpretation of the BOP.

I think that's what famous said the burden was, and it was on the debate, and Pro didn't respond to it, so I think that is the burden.

No. Famous said Danielle had the BOP to show the resolution true, i.e. to show that "homework should not be required." One standing argument is sufficient to do that. So your interpretation of the BOP is entirely different from famous's interpretation of the BOP. And it's completely incoherent, and wrong.

I know that I am not supposed to talk about PM's, but I asked, and he said yes.
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 1:34:19 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 1:31:26 PM, fire_wings wrote:
I know that I am not supposed to talk about PM's, but I asked, and he said yes.

That's absolutely not what he said in the debate.

Just because he said so in a PM does not mean it's true. Judges should only evaluate what is in the debate. In the debate, famous interprets the BOP to be on Danielle while lacking explanation as to why that is the case, so there are only two *possible* interpretations. (1) Presume famous's interpretation of the BOP because Danielle drops it, which means Danielle has to affirm the resolution. (2) Famous doesn't sufficiently articulate the BOP at all, so presume an equal BOP since it's a normative resolution.

Your interpretation is "Danielle has to defend *all* her points." That interpretation makes no sense whatsoever, in almost any debate context. Even if she wins one point (outside of the defensive point 1), she affirms that "homework should not be required," and famous has no offense to weigh that against, so Danielle wins.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 1:35:29 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/6/2016 8:08:08 PM, Udel wrote:

I respect your interpretation of the "sources" point, but most established debaters agree that the "sources" point itself has no worth, so I would recommend that you re-vote removing the "sources" point and vote on "convincing arguments" alone.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
fire_wings
Posts: 5,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 1:36:14 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 1:34:19 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 6/8/2016 1:31:26 PM, fire_wings wrote:
I know that I am not supposed to talk about PM's, but I asked, and he said yes.

That's absolutely not what he said in the debate.

Just because he said so in a PM does not mean it's true. Judges should only evaluate what is in the debate. In the debate, famous interprets the BOP to be on Danielle while lacking explanation as to why that is the case, so there are only two *possible* interpretations. (1) Presume famous's interpretation of the BOP because Danielle drops it, which means Danielle has to affirm the resolution. (2) Famous doesn't sufficiently articulate the BOP at all, so presume an equal BOP since it's a normative resolution.

Your interpretation is "Danielle has to defend *all* her points." That interpretation makes no sense whatsoever, in almost any debate context. Even if she wins one point (outside of the defensive point 1), she affirms that "homework should not be required," and famous has no offense to weigh that against, so Danielle wins.

He never said "all"

"Voters ought to vote pro if, by the end of the debate, they found Pro"s case more convincing than mine. Voters ought to vote Con if, by the end of the debate, I have managed to refute my opponent"s arguments (and therefore proven that the status quo is better than my opponent"s proposed change)."
#ALLHAILFIRETHEKINGOFTHEMISCFORUM

...it's not a new policy... it's just that DDO was built on an ancient burial ground, and that means the spirits of old rise again to cause us problems sometimes- Airmax1227

Wtf you must have an IQ of 250 if you're 11 and already decent at this- 16k

Go to sleep!!!!- missmozart

So to start off, I never committed suicide- Vaarka
tejretics
Posts: 6,080
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2016 1:39:54 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 6/8/2016 1:36:14 PM, fire_wings wrote:
"Voters ought to vote pro if, by the end of the debate, they found Pro"s case more convincing than mine. Voters ought to vote Con if, by the end of the debate, I have managed to refute my opponent"s arguments (and therefore proven that the status quo is better than my opponent"s proposed change)."

Exactly. Your vote doesn't reflect that interpretation of the BOP at all.

(1) Danielle won at least one argument (i.e. burden on parents) because famous merely said "it isn't significant," not "it doesn't exist." It was a mitigated impact. There were also the dropped points about socioeconomic status, etc. that were also only mitigated by the CP.

(2) Famous had no impacts whatsoever, no benefits to the status quo, no benefits to the CP, and no harms to Pro's model.

(3) Impact analysis: Danielle's *small* impact outweighs Famous's *non-existent* impact; Danielle's bigger impact of socioeconomic status also exists, outweighing famous's impacts.

To be sure, I'm not trying to influence your decision--I respect the notion that famous won, despite the fact that I disagree with it. I'm pointing out that Danielle's winning even one argument is sufficient on an impact analysis.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass