- Why is it important to resolve the VP and criterion debate?
- What questions should you ask your opponent in cross-ex in relation to their VP and criterion?
- What things should you be attacking at this level of the debate? Why is it bad to simply call their VP "bad"?
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Answering the VP and Criteria: pp. 29-30
Click on "comments" below to post your thoughts on the following:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
1.) value debate has to be resolved to decide which criterion to use, and criterion debate has to be resolved to decide who wins what arguments (weighing mech.)
2.) ask how the V and C link to each other and to the resolution
3.) attack the relationships between the V, C, and resolution, or specifically the V and C and other terms in the resolution. calling a value 'bad' gives assumes circumstances and prioritizes values relative to each other
-it is important to resolve the vp in debate because if there is a disagreement about it, the criterion and all the arguments will be affected. It is important to resolve the criterion because if it is not resolved, no one can win any arguments. when both are resolved, you can create arguments that relate to the vp and criterion and hopefully win over that argument.
-You should ask your opponent how the structure links together and how it relates to the agent in the resolution as well as the action being taken in the resolution
-You should attack the appropiateness of the vp to the resolution, the criterion to the action being taken in the resolution, and either the vp or the criterion to any other terms in the resolution. it is bad to call their vp bad because it is harder to back up and makes you have a particular way of weighing values relative to each other
1)It is important to resolve VP to help choose what criterion is best and the criterion needs to be resolved because without it no one can win arguments.
2)You should ask your opponent how the everything links together. (VP,criterion,resolution)
3)*You should attack the VP,criterion,the resolution, and the relationships linking them together.
*It is bad to call the VP bad because it is harder to explain why.
-It is important to resolve the VP and criterion due to the majorly altering effects they each have on the quality of each of the debaters' points made throughout the arguement depending on which VP and criterion are being used.
-Ask them how they believe their VP and criterion links to the resolution.
-You can't just call the VP bad, you have to explain why the vp doesn't connect to the resolution appropriately. Rather, attack the components and their ralationship to each other. (VP to agent of action, criterion to the action being taken in the resolution, or the VP or the criterion to any other term in the argument).
* The post above this one was deleted by me because I had a couple of typos.
- the VP must be resolved to decide the appropriate criterion for the round. and the the criterion must be resolved so that someone can win arguments.
-during cross-ex you should ask your opponent about the structural links between the vp and the criterion to find flaws in their connection to the resolution
-you should be attacking the reslationship between the vp, criterion, and agent of action in the resolution.
-to call a vp "bad" assumes a certain set of cicumstances and a specific way of prioritizing value realtive to one another.
Post a Comment