- Define "new argument." Why can't these occur in the 2NR?
- Where should the 2NR start? What should be done there?
- What is the difference between line by line and voting issues (crystallization)?
- What three questions does a judge need answered before making a decision?
- Why is it important to put yourself in your opponent's shoes? What is this called?
- Judges may have different preferences for where voting issues occur in the round. If you were a judge, which method would you prefer? Why?
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Rebuttal Speeches-2NR: pp. 37-39
Click on "comments" below to post your thoughts to the following:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
1.) a new argument is an argument that you bring up in the 2NR that you didn't answer in the 1NR; these can't occur because there is no chance for your opponent to rebut it
2.) the 2NR should start by rebutting the aff case.
-reestablish your own arguments by pointing out why their answers don't disprove yours and why their original argument is flawed
-compare arguments using criterion
do this for aff and neg
3.)line-by-line is a point-by-point ; voting issues are the important issues you point out as to why you win the round
4.) -which V and C are most appropriate for the resolution?
-which arguments are you winning that impact the C?
-is your opponent winning arguments that achieve your C?
5.) thinking from the aff PoV is called pre-empting; this way you think of possible arguments and how to best defeat them. using the points before the aff brings them up makes the aff seem less credible
6.) if i were a judge i would like to hear VIs at the end of the speech; it's easier to flow and easier to distinguish; i'd want my decision to be laid out for me, not have to look for it
1) a new argument is one that you have not already made in a previous speech.
2) a new argument should not occurr in the last speech because the other debator does not have sufficiant time to answer the argument.
3)The 2NR should start with the affermative case
4) while on the affermative side one should state why the affermative failed to answer the neg attacks
5)line by line means that attack and defend one argument at a time in order, where as voting issues are more general, unlike line by line. These give the gudge the big picture and say the Main pionts.
6)The judge must know if there is a Value and Vc clash, Which arguments you are winning, and if the arguments being made by the opponent achieve your own V and or vc.
7)You should put yourself in your opponents shoes so that you know what your opponent is going to say. That way you can attack them before they make them.
8)This is called preempting.
9) I would like for the debator to give 4 min of line by line then 2 min of crystallization. First, this is how i debate. secondly, i really feel that it is important for the neg to respond to all of the arguments. But it is also needed for them to tell me WHY they should win and what is the most important in the round. Thirdly, this gives the aff an idea of what to focus on for the 2AR. ViVA CRYSTALIZATION OLE
GOOO TRIBE
1)A new argument is an argument that you make that you didn't in the previous speech.
*These can't occur in the 2NR because your opponent wont have the time to respond to them.
2)The 2Nr should start with the aff case.
*While doing this you should mention that your opponent didn't respond to your attacks and why their arguments are wrong.
3)The difference between line by line and voting issues is line by line is a point by point refutation and voting issues is the main points.
4)Three questions a judge needs answered are which VP and criterion is best for the res.
-which arguments you are winning that ! your criterion.
-Is your opponent winning arguments that achieve your criterion.
5)It is important to put youself in your opponents shoes so you can think of possible arguments and prepare yourself for what the aff might say.
*This is called Preempting.
6)If I were a judge I would prefer for a debator to use the method of giving your VI's at the end of the round so it would be easier for me to look at the main points.
1.new arguments are responses to dropped arguments. new arguments are unfair to the other side. also, judges are supposed to not count any new arguments so it would be pointless and a waste of time to make one.
2.the 2NR should start on the aff case. you should make your responses to the aff case by saying why the aff failed to disprove your original answers and compare arguments to the criterion. make the judge vote against the resolution in the 2nr
3.line-by-line is more of looking at the entire argument throughout the entire round. you are looking at it in a big picture approach. voting issues is more of lloking at the highlights of the argument. suggestions are given to the judge on the weighing of the argument
4.the judge needs to know, Which VP and C is most appropriate for the resolution? which arguments you are winning that impact the criterion? Is your opponent winning arguments that achieve your criterion?
5.to think about arguments you would use to design your rebuttal. this is called preempting
6.I would prefer the end-of-the-speech approach. this way the voting issues are all together and summarized. they are not scattered. also, because I would see all the reasons at one time on why i should vote for that debater
- A new argument is an argument brought up for the first time in the 2NR, and these are not allowed due to the fact that your opponent can't respond.
-Start by attacking the affirmative. Reestablish your answers to their arguments and explain why their arguments still don't work.
-Crystallization is main points in the argument and line-by-line goes by each point.
-Value Premise and Criterion need to be chosen by appropriateness, Who's winning the arguments that impact the Criterion, and is your opponent meeting your criterion with their arguments.
-To shut down an attack in their rebuttal before they can make it. This is called preempting.
-End of the round, I'd like to hear everything and then come to the voting issues at the end.
-new arguments- an argument not made answered or made in the 1NR but thrown into the 2NR
-this can't occur in the 2AR gives a disadvatage to your opponent and doesn't allow them to refute your argument.
-the 2NR should start on the aff case
-you will want to point out why the aff fails to disprove your arguments and why theie arguments are flawed. Also you will want to compare your arguments to the opponents arguments with reference to the criterion. (this should be doen for both the aff and the neg)
-line-by-line is a point-by-point approach: you defend or argue one argument at a time to show why you should win the round.
-voting issues or cristillization are the arguments you want the judge to use in making their decision.
-a judge needs to kno 3 things b4 making a decision and they are:
1.which vp and criterion is the most appropriate for the resolution?
2.what arguments are you wiinin that connect to the criterion and have a large impact on the case and the criterion and vp?
3.is your opponent winning any arguments that link back to your criterion?
-you need to put yourself in your opponents shoes to think about wht arguments are the most important and which ones they will use to construct their final rebutal so you can identify them in your speech also.
-this is called preempting an argument.
-if i were a judge i would prefer the voting issues to be at the end becuase its sortta like a rap-up at the end proving to me why they deserve to win the round.
Post a Comment