DART would improve if, outside of video debates, one round debates weren't allowed
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 2
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 1,500
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
Let's word this in a better way and see if someone can justify one round debates
I.a This is Pro’s impassioned complaint against one-round debates. As I quoted in r1, “Argue for your limitations; they’re yours.” Pro has claimed the lack of ability to rebut Con’s r1 argument in a one-rounder.
I.a.1 Anticipation. By anticipation, I mean Pro can anticipate the possible rebuttals to his argument, and defeat them before Con can say/write anything. Pro must think like Con. The converse is also true, and I just have. I just negated Pro’s argument that he cannot reply to Con’s argument in a one-rounder.
I.c Curiously, the LD Format proposes just such anticipation. It is called, “Affirmative Constructive, Cross-Examination, Negative Constructive, Cross-Examination,” etc.[i]
I.c.1 In law, it is said that no attorney should ever ask a question the answer to which the attorney does not already know.[ii] That’s anticipation, and the means of cross-examination, in debate, by such anticipation, is to pre-suppose how the witness will answer, and construct the order and content of the pre-emptive argument, as I did in accepting this debate.
I.d I have, therefore, met the Con BoP; demonstrate how a one-round debate can be had on equal footing between Pro and Con.
Source notes in Comments.
Pro argues for the Lincoln-Douglas debate format. He suggests that this standard would not support one round debates. He argues that the first side would almost certainly lose because they don't have a chance to respond to the second side's arguments. Con counters that the Lincoln-Douglas format doesn't rule out one round debates. He also argues that there is no reason to limit debate instigators by eliminating one round debates; if they choose to have one round debates, who is to say they shouldn't? Pro drops this point and reiterates his contention that the first side would lose because they couldn't answer the second side's arguments. Con responds that they can anticipate and address objections to their cases; he points to attorneys as an example.
Pro had the burden of proof here. I think Con was able to provide a decent response to his case. Crucially, Pro dropped Con's argument that instigators should be allowed to start one round debates if they so choose without being limited in that regard. Arguments to Con.
There were no issues with sources, S&G, or conduct.
You're welcome.
Thank you for voting
vote plz
Source notes for r2:
1. https://www.whitman.edu/Documents/Academics/Debate/WNDI_LD_Starter_Kit_2014_v2.pdf
2. http://www.criminallawconsulting.com/blog/a-criminal-law-myth-never-ask-a-question-to-which-you-do-not-know-the-answer