Ask Jim about Debate
|
Breaking Down Barriers: Ask Jim about Debate |
You can submit questions too, just email Jim at hansonjb@whitman.edu
It depends. Significance is a voting issue when the judge believes it is.
A JUDGE IS LIKELY TO BELIEVE THAT SIGNIFICANCE IS A VOTING ISSUE WHEN:
1. The judge is a stock issues judge. This judge believes that affirmatives have the burden to prove significance, inherency, solvency, and to not lose to disadvantages and topicality.
2. The judge believes that the affirmative has the burden to justify change. This judge believes the affirmative has the burden of proof. To make a change, an debater must prove there is a good, strong reason to change and that means that there must be a problem that the affirmative will address.
3. The judge dislikes or places a presumption against the plan. This judge believes that the affirmative is inherently risky, dangerous or harmful. Hence, even without a disadvantage, the judge expects the affirmative to justify making this risky change.
4. The debaters make arguments about why significance is a voting issue--why the affirmative is risky; why requiring justification for change is good; why the stock issues judging paradigm is best; etc.
A JUDGE IS LIKELY TO BELIEVE THAT SIGNIFICANCE IS NOT A VOTING ISSUE WHEN:
1. The judge is a policy maker, games player, tabula rasa, judge. This judge believes that the debate should begin, more or less, equally, with no side given a presumption. Hence, the affirmative does not need to meet some burden to prove significance. They just need to show the slightest risk or harm--and I mean the very slightest.
2. The judge places a burden on both the negative and affirmative teams. Hence, the negative must show the present system is better than the plan. The affirmative must show that the plan is better than the present system. Even the slightest tilt better for the plan or present system is justification for voting for that side of the debate.
3. The judge or places a presumption in favor of the plan. This judge believes that good ideas--ideas that fit with his or her beliefs--should be given presumption. The negative has the burden of proof to show that the present system is better than the plan.
4. The debaters make arguments about why significance is not a voting issue--why the affirmative is less risky than the status quo; why good ideas should be pursued; why there is no reason to vote against the affirmative; why weighing advantages against disadvantages is the best judging paradigm; etc.
Thanks to Amanda for asking this question.