Commentary

Paradigms and Principles: 2AR Theory

October 6, 2011 by Adam Torson in Commentary with 5 Comments

Today I would like to discuss the following question:

A. How should judges evaluate new theory in the 2AR?

As a general rule almost all judges will disregard arguments made for the first time in the 2AR (with a few possible exceptions, e.g. new 2AR weighing). The most obvious justification for this practice is that considering such arguments is unfair because the negative debater does not have a chance to respond to them. It also encourages substantive clash – debaters can’t “save” their best arguments for late in the round.

Some believe, however, that theory initiated in the 2AR should be an exception to the rule. It is obviously possible to engage in abusive practices in the 2NR, for example substantial position shifts or misrepresenting evidence. Do 2ARs put in this position have any choice but to run theory?

A major concern with the practice of evaluating 2AR theory is that it almost certainly requires intervention. No judge would vote on every theory argument raised in the 2AR (that would be a winning tactic in every round). Do judges only vote on theory positions that they agree with or where the abuse is particularly egregious? It seems like a rational judge would vote on 2AR theory when the fairness or education preserved by doing so outweighs the unfairness of voting on a new argument, but this requires a subjective evaluation on the part of the judge.

Further, there are some kinds of abuse that we expect debaters to preempt. For example, we generally expect that debaters ask about the status of a counterplan; if they fail to do so and are subsequently blindsided, they have only themselves to blame. On the other hand, it seems unreasonable to require the affirmative to preempt every plausible form of 2NR abuse in the 1AR given the time pressure on that speech. Also, shouldn’t we impose some burden on negative debaters engaging in abusive practices to preempt 2AR theory?

So, should judges evaluate new theory in the 2AR? If so, in what circumstances should they vote on it?

Tagged Old VBD

Share this post

About Adam Torson

Adam Torson debated at Fargo South High School. He is a graduate of the University of Minnesota and has a J.D. from Hamline University in St. Paul, Minnesota. From 2004-2009 he was the director of debate at Hopkins High School (MN). He is currently an assistant coach at Harvard-Westlake (CA). Adam is also a curriculum director at Victory Briefs Institute and is the Editor of our VB topic analysis books and debate textbooks.

View all posts by Adam Torson →

StevenAdler

This is a really interesting topic. I'd also love to hear some discussion of how judges should evaluate 2AR RVIs in response to new 2NR theory.
Matt_Z

2AR Theory I think would just need to rely on a judges BS meter and would require a very specific abuse story about what it prevented and why it was illogical for the 1AR to have preempted.
I would think that 2AR RVIs would generally be legit since we can logically expect the 2NR to preempt the 2AR. If 3 minutes of theory becomes is made strategic, then I think the 2NR should do everything they can to prevent that strat by making preempts and telling the judge how to evaluate T.
Chad_Henson

For me to vote on 2AR theory, here's what would have to happen:
1. The event prompting the theory had to occur or first become apparent in the NR,
2. The 2AR must contain a complete, coherent theory argument against the behavior of the NR, and
3. I have to agree with the Aff.

I won't agree with Matt on RVIs in the 2AR. Given my low (non-existent) threshold for RVIs, the 1AR at least has to put the Neg on notice by making the claim in the 1AR.
RyanMLawrence

We allow all kinds of new arguments in the 2AR, in so far as they are a legitimate exercise of rejoinder against an argument developed in the NR. Indeed, if the affirmative was disallowed from bringing new content into the debate in the 2AR, the speech would be incredibly deficient in every regard. Disallowing theory arguments to be made in the 2AR is consequently arbitrary; if we accept substantive arguments as to why an NR argument is invalid, we should accept theoretical ones as well.

I think that the embedded assumption here is that theory will be a reason to reject the debater, not just the argument. Certainly, this status of theory as a "new voter" in the 2AR could represent a non-arbitrary reason to reject it. First, if we were to conclude that this is problematic not because it is a new argument but because it is a new voter, then this would represent a reason to treat 2AR theory as a reason to reject the argument/strategy deployed in the NR, not a reason to reject 2AR theory wholesale. Second, I do not believe that the offensive component of theory (if there is one) would be a sufficient, non-arbitrary justification for rejecting it in the 2AR since other offensive arguments likely need to be entertained (e.g. a turn on a new NR argument.) I do not believe that a rule stipulating that no new offensive arguments are allowed in the NR/2AR can hold much water.

My advice to judges: make it clear that you will treat NR/2AR theory as a reason to reject the argument, special considerations aside, and then evaluate any new arguments, including theory arguments, with a bias for the intuitive side of that debate rather than for the negative (on the basis of them not getting to speak again).
iplaybad

What it seems we see from all of Adam's questions about how judges can/should/do evaluate components of the debate, subjectivity is at the root of it all. From how judges actually transcribe the utterances of the debate to the substantive consequence of the argument in the debate and for other debates, there will always be the fun human component. Kudos, Adam. Keep up the good work in asking intriguing questions about an ever-evolving community.

As for this question.. I don't think that judges ought to treat 2AR theory any differently than normal: if the 2AR is the first opportunity for a debater to read her/his theory argument and has a legitimate set of standards to merit a voting issue, it's an argument to be evaluated in the debate.

Where I believe affirmatives go wrong in this scenario is that while they do a great job of explaining the violation, abuse, and reason why that abuse is unfair; they do a poor job in explaining how this particular area of abuse is enough to trump other areas of the debate.

For instance, if I don't have a great theoretical reason to kick my dis-positional CP in the 2N but do so any way in order to collapse down to a different theoretical objection I had to the AFF that was read in the 1N, what are some of the reasons why the judge ought to vote for a new dispo bad instead of a shell where there was debate since the 1N?

Michelin Massey

Commentary

Paradigms and Principles: 2AR Theory

Share this post

About Adam Torson

Related Posts

Recent Comments

Victory Briefs LLC

Victory Briefs Resources

FOLLOW US

Search

Tags

Categories

Archives

Debate Around The Web