TEST DEBATE RESULTS

- Round lacked characterizations of:

• Shows - what happens in it?
what does it seek to achieve
• Guests/people who air their
GENERAL grievances - why do they come
here? what do they get out of

COMMENTS OF the show

• Viewing public - why do they
THE ROUND
watch these shows? what do
they expect from TV?
- Round needed demonstrations on
the incentives of the actors to prove
likelihoods of a particular
characterization to be true
 -Show impacts as to why a claimed
GENERAL harm or benefit was important to
consider
COMMENTS ex. Show trivializes their problems
• How?
OF THE ROUND • What is the greater effect of the
trivialization? Will someone die?
Does it sacrifice their human
dignity? Did they genuinely hope
someone would care about their
problem? Was an agreement/
contract unfulfilled when problems
get trivialized?
• Why should we care?
 -Teams needed to drive conclusions of
their claims.
• As the judge, what should we remember
or take away from your argument and why
is it very relevant to the debate
GENERAL -More Even Ifs!
• Gov and Opp had different
COMMENTS characterizations of the shows and the
people involved
• Teams needed to exert more effort to
OF THE ROUND engage not only with the truth value of the
characterizations but also the likelihood of
an outcome given a characterization
AND/OR to weigh the importance of
different outcomes regardless of all others
launched.
 -Extensions needed to be delineated
more

GENERAL Suggestion: This is where the analysis

of opening ended, this is where our new

COMMENTS
material comes in, this is why the new
analysis is crucial to make opening’s
claims work.
OF THE ROUND OR
This was what opening proved, This is
what we’re proving, it’s new, it’s better,
it’s easy, breazy, beautiful, Covergirl
RESULTS
OG: 0 OO: 3
CG: 1 CO: 2
OO - Shows don’t really promise conflict resolution but people
consent to being on the show anyway

-OO said: their burden is to prove that the show is a valid

platform, and that being given a voice is a good that comes out
of it

A lot of the necessary premises and responses were sufficiently

launched.

CO -added more layers and demonstrations to OO’s case

-initial premise and end conclusion generally the same

-had the higher burden to CG’s Public eye removes genuine

interaction which is necessary for conflict resolution
CO -More demonstration, clarity
-despite not responding to CG, the arguments of CG were more
believable (demonstration, examples, Tulfo, raising grievances)

CG -CG’s conclusions were clearer at whip but underbuilt at that

point
-Needed better engagement on Opp’s consent to whatever the
show does to them and never promising the resolution of
conflicts altogether
CG -Clearer impacts
- Public eye = ingenuine conflict resolution leading to an
unsustainable resolution

OG
-presented a lot of harms but not the impacts of the harms and
why they are relevant to the debate
 SPEAKS
PM 75 LO 77
DPM 74 DLO 76
MG 74 MO 77
GW 76 OW 74
 -Identifying extensions especially when
teams have similar premises

GENERAL
-Appreciating argumentation when in
non-conventional structure
- Penalty-Judging! Don’t make one
COMMENTS inconsistency discret a whole team’s
caseline!
ON JUDGES - IMPLICIT vs EXPLICIT
- Judges stepping in the debate
- SPEAKS WERE GENERALLY TOO LOW
- JUDGES GIVE LOW POINT WINS :(
 weighing extensions:
if material is similar between opening and closing

is closing’s analysis crucial in order to buy opening’s case?

if yes, closing gets more credit
if not, opening gets more credit for being sufficient already