Weighing

[Virtuoso]

Simple question:

Should the AFF weigh in the 1AR or 2AR? Actually, let me rephrase that: Can the AFF just weigh in the 2AR?

This seems like a pretty simple question but I don't have a coach so I actually never learned lol. As the AFF, being time pressed as it is (along with the 1AR being the hardest speech), would much rather weigh in the 2AR as I know to be the key issues so I don't have to waste time weighing things that will become moot by the 2AR. Also, it helps not to have to weigh every turn I make when I'm trying to outspread a slow NEG.

Thanks :]

[TomC]

Simple question:

Should the AFF weigh in the 1AR or 2AR? Actually, let me rephrase that: Can the AFF just weigh in the 2AR?

This seems like a pretty simple question but I don't have a coach so I actually never learned lol. As the AFF, being time pressed as it is (along with the 1AR being the hardest speech), would much rather weigh in the 2AR as I know to be the key issues so I don't have to waste time weighing things that will become moot by the 2AR. Also, it helps not to have to weigh every turn I make when I'm trying to outspread a slow NEG.

Thanks :]

I've had different judges tell me different things about that, one time I had one say I couldn't weigh only in the 2AR b/c it was a new argument, another a judge told me that I don't need to waste time weighing in the 1AR. As a result, I always just ask the judge when they want weighing to be done because there are often different opinions about it.

[Paul R. Dorasil]

The correct answer is that weighing can be done in the 1AR, but should be the primary focus of the 2AR. In a competitive round, we should expect all weighing to be done in the 2AR because the affirmative will not have time to weigh in the 1AR. If the affirmative has time to cover all offense in the round and weigh that offense in four minutes, then the aff must be dominating.

However, there are judges who consider weighing in the 2AR to be new argumentation. They are wrong, but alas, they hold ballots. Judging in this way renders the 2AR virtually useless.

This sort of systematic incorrect judging, especially in certain regions, is one factor that contributes to neg bias in LD.

Ask your judges if they consider weighing in the 2AR new argumentation and adapt as much as you can.

[Tyler Haulotte]

They are wrong, but alas, they hold ballots.

...If I weigh in the NC, the aff doesn't weigh in the 1ar, and I extend the weighing, the aff should be able to weigh in 2ar, where I can't respond, and make all of that time worthless?

Just like you can't read new framework, I don't think you should be able to weigh in the 2ar [unless you are at an impasse].

[Grundrisse]

Just like you can't read new framework, I don't think you should be able to weigh in the 2ar [unless you are at an impasse].

I agree to an extent also. My problem is that if they don't weigh in the 1AR after the NC introduced weighing, but do so in the 2AR - I would feel it was abusive. I completely understand the whole point that the 1AR is difficult to weigh, but at the same time, a lot of Debate is about time management...

This has just always been the way I have been taught and the ballots I've read concerning the 2AR.

[classof2012]

They are wrong, but alas, they hold ballots.

...If I weigh in the NC, the aff doesn't weigh in the 1ar, and I extend the weighing, the aff should be able to weigh in 2ar, where I can't respond, and make all of that time worthless?

Just like you can't read new framework, I don't think you should be able to weigh in the 2ar [unless you are at an impasse].

I agree with Paul's perspective on weighing, that it only needs to be in the 2AR, not the 1AR.

In the instance that you're providing, I see no reason why the affirmative can't do their own weighing. They just can't contest yours because it was dropped in the 1AR. For example, if you explain in the NC why you outweigh on probability, the 2AR couldn't contest that your impacts are more probable, but they could argue that their own impacts are of a larger magnitude and that magnitude is a more important form of weighing.

This seems consistent with the way other types of arguments function. For example, if the affirmative concedes your disadvantage, they can't contest the impact, but they can win their own case and explain why that outweighs the disadvantage.

[Tyler Haulotte]

They are wrong, but alas, they hold ballots.

...If I weigh in the NC, the aff doesn't weigh in the 1ar, and I extend the weighing, the aff should be able to weigh in 2ar, where I can't respond, and make all of that time worthless?

Just like you can't read new framework, I don't think you should be able to weigh in the 2ar [unless you are at an impasse].

I agree with Paul's perspective on weighing, that it only needs to be in the 2AR, not the 1AR.

In the instance that you're providing, I see no reason why the affirmative can't do their own weighing. They just can't contest yours because it was dropped in the 1AR. For example, if you explain in the NC why you outweigh on probability, the 2AR couldn't contest that your impacts are more probable, but they could argue that their own impacts are of a larger magnitude and that magnitude is a more important form of weighing.

This seems consistent with the way other types of arguments function. For example, if the affirmative concedes your disadvantage, they can't contest the impact, but they can win their own case and explain why that outweighs the disadvantage.

This interpretation doesn't make sense to me. Let's look at your paradigm put into action in a round on sanctions,

AC: Aff with poverty impacts

NC: Iran DA and defense, Iran DA outweighs on magnitude, scope, and reversibility.

1AR: No weighing, wins the poverty impacts and the defense but drops the Iran DA.

NR: Extension of Iran DA and weighing [What should be game over].

2AR: New weighing of poverty on probability, systemic impact, and says probable and systemic impacts come first.

Under your paradigm it seems the aff can win despite severally mishandling arguments because they can always come up with weighing in the 2ar.

[classof2012]

I agree with Paul's perspective on weighing, that it only needs to be in the 2AR, not the 1AR.

In the instance that you're providing, I see no reason why the affirmative can't do their own weighing. They just can't contest yours because it was dropped in the 1AR. For example, if you explain in the NC why you outweigh on probability, the 2AR couldn't contest that your impacts are more probable, but they could argue that their own impacts are of a larger magnitude and that magnitude is a more important form of weighing.

This seems consistent with the way other types of arguments function. For example, if the affirmative concedes your disadvantage, they can't contest the impact, but they can win their own case and explain why that outweighs the disadvantage.

This interpretation doesn't make sense to me. Let's look at your paradigm put into action in a round on sanctions,

AC: Aff with poverty impacts

NC: Iran DA and defense, Iran DA outweighs on magnitude, scope, and reversibility.

1AR: No weighing, wins the poverty impacts and the defense but drops the Iran DA.

NR: Extension of Iran DA and weighing [What should be game over].

2AR: New weighing of poverty on probability, systemic impact, and says probable and systemic impacts come first.

Under your paradigm it seems the aff can win despite severally mishandling arguments because they can always come up with weighing in the 2ar.

I'm not sure how this is different from there not being weighing in the NC and the 2AR doing weighing. The problem in both cases is that the NR didn't preempt it with arguments of their own. If your case outweighs on magnitude, and your opponent's probably outweighs on probability, then you should be doing a comparison between the two.

[Julian Switala]

I've had different judges tell me different things about that, one time I had one say I couldn't weigh only in the 2AR b/c it was a new argument, another a judge told me that I don't need to waste time weighing in the 1AR. As a result, I always just ask the judge when they want weighing to be done because there are often different opinions about it.

Truth.

[Tyler Haulotte]

I agree with Paul's perspective on weighing, that it only needs to be in the 2AR, not the 1AR.

In the instance that you're providing, I see no reason why the affirmative can't do their own weighing. They just can't contest yours because it was dropped in the 1AR. For example, if you explain in the NC why you outweigh on probability, the 2AR couldn't contest that your impacts are more probable, but they could argue that their own impacts are of a larger magnitude and that magnitude is a more important form of weighing.

This seems consistent with the way other types of arguments function. For example, if the affirmative concedes your disadvantage, they can't contest the impact, but they can win their own case and explain why that outweighs the disadvantage.

This interpretation doesn't make sense to me. Let's look at your paradigm put into action in a round on sanctions,

AC: Aff with poverty impacts

NC: Iran DA and defense, Iran DA outweighs on magnitude, scope, and reversibility.

1AR: No weighing, wins the poverty impacts and the defense but drops the Iran DA.

NR: Extension of Iran DA and weighing [What should be game over].

2AR: New weighing of poverty on probability, systemic impact, and says probable and systemic impacts come first.

Under your paradigm it seems the aff can win despite severally mishandling arguments because they can always come up with weighing in the 2ar.

I'm not sure how this is different from there not being weighing in the NC and the 2AR doing weighing. The problem in both cases is that the NR didn't preempt it with arguments of their own. If your case outweighs on magnitude, and your opponent's probably outweighs on probability, then you should be doing a comparison between the two.

I have to preempt every possible weighing standard in the NR? As well as metaweigh against all possible standards? That seems absurd; why do affs get to prioritize arguments when the neg doesn't get to respond because "1ARs are hard"? That'd make it impossible to negate substantively in front of a decent aff. They'll outweigh on some nebulous standard and metaweigh all in the 2ar, under your interpretation, and win.

[classof2012]

This interpretation doesn't make sense to me. Let's look at your paradigm put into action in a round on sanctions,

AC: Aff with poverty impacts

NC: Iran DA and defense, Iran DA outweighs on magnitude, scope, and reversibility.

1AR: No weighing, wins the poverty impacts and the defense but drops the Iran DA.

NR: Extension of Iran DA and weighing [What should be game over].

2AR: New weighing of poverty on probability, systemic impact, and says probable and systemic impacts come first.

Under your paradigm it seems the aff can win despite severally mishandling arguments because they can always come up with weighing in the 2ar.

I'm not sure how this is different from there not being weighing in the NC and the 2AR doing weighing. The problem in both cases is that the NR didn't preempt it with arguments of their own. If your case outweighs on magnitude, and your opponent's probably outweighs on probability, then you should be doing a comparison between the two.

I have to preempt every possible weighing standard in the NR? As well as metaweigh against all possible standards? That seems absurd; why do affs get to prioritize arguments when the neg doesn't get to respond because "1ARs are hard"? That'd make it impossible to negate substantively in front of a decent aff. They'll outweigh on some nebulous standard and metaweigh all in the 2ar, under your interpretation, and win.

First off, judges always hold some discretion over which arguments they consider. If it were as simple as "there is weighing in the 2AR which the neg can't respond to, so it must be true" then a reasonably good aff could always win. Of course, that would be a problem with or without weighing. If judges automatically bought 2AR arguments then any aff that made responses to all (important) arguments in the NR would always win, no weighing required.

Second, the NR's burden isn't unreasonable. If you claim to outweigh on reversibility, you don't need to go through and individually explain "reversibility precedes timeframe", "reversibility precedes magnitude", "reversibility precedes probability", etc. You just need to make the argument that reversibility comes first (because you prioritizing irreversible impacts allows you to solve both or for whatever reason). Conversely, if you don't believe that to be viable, then you can put the 2AR in the same bind by doing your own weighing on multiple levels. If you claim to outweigh on scope, timeframe, and probability with your systemic impacts, then not only have you seriously limited the potential weighing standards the 2AR can choose from, but you've also forced them to explain why whatever standard they claim to be outweighing on precedes each of your standards. Especially if you have multiple impacts in the NR, this puts the aff in a serious bind.

Finally, yes, this is probably aff biased, but the alternative (forcing the aff to weigh both in the 1AR and the 2AR) is neg biased (if debatably to a lesser extent), and I think an aff bias is preferable since it mitigates the current neg skew present in LD whereas neg biased paradigms just further it.

[Rebar Niemi]

dude, as far as i'm concerned properly executed weighing starts in the AR, and is extended/continued in the 2AR. Thus, it's not a new argument. properly executed neg weighing starts in the NC, think about it, you should already be comparing arguments and drawing delineations in quality and type, and then it culminates in the NR. If the 1AR doesn't have any weighing, they're a fool and most likely going to lose anyway, and they can only respond to NR weighing in the 2AR, not make new weighing.

think about it. one of the reasons local/lay circuits are so often thought to be unjust is because of the acceptance of new arguments in function in the 2AR (this takes out that, this is the most important). Even though those arguments may have existed in some form prior in the debate, they are now being given new extrapolation and in round function in the 2AR. When this occurs and is allowed, it is most certainly an abuse of the affirmative's right to speak last.

On the other hand, we have to stop giving negatives so much credit. I am totally unimpressed when the the NC is 7 min of text with no weighing, or with very shallow weighing. The proper way to weigh is contextually, specifically, and by comparing the DETAILS of evidence, not using buzzwords. The buzzwords are just claims, they're supposed to have warrants behind them. Without specific and detailed weighing there are no warrants.

On balance I believe most debaters to be bad at weighing. Being good at weighing is awesome though.

[Tyler Haulotte]

First off, judges always hold some discretion over which arguments they consider. If it were as simple as "there is weighing in the 2AR which the neg can't respond to, so it must be true" then a reasonably good aff could always win. Of course, that would be a problem with or without weighing. If judges automatically bought 2AR arguments then any aff that made responses to all (important) arguments in the NR would always win, no weighing required.

Second, the NR's burden isn't unreasonable. If you claim to outweigh on reversibility, you don't need to go through and individually explain "reversibility precedes timeframe", "reversibility precedes magnitude", "reversibility precedes probability", etc. You just need to make the argument that reversibility comes first (because you prioritizing irreversible impacts allows you to solve both or for whatever reason). Conversely, if you don't believe that to be viable, then you can put the 2AR in the same bind by doing your own weighing on multiple levels. If you claim to outweigh on scope, timeframe, and probability with your systemic impacts, then not only have you seriously limited the potential weighing standards the 2AR can choose from, but you've also forced them to explain why whatever standard they claim to be outweighing on precedes each of your standards. Especially if you have multiple impacts in the NR, this puts the aff in a serious bind.

Finally, yes, this is probably aff biased, but the alternative (forcing the aff to weigh both in the 1AR and the 2AR) is neg biased (if debatably to a lesser extent), and I think an aff bias is preferable since it mitigates the current neg skew present in LD whereas neg biased paradigms just further it.

Judges holding discretion over which new evaluation arguments to buy in the 2ar doesn't sound fun. As bad as the argument is used in debate, there's no brightline on what judges can and cannot accept. I just don't like the idea of making debate judging more subjective as opposed to objective.

I think the NRs burden is kind of unreasonable. While I can make "reversibility comes first" arguments, the aff can find a standard that wouldn't apply under the logic given. I understand that under your interpretation NRs CAN win the weighing game, the thing is that the aff gets to make a new argument for prioritizing their arguments when I can't respond. Like I referenced earlier, I think your logic would justify new framework arguments in the 2ar because the 1ar is hard so they don't have to prioritize arguments.

I don't think my option is neg bias, rather, it's just not bias at all. Both debaters have to weigh twice. While affs are at a structural disadvantage I think there are better ways to combat it, preclusion, weighing, root cause arguments, delinking, etc.

[classof2012]

Judges holding discretion over which new evaluation arguments to buy in the 2ar doesn't sound fun. As bad as the argument is used in debate, there's no brightline on what judges can and cannot accept. I just don't like the idea of making debate judging more subjective as opposed to objective.

Like I said, judges holding discretion is inevitable. If the judge always bought 2AR arguments because the neg doesn't get to respond, then any 2AR that could put a response on every issue would win. Also, in many cases (such as 1AR theory or other arguments that start in the rebuttals) you will be seeing new arguments and responses up to the 2AR. If judges were perfectly "objective" then the aff would always win on 1AR theory since the unresponded-to 2AR responses would always get full weight.

I think the NRs burden is kind of unreasonable. While I can make "reversibility comes first" arguments, the aff can find a standard that wouldn't apply under the logic given. I understand that under your interpretation NRs CAN win the weighing game, the thing is that the aff gets to make a new argument for prioritizing their arguments when I can't respond.

I think you're majorly over-estimating the strength of the 2AR. I don't see how, after you make a good "X comes first" argument, the aff can so easily find a standard to which that argument doesn't apply AND show that the AC impacts clearly outweigh on that standard.

Again, you can also effectively pre-empt this by doing your own weighing on multiple levels. This not only limits the available standards for the 2AR to outweigh on, but also forces them to prove that the standard they chose is comparatively more important than each of the standards you set up. That's a lot of work for the 2AR to do while also winning the framework + impacts and whatever else is in the debate.

Finally, you could circumvent this entirely by doing the weighing and meta-weighing in the NC. If the 1AR concedes that reversibility comes first and that you outweigh on reversibility, there's nothing they can do in the 2AR to outweigh. This forces them to do weighing in the 1AR or not at all.

Like I referenced earlier, I think your logic would justify new framework arguments in the 2ar because the 1ar is hard so they don't have to prioritize arguments.

If I'm understanding your argument properly, this is only possible if you for some reason didn't have framework in the NC. If you did, they can't concede it in the 1AR then decide to respond in the 2AR. Also, framework is something that can be in the AC. Weighing isn't.

I don't think my option is neg bias, rather, it's just not bias at all. Both debaters have to weigh twice. While affs are at a structural disadvantage I think there are better ways to combat it, preclusion, weighing, root cause arguments, delinking, etc.

1. The status quo is neg biased, so even if your specific interpretation of weighing isn't neg biased, the net-effect is a negative side bias.
2. The neg has the major advantage in weighing (a) because they can devote far more time to weighing, meaning it can be more in depth and on multiple levels, and (b) the negative can choose the NC strategy after hearing the AC, so they can choose to read impacts that most effectively outweigh.

[Rebar Niemi]

when you say "multiple levels of weighing" please tell me you don't mean magnitude, reversibility, AND timeframe.

[classof2012]

when you say "multiple levels of weighing" please tell me you don't mean magnitude, reversibility, AND timeframe.

Where'd you get that idea? I clearly meant magnitude, reversibility, and probability.