Common Mistakes of BPF Anna Dotsenko for NUDA

Common Mistakes of BPF Anna Dotsenko for NUDA 2015 @ Astana, KZ

OPENING GOVERNMENT

1) An Opening Government that fails to provide a model and a definition is automatically last in the debate I agree I disagree

2) No one, under any circumstances, is allowed to challenge the definition given by the Prime Minister I agree I disagree

3) A team in first proposition is allowed to make all their arguments in the first speaker's speech and supply the model/ policy in the second speaker's speech. I agree I disagree

4) There is no such thing as a 'status quo' at a major international tournament when discussing domestic policy I agree I disagree

5) The motion is: THBT The state should pay for cosmetic surgery. First proposition offers a model under which states should give any cosmetic procedure for free to any of its citizens above the age of twelve. The leader of the opposition accuses the proposition of squirreling on two counts. Firstly, the model proposed does not give cosmetic surgery to foreigners or children which are clearly examples of the state paying for plastic surgery. Secondly, the model does not make clear how the state will raise money for the scheme. Nonetheless, the leader of opposition argues, the opposition will debate the motion as proposed. Which of these is true? This definition was not a squirrel. The leader of the opposition was wrong to complain. This definition was not quite a squirrel, though it was clearly not in the spirit of the motion. The leader of the opposition did the right thing in complaining about the debate but debating it nonetheless. The motion is a squirrel, but only for the first reason listed above. The motion is a squirrel for both of the reasons above taken together.

CLOSING TEAMS

1) An extension has to include wholly new arguments, which have not been raised by the opening team I agree I disagree

2) New material brought by a closing team is considered an extension even if it is not presented as such I agree I disagree

3) The motion is: THW Ban all prisoners from voting. First proposition argue that prisoners are generally bad people and will vote for immoral policies. First opposition neither agree nor disagree with first proposition’s claim that prisoners will vote for immoral policies. Instead, first opposition claim that prisoners have a fundamental right to vote, regardless of whether or not prisoners vote for immoral policies. Second opposition’s extension speaker argues that first proposition are wrong and that prisoners will vote for moral policies if given the chance. He makes NO mention of rights during his speech. During his speech, the Prime Minister offers a POI, which is accepted. The Prime Minister claims that second opposition has just ‘knifed’ (contradicted) the team in first opposition. Which of these is true? It’s not a knife. Second opposition have added another line of attack against the proposition case. It is a knife, but it’s too late to point this out. Knife calls can only come in the first two teams (‘top half’) of BP debating. It depends. If second proposition’s summary speaker makes reference to the knife in her speech, then you can declare that there has been a knife. Otherwise, no. The motion is irredeemably flawed as it asks first proposition to affirm the status quo. Under such circumstances, the judge should attempt to rebalance the motion’s fairness and give special consideration for the position the opposition teams were in. It was a knife, but it was a forgivable one.

4) Better analysis and development of existing arguments can count as an extension. I agree I disagree

5) Opposition whip must not add anything new, and can only repeat what has already been said I agree I disagree

6) The motion is THBT: The Middle East should be a nuclear-free zone. Second opposition’s summation speaker suggests that the Palestinian Authority currently possesses a large nuclear arsenal, which it must preserve for its own defence. This suggestion has not appeared yet in the debate, though second opposition’s extension has made ample reference to the fact that many non-state actors would benefit from possessing nuclear weapons. What should the judge do? Give the argument no credit. Unfortunately, new examples are not allowed in summation speeches. Give the argument no credit. An average intelligent voter would find this argument completely false. Give the argument partial credit. This is a new argument, but it should have been anticipated by the other side, so they are also to blame if they failed to address the issue. Give the argument full credit. As it is a new line of analysis rather than a discrete argument, the summation speaker has brought to light an important example and deserves credit for it.

7) Which of these statements about opposition whip speeches is incorrect? They are allowed to contain new rebuttals. They are allowed to contain new examples. They are the only speech, which the judge is allowed to assess using her own specific values, knowledge, and opinions as it is the last speech in the debate. They must not present entirely new arguments.

ARGUMENTATION

1) An argument that is brought as constructive material is always more important than an argument brought in rebuttal I agree I disagree

2) Opposition must show that the proposition is harmful to defeat the proposition I agree I disagree

3) If 3 teams talk about one issue and one team focuses on another, then the other team is off-clash and will lose the debate I agree I disagree

4) A point should be presented and explained somewhere in the middle of the speech. A point that is brilliantly analyzed but is only presented after 6 minutes will not serve to better the chances of the team. I agree I disagree

5) The claim "facebook is an agent capable of transcending physical boundaries and is thus the world's first and foremost prospect of reaching global social cohesion" is better analyzed than the claim "facebook can bring people together who are far away from each other and because of that it has a very good chance of brining the people of the world together" I agree I disagree

6) Negating the opposing team's arguments is just as important as bringing your own substantive arguments I agree I disagree

7) A team that makes irrelevant but interesting arguments in a round should be rewarded. I agree I disagree

8) If a first opposition team makes very good arguments but those arguments are never referenced by any of the other teams in the round, then first opposition cannot come 1 st in that round. I agree I disagree

9) The adjudicator may not give full credit to a very good argument that begins after 7 minutes 10 seconds of a speaker's speech. I agree I disagree

ADJUDICATION

1) Style should not be a factor in determining a winner in debates, it should just be used in speaker points I agree I disagree

2) When one speaker in a team massively contradicts their partner, but no other team in the debate notices it, an adjudicator can carry on as if it didn't happen. I agree I disagree

3) If you do not take a POI during your speech, and all other speakers accept at least one POI, your team will receive an automatic 4 th I agree I disagree