Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'judge'.
Found 1 result
The hardest part of evaluating a debate is when people don't properly extend an argument. Often, I seem to either intervene on one side to extend the argument for them or intervene on the other to reject an improper extension. For example: 1AR: "Extend the link turn: immigrants help the economy. They do complementary jobs and increase innovation, that was Jones 18. Their evidence assumes a finite pool of jobs, but immigration expands the labor market. Our evidence is a peer reviewed meta analysis of hundreds of studies. Their authors are alt-right bloggers." 2NR: "Extend the link: immigrants reduce wages. Next..." 2AR: *drops the link debate Is there a link? If I say no link, I'm saying the 2NR extension didn't have a warrant, which is an argument the 2AR didn't make, so intervention. If I say yes link, I'm intervening to extend the neg's argument for them even though the 2NR had zero warrant.