ERIC Number: ED250732
Record Type: RIE
Publication Date: 1984-Nov
Reference Count: 0
Theoretical Considerations and Standards for the Use of Turnarounds.
Olson, Clark D.
The term "turnaround" has taken a permanent place among the intercollegiate debate jargon. All too often, the first affirmative rebuttalists charge "turnaround" for every plan or response they do not know how to label properly. After so many "false alarms," judges are too weary or aggravated to notice the real thing, and many judges are commenting on this problem in their debate philosophies. For these reasons, there should be some uniform criteria for turnarounds, so that debaters and judges alike can distinguish real turnarounds from fake ones. A disadvantage may be turned in either of two ways: (1) if debaters turn the "links" to the disadvantage, they claim that it is not the affirmative plan that will accrue the disadvantage, but rather the very system--whether the status quo or the counterplan--the negative team is defending; (2) should debaters turn the "impact" of the advantage, they claim that the resulting impact of the disadvantage is really not the evil the negative team has disguised it to be, but actually provides even greater advantages than the affirmative had claimed. One way to judge turnarounds is to determine whether they meet the prima facie burdens of the affirmative argument. That is, a turnaround must have supporting evidence and adequate explanation, it must be topical, and its impact must outweigh the other disadvantages, or at least do so coupled with the remaining case significance. (HTH)
Publication Type: Opinion Papers; Speeches/Meeting Papers
Education Level: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers: Debate Format; Debate Strategy; Turnarounds (Debate)
Note: Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Speech Communication Association (70th, Chicago, IL, November 1-4, 1984).