The rationale behind the regulation on “Turns” is the same as limiting ADs/DAs: To promote meaningful clashes.
In the past, bad spreads of so called "turns" happened in Japanese collegiate policy debate. Most of the so called "turns" are essentially new AD/Das in the Attack speeches. however, past experience tells that allowing them has the risk of spreads of miserable AD,DAs with little uniqueness and or link. We shouldn't let that happen, as it never contributes much for meaningful clashes; they are just presented for the sake of expecting the opponents to unintentionally drop.
1. “turns” and “attacks”
But in high school debates, reality is that most of the "turns" are not proclaimed as such and presented as attacks, without any bad intention of sneaking the “turns” in. We suggest that in most cases the judges don't have to distinguish turns and normal attacks on the b) effect. So the general attitude is, please treat them as “attacks”.
For example: An attack "work. hour reg. is actually counterintuitively increasing the actual work hours" this may be called "link turns" in some sense, but the judge can treat them as the attack on effect (but the maximum effect is to make the AD/DA zero, not to flip them)
2. value turns
The “value turns” essentially should be about principles.
(Regardless of what the high school student presents as C) importance. The initial constructive speech presentation quite often confuses b) effects with c) importance=values. Don’t be too caught up by the students’ presentation of b) and c). Distinguish the factual parts and the value parts. )
Examples of value turns should be:
*Importance: We should protect the environment:
Value Turn: Environmentalism degrades humanity.
*Growth is good.
VT: Economic growth is a destructive standard for human happiness.
*We should avoid karoshi
VT: Limiting freedom to work long hours is a serious breach of freedom to choose whatever happiness we choose.
3. “turns” that should be discouraged.
"Capitalism causes environmental destruction" example (quite often seen in college debate as impact turns) is actually not a genuine value turn. It needs a lot of factual evidence about the effects(link) = a sloppy additional DA or AD, This is exactly the kind of sloppy additional "link turns" that we want to discourage. This needs much proof on effect and more serious explanation of why environment should be protected (it will take at least 2min.) Judges should take lightly about this kind of sloppy arguments and are justified to ignore them as "link turns".
So in sum:
1. Be tolerant enough on unintentional turns on links = treat them as attacks.
2. Welcome good genuine value turns: which extends debate in the value realm
3. Be harsher toward opportunistic "turns"= sloppy AD/DAs
> My question is about "highly professional workers."
> After the resolution is adopted, those workers should work weekly max 48h
> or are they exempted because they are "discretionary labors"?
Thanks for the Q
Please refer to the DEF. Table 1
They will not be exempted by AFF
(an important plan difference between AFF/NEG)
Under the HEnDA rules, the impact turn is allowed while the link turn is not. Then the following question comes to my mind.
Affirmative Plan -> less workloads -> more creative ideas -> new products attract more demand -> Impact [higher growth rate]
Then the negative side may show impact flip, saying ”higher growth rate is bad for environments”
Aff plan ->... -> higher growth rate -> Impact [higher incomes]
In this case, the negative can't offer the same turn, because this will be the link turn.
Then example 3, what if the affirmative side put the last 2 steps to the section of the Impact?
Aff plan ->... -> Impact [higher growth rate -> higher incomes]
In this case, can the negative deliver the turn of ”higher growth rate is bad for environments”?
To be consistent with Example 3, such an attack should be ignored. But is it fine for we judges to do so without notifying this to the debaters?
Hello, I'm Takafumi Yoshimura from Fukuoka Prefecture.
My question is about "highly professional workers."
After the resolution is adopted, those workers should work weekly max 48h
or are they exempted because they are "discretionary labors"?
Q Can Doctors work more than 48h under this topic?
As shown in the definition, it actually depends on whether they do
important "on-call" jobs.
Not all doctors will be permitted to work more than 48h.
Needless to say, doctors who are self-practicing are not employees so
they are out of this topic.
Thanks for accepting the role as judges for the HEnDA nationals.
We do have a judge meeting but there is absolutely no time to get in to the debate issues, such as questions on the details of the definitions, rules etc.
I will try the quite out of fashion way - the free BBS.
Please share your questions, I or the more experienced judges will try to clarify your questions, before seeing you in Gunma on Xmas day.