homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Fri Feb 23, 2018 3:24 pm
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Reverse Voting Issue?
PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 6:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:14 pm
Posts: 798
Home Schooled: Yes
I had never heard of a reverse voting issue (RVI) until my last tournament. My partner and I ran T against a slightly squirrelly case. When I talked about T in my 1NC I mentioned how it's a priori. The aff said in the 2AC that it's not fair for T to be a priori for the aff and not for the neg. In other words, it wouldn't be fair for the aff to lose the T argument, win everything else, and lose the round while the neg could lose some arguments, win T, and win the round. The aff also said that voting against an aff on the basis of T is like a punishment, or something like that.

We won the round on T and a couple other arguments, but I'm curious about the legitimacy of reverse voting issues. Are RVIs commonly accepted debate theory?

_________________
Laura

COG Author | NCFCA Alumna | Wife and Mother


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 9:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:21 pm
Posts: 806
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Running the opposite way
bigsister23 wrote:
I had never heard of a reverse voting issue (RVI) until my last tournament. My partner and I ran T against a slightly squirrelly case. When I talked about T in my 1NC I mentioned how it's a priori. The aff said in the 2AC that it's not fair for T to be a priori for the aff and not for the neg. In other words, it wouldn't be fair for the aff to lose the T argument, win everything else, and lose the round while the neg could lose some arguments, win T, and win the round. The aff also said that voting against an aff on the basis of T is like a punishment, or something like that.

We won the round on T and a couple other arguments, but I'm curious about the legitimacy of reverse voting issues. Are RVIs commonly accepted debate theory?

1. That's ridiculous. T is a priori. That's not abusive, that's fact. What's abusive is presenting a non-topical case, not pointing it out and winning on it. What's next? "Vote aff b/c they only proved that our plan would destroy the universe! That's only one point! We won BOTH our harms! That's two points! WE WINNN!!!!" "Vote aff b/c they only proved our plan won't solve for a single one of the advantages we claim! BUT WE WON SIGNIFICANCE!!!" -_-
2. Oh... wait... I guess everything is a moot point after point #1. ;)

Maybe this is just an example of someone using RVI's horribly... but yeah, if someone could explain RVI's and why/if they're legit, that would be awesome. I'm not too familiar with that portion of debate theory.

_________________
"Don't waste your life making yourself look good. Spend your life making God look good."
--John Piper


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:00 pm 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2955
Home Schooled: Yes
Better RVI:

a. Topicality is not black and white. e.g. a plan to build freeways is more abusive than a plan to extend the Space Transportation System past 2011, even though neither is topical. The difference is that the USFG does have a space shuttle related policy toward Russia, so Space Transportation System extension is somewhat predictable and applicable to literature regarding the contract with Russia. [This especially works if neg reads cards against the case.]

b. Breadth is better than depth. In-depth knowledge of obscure policies is useless after the current season ends, but the ability to keep a wide breadth of information straight in one's mind and to prepare against a variety of arguments stays with one for a lifetime. By expanding the horizons of debate instead of being closed-minded like neg, aff makes debate more exciting and educational.

I profusely disagree with each of these points, but I would vote aff in a heartbeat solely on this RVI unless neg runs real T impacts. Jurisdiction or "2 negs" don't qualify as real impacts.

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:54 pm
Posts: 1074
Home Schooled: Yes
The A point isn't actually an RVI; at the absolute most, it's a "no-voter" argument, and I don't think you can even make it stretch that far. "We're not as abusive as we could be" doesn't respond to "topicality is still black and white because if you aren't topical your plan text still isn't 100% predictable."

_________________
-Chris


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:57 pm 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2955
Home Schooled: Yes
I guess (a) is meant to spike the neg argument that if we justify one non-topical case, then we justify all non-topical cases. The point is that the benefits of predictability can be weighed against the benefits of the surprise factor, in contrast to the neg assumption that the entire surprise factor is bad. The plan text might be 70% predictable, which is fair enough by aff's standard.

Again, though, I disagree completely with every part of the argument I'm describing. Its premises are false, but it is a logically valid argument that can win the round if not refuted.

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 1:15 am 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
Elliot and Luke beat Daniel and I in quarters at Fredericksburg by turning a K. That's legit.

But turning T isn't. That's just ridiculous.

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 6:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:23 am
Posts: 1300
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning
thehomeschooler wrote:
But turning T isn't. That's just ridiculous.


If you think it's ridiculous then perhaps you could explain why. Otherwise you're making unwarranted assertions.

_________________
Middlebury Class of '15


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 2:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:02 am
Posts: 635
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: South Carolina
The problem with RVI's that I see is that it gives the Aff's an automatic win for something that should be assumed coming into the round in the first place. We ran T against a team utilizing RVI theory and the way they presented it was that IF T is a priori then which ever team wins the T argument should win the round.

Problem...aff is supposed to be T when they walk into the room. T is assumed innocent until proven guilty...kinda. So if aff does win T then we are simply establishing a fact that should have been blatantly obvious when the round began.

It's like saying that because Aff is prima facie/solvent (sorta a priori) for the plan then they automatically get a win even when the DA's outweigh like nobody's biznez or when the problem is so ridiculously small that no one cares if they have solvency to begin with.

Aff is supposed to be within the rounds of the rez...if they're not, then they fall outside the bounds of it...exploding the ground and a vote for the case legitimizes all sorts of extraneous and "un-applicable" cases in the future. That's why it's a priori. If they are T, however, then fantastic...we can actually talk about the policy...which is what we should have been doing in the first place but because aff's T was so fuzzy they wasted neg time talking about that instead of why the policy sucks...or whatever.

_________________
God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist.
- Saint Augustine


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 3:45 pm 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
FRANK wrote:
thehomeschooler wrote:
But turning T isn't. That's just ridiculous.


If you think it's ridiculous then perhaps you could explain why. Otherwise you're making unwarranted assertions.

I think I misunderstood the OP :P

I thought Laura was saying that neg said: "If we prove that we are T, we win the round -- even if we lose on everything else."

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 4:19 pm 
Offline
Cupcake
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:08 pm
Posts: 1211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Illinois
Just one thing: the OP example is NOT an RVI.

That's probably been established, but just in case it hasn't.

_________________
Drew Chambers
LinkedIn


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:02 am
Posts: 635
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: South Carolina
yeah...sorry 'bout that.

Give me a hypothetical example with a legitimate RVI? I'm honestly not very familiar with the theory and haven't read/watched lots RVI stuff

_________________
God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist.
- Saint Augustine


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 10:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:14 pm
Posts: 798
Home Schooled: Yes
Drew wrote:
Just one thing: the OP example is NOT an RVI.

That's probably been established, but just in case it hasn't.

Honestly, I'm not exactly sure WHAT that example was. :P They called it a reverse voting issue, so that's what I titled the topic. I apologize for any confusion that created.

Also, I'd like to second Nate's request for an example of a good RVI.

_________________
Laura

COG Author | NCFCA Alumna | Wife and Mother


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:00 pm 
Offline
Epicness at its awesomest
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:20 pm
Posts: 866
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Party Region (R8ght)
Perhaps I can oblige.

I've always sucked at the framework type build, but this is the logical gist of one.

Basically, using T as the scenario, let us say the T is totally dumb and OBVIOUSLY just a time-suck but it's run in such a way that it takes fifteen seconds to run but at least a minute to properly respond too.

Now where RVI's become useful is in the concept that A-Priori arguments, even blatantly false ones, the neg can run all they want, and still win the round even if they lose the argument, whereas if aff drops any of them, then they lose, period.
So what an RVI says is, ok, if this is such a big deal to the negative, and they realy wanna talk about a-priori stuff, then fine judge, let's MAKE this a-priori. Whoever wins this should win the round, because this is a blatantly obvious waste of aff time so we drop or undercover some more legit argument, at no cost to the negative team. [Because right now the a-priori is a one way street.] This allows for retarded time sucking/abuse, as this idiotic t press shows, so if the neg wants to make a big deal out of a-priori and how T is the most important thing in the round, then fine, whoever wins T ought to win the round.
::insert response to the T press, and then move on::

Now, I have no idea what it's like in a framework/standard type setting, so perhaps Drew or someone else could fill that in for me, but that's what an RVI is in conversational mode.

_________________
Some days, words are not enough.

- Five year alumni turned debate coach.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 4:14 pm
Posts: 798
Home Schooled: Yes
Jacob Dean wrote:
Perhaps I can oblige.

Thank you.

Jacob Dean wrote:
I've always sucked at the framework type build, but this is the logical gist of one.

Basically, using T as the scenario, let us say the T is totally dumb and OBVIOUSLY just a time-suck but it's run in such a way that it takes fifteen seconds to run but at least a minute to properly respond too.

Now where RVI's become useful is in the concept that A-Priori arguments, even blatantly false ones, the neg can run all they want, and still win the round even if they lose the argument, whereas if aff drops any of them, then they lose, period.

Okay, this is where you lost me. Are you saying that the neg can run a priori arguments all they want, lose those arguments, and still win the round on those points? I think what you're getting at is the idea that negs can lose T but win something else, say DAs, and win the round. How is that unfair?

Jacob Dean wrote:
So what an RVI says is, ok, if this is such a big deal to the negative, and they realy wanna talk about a-priori stuff, then fine judge, let's MAKE this a-priori. Whoever wins this should win the round, because this is a blatantly obvious waste of aff time so we drop or undercover some more legit argument, at no cost to the negative team. [Because right now the a-priori is a one way street.] This allows for retarded time sucking/abuse, as this idiotic t press shows, so if the neg wants to make a big deal out of a-priori and how T is the most important thing in the round, then fine, whoever wins T ought to win the round.
::insert response to the T press, and then move on::

Let's say the neg brought up T with other arguments. Would you still run a RVI? Is T just a stupid time sucker when run alone? Under what circumstances does T become silly?

_________________
Laura

COG Author | NCFCA Alumna | Wife and Mother


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:39 pm 
Offline
Epicness at its awesomest
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:20 pm
Posts: 866
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Party Region (R8ght)
Quote:
Okay, this is where you lost me. Are you saying that the neg can run a priori arguments all they want, lose those arguments, and still win the round on those points? I think what you're getting at is the idea that negs can lose T but win something else, say DAs, and win the round. How is that unfair?


To the first question, I am, and they can.

If a neg runs T, three solv and two da's, and lose T, the round isn't over for them.
Whereas, a team could hypothetically lose two of the solv and one of the DA's and still win, but if they lose T, it's game over. This doesn't sound bad to YOU, because we aren't that T crazed in region 8, whereas in places like cali, they run it all. the. friggin. time.

Where it becomes unfair is WHEN teams run one or multiple [running multiple t presses is so much fun :) ] presses that are blatantly obvious time waisting arguments designed to make the aff undercover something else because the entire round hinges on those arguments. Technically not illegal, but only because there are technically no rules. Running T presses strictly for the sake of screwing with the 2AC/1AR's time is unethical.

I would like to stress, the fact that negs don't lose if they lose T is not unfair, it's when they take advantage of that fact. it would be like running three T presses on jackson-vanick. They're ludicrous, but you'd better respond to all of them or it's game over.

Quote:
Let's say the neg brought up T with other arguments. Would you still run a RVI? Is T just a stupid time sucker when run alone? Under what circumstances does T become silly?

Yes. T with no other arguments doesn't call for an RVI because there isn't a time skew made - you address the one argument and sit down.
It CAN be stupid when run alone, but if a team runs T by itself, then it's likely they don't have anything else, so yelling about time sucks isn't going to be on the forefront of my mind at that point :P

_________________
Some days, words are not enough.

- Five year alumni turned debate coach.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 3:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:02 am
Posts: 635
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: South Carolina
Jacob, the reason why it's a priori is becuz it's aff's 1st burden. Meet the friggin' rez. Neg's shouldn't loose automatically simply because the aff actually did what they were supposed to and met the rez.
Basically, it's illegit to punish the neg because the affirmative actually did their job and upheld the resolution. Meeting the resolution simply allows everybody to get passed T and move on to the actual policy discussion

_________________
God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist.
- Saint Augustine


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 3:47 pm 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
What are we debating? What is the question posed to us (rather, the judge)? Whether or not we should affirm the rez. So if the "affirmative" team is going to ask the judge to vote for their plan, it'd better equate voting for the rez. That just makes sense.

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 3:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:17 pm
Posts: 1547
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Researching...
At what point does a T-press become "just a waste of time" used by the Negative to just win the round? Can a case legitimately have 4 T-presses? (yes, because I won all four of them last year in two different rounds.)

I'm not seeing how one establishes that a T-press is illegitimate. Obviously, the Affirmative is going to think they are. And I'm pretty sure it's just as obvious that the Neg won't.

Delta_FC

_________________
Cartman wrote:
Josh R.

Dawn wrote:
Josh R

Yes?
+X wrote:
Hm. Eminem/MNM would mean Delta F_C... oF course

Join the epidemic
Variola Eradication, Geneva, May 2011


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 4:23 pm 
Offline
Epicness at its awesomest
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 11:20 pm
Posts: 866
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Party Region (R8ght)
Well DUH. That's why it's a debate. You aren't supposed to use them all the time - cybersecurity and stop nato expansion has zero right to run them. It's up to aff to define and duke it out.

And don't hate on me - I didn't invent this theory; I simply learned it at PHC. ;)


What you guys are doing is using the justifications for running T, which are all excellent and correct and I agree with you - what you're ignoring is the T presses that are OBVIOUSLY retarded. You all have seen them before. [Except maybe Preston. ;) ] A "line" doesn't exist, but you listen and basically end up with a bitter oh please aftertaste. That's what the purpose of an RVI is - it's a punishment on negs who abuse the apriori concept of T as much as voting neg on T is a punishment on aff for waisting everyones time with a case that has crap to do with why we're here in the first place.

Sure, there's not a LINE for that, but that's the job of an aff to provide one. And considering we beat Rentchler/Schirmer at F-Series running cybersec where the entire round was theory and DA's, [yes I know I said you shouldn't run it with a case like that, but I wanted to experiment], it's a very viable argument when implemented correctly.

_________________
Some days, words are not enough.

- Five year alumni turned debate coach.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 4:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:02 am
Posts: 635
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: South Carolina
I understand where you're coming from...and sometimes T is stupid. But most of the time it is somewhat justified.
I disagree with the theory becuz I don't like the results. The justification is there but the effects are unwarranted.

_________________
God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist.
- Saint Augustine


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited