homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Fri Feb 23, 2018 10:00 am
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  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:09 am
Posts: 494
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Turning invisible
All right, suppose an Affirmative team presents a case you believe has already been passed (yes, Smith Amendment, I'm looking at you). If you wish to run Inherency, DA's are no longer an option. By the same token, Solvency will also conflict with your Inherency argument. Significance and Topicality are not necessarily applicable.

You have 16 minutes of constructive time to fill and only one argument to fill it with. What do you do?

_________________
~Caleb M. Peña, PROBE, STOA

O God, grant what Thou dost command, and command what Thou wilt -- Augustine


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 12:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:17 pm
Posts: 1547
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Researching...
Shell it out in such a way that everything under the topic is covered as far as it possibly can.

If you've got T (and that's it), for instance, I'd shell it out with a very lengthy version.

If you have inherency, I would just impact that in as many ways as possible to fill up the time. Point out to the judge that no other arguments apply, and because of this, the Affirmative has stolen your ground, because as the Negative, you're both having to defend the squo and indict it now, too.

:shrug:

Go verbose.

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: Wed Feb 16, 2011 1:05 am 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2955
Home Schooled: Yes
A 3 minute constructive is amazing if those 3 minutes are occupied by argumentation sufficient to warrant a negative ballot. I would point out in my speech that the fact that the constructive only needs to be 3 minutes is additional verification that aff's case does not warrant an aff ballot. After all, there is very little to refute. Plus, you might get out early and have time to watch the rebuttals of a friend's LD round (assuming LD is double-flighted). :)

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 1:46 am 
Offline
Laugh, or I will kill you
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:33 pm
Posts: 2492
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: College in San Diego Baby!
Tier 3 is the same way.

I intend to write up a big inherency post as soon as Highlands is over, because very few get it or care about it. For now, I don't think judges will mind if you just keep developing, and show that no matter how you look at it, the affirmative teams plan has been passed. Just keep going and going, and judges won't mind. Besides, if you develop it for that long, then an affirmative simply won't be able to respond (Assuming you're correct that is ;))

_________________
+X wrote:
Oh, come now, Daniel. Your mafia playing habits make you a no-good double-crossing manipulative liar. But I would never call you a jerk!

;) <3


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 2:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 1394
Home Schooled: Yes
You can do a double bind. "AFF plan is being/was passed. Oh, and btw, it doesn't work."

_________________
Andrew Min
ahmin@princeton.edu
Arete Speech & Debate, NCFCA, Class of 2011


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
^^double-bind is good.

Two other ways to run contradictory arguments as neg:
1. Conitionality. The theory is that no one position constitutes negative advocacy. In other words, unlike the affirmative, the negative has the right to sever out of any arguments at any time with no consequences. This means you can run contradictory positions and then kick whichever one is weaker and win on the one(s) they undercovered or dropped.

Another way is to argue neg arguments don't interact. Basically the theory block is, "Look, we're not the affirmative. We don't have to present an internally consistent case. Our job is to negate the case and give you as many reasons as we can to vote negative. If that means running inh with DAs, that's fine. Our arguments should be viewed in a vacuum, not as a whole."

Click for what to do if you're feeling really frisky
(I don't necessarily suggest this). Let's say the aff case is Tier-3, which is already passed. You run:
T on change/Inherency takeout
Conditional PIC (plan-inclusive counterplan) to pass plan in a year.
DA based on putting Russia on T3 now (we're on the brink of war now, yadda yadda yadda)
DAs off Tier-3 itself
solvency takeouts

The basic story is this:
2NC-
Kick T, saying its a test to link them into the timeframe DA
Extend and do line-by-line on everything
Explain the idea of a conditional counterplan--that no one thing is your advocacy until the rebuttals. You're neg--you can make as many ways to win as you want!!

1NR-
Depending on which position is stronger, you either:
Kick all the DAs and solvency against T3, extend through the PIC and timeframe DA
Kick the PIC and timeframe DA, say its not your advocacy, then extend the T3 DAs and solvency takeouts

That way the aff will likely be super confused the entire round (and, unless you have a college judge, most likely the judge will be confused too), and will undercover one of the arguments. Once they do that you're golden going into the rebuttals. Oh, and you'll have to know some theory and perametrics to explain why the CP is competitive, non-topical, and not mutually exclusive.

_________________
-Bryan
Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

Google it, we're the second link that pops up. We're pretty proud of that.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 4:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
I say you almost never plan to win a round on that type of inherency argument. In perhaps 1% of cases the aff team won't know it, but the rest of the time they do and they have some clever response and HOPE you run inherency. In which case you want to be nuanced:

- The Status Quo is moving the same direction (inherency)
- Which means it's solving the harms (impact to Significance)
- Run DAs on having multiple solutions to the same problem (b/c they'll respond "the SQ isn't EXACTLY the same as our plan"). Here you can whip out all kinds of historical precedent and examples.

_________________
Upside Down Debate. The book that teaches you the deeper why of debate, from the ground up.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 1394
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
I say you almost never plan to win a round on that type of inherency argument. In perhaps 1% of cases the aff team won't know it, but the rest of the time they do and they have some clever response and HOPE you run inherency.


Isaiah has a good point. Most people do read HSD, or have hit people who have run arguments from HSD. They also read sourcebooks :P

Usually, if there's a "killer" argument (especially if it's on HSD or in an sb) against a case being run by a good team, the card isn't very killer. At the very least, they'll have a response.

_________________
Andrew Min
ahmin@princeton.edu
Arete Speech & Debate, NCFCA, Class of 2011


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 5:19 pm 
Offline
Evil Democrat
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:23 am
Posts: 3334
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Advancing the gay agenda
Wait... Russia was put on tier 3?

How am I so out of the loop?

Someone link me up.

_________________
josephsamelson.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 7:43 pm 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2955
Home Schooled: Yes
Um, guys? Russia is on the Tier 2 watch list (p. 286) as of June 14, 2010.

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 9:20 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
Apparently, the William Wilberforce Act states that a country who has been on Tier 2 for two years will be moved to Tier 3. I just heard this -- IDK where the evidence is...

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:50 pm 
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
Halogen wrote:
Um, guys? Russia is on the Tier 2 watch list (p. 286) as of June 14, 2010.


For the moment, but as of February 1st 2011, the policy is to automatically downgrade countries that have been on the watch list for two years, which Russia has.

_________________
Middlebury Class of '15


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 5:37 am
Posts: 767
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 2, Washington
I don't know if this is stupid of me or not, but:

What I would do is say "Their case is not inherent. BUT EVEN IF IT WAS... disads, solvency, bla bla bla."

_________________
Potent Speaking: the only debate website exclusively dedicated to speaking tips. http://potentspeaking.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Feb 22, 2011 6:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 3:52 am
Posts: 636
Home Schooled: Yes
Zealous1 wrote:
I don't know if this is stupid of me or not, but:

What I would do is say "Their case is not inherent. BUT EVEN IF IT WAS... disads, solvency, bla bla bla."

That's not stupid at all. It's called Hypothesis Testing.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 23, 2011 2:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:00 am
Posts: 1406
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: King's College, Manhattan, NYC
Flash of light wrote:
Zealous1 wrote:
I don't know if this is stupid of me or not, but:

What I would do is say "Their case is not inherent. BUT EVEN IF IT WAS... disads, solvency, bla bla bla."

That's not stupid at all. It's called Hypothesis Testing.

That would be the correct thing to do.
Test it against reality: in court, lawyers will argue things such as, for example...'my client stayed here all day, and couldn't have committed the crime in question. And even if my client WAS there, he was there at a completely different time hours beforehand, and left hours beforehand, and couldn't have committed the crime.' They're contradictory, but you can make both arguments to cover your basis just in case they defeat your inherency argument.

_________________
Two hundred degrees, that's why they call me Mr. Fahrenheit.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 8:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:54 am
Posts: 321
Home Schooled: Yes
So if inherency is your only argument, how would you guys shell out your constructives? I mean...it's hard to fill 16 minutes with "Dude, your plan has been passed."

So, how would you guys do it? (I'm imagining my next Tier 3 designation neg round.)

_________________
Caleb Howell (Alumnus), former President of In Veritate Victoria (Derby, KS).


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 8:57 pm 
Offline
Evil Democrat
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:23 am
Posts: 3334
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Advancing the gay agenda
^you could try to read the last 10 or so posts : P

Hypothesis testing is where it's at.

_________________
josephsamelson.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Mar 19, 2011 9:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 8:40 pm
Posts: 580
Home Schooled: Yes
Flash of light wrote:
Zealous1 wrote:
I don't know if this is stupid of me or not, but:

What I would do is say "Their case is not inherent. BUT EVEN IF IT WAS... disads, solvency, bla bla bla."

That's not stupid at all. It's called Hypothesis Testing.

I do this all the time, and it has worked well so far. You just have to make it clear that you are presenting two hypothetical situations and not just contradicting yourself.

Another thing I like to do is run weak Inh ev that doesn't directly link to the aff case, and run some DAs. Then I claim that the SQ is already addressing the general issue and since the aff plan is so horrible, we should just let them do it.

_________________
~Natalie


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:54 am
Posts: 321
Home Schooled: Yes
@HSU - No, I'm not looking for hypothesis testing.

Sure it works, but I'm looking for how to fill 16 minutes with nothing but inherency.

Examples are welcome.

_________________
Caleb Howell (Alumnus), former President of In Veritate Victoria (Derby, KS).


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 8:40 pm
Posts: 580
Home Schooled: Yes
Ramble or talk in slow motion. ;) But if you really do have ev that their aff case has already happened, then all you have to do is get up there and say something basically like, "I'm sorry judge, but I won't be able to take up all my speech time, because the affirmative case is already in the SQ." And then you just go on any really explain inherency and why their case is no longer needed. If you do a good enough job, it will be fine that you don't use all your speech time. But I honestly doubt you'll be able to find an aff case that is so bad it can be completely taken out with inherency.

_________________
~Natalie


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 39 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited