I swear, you guys make me so tempted to write one of these it's not even funny...
Well how do you actually respond to a "the res requires you to show an improvement in policy" argument in round? Because I generally think I should only do something if it gets better, not just because things are bad right now. No matter how many problems Adobe flash player has, I still use it, because the only alternative is losing access to the many websites that still use it.
Your flaw in reasoning is assuming that we have to do something. My response is, "ORLY? It does? Where?"
I'll wait while you go look up the phrase.
I'm sure you're back by now, and noticed you can't find it anywhere. The wording says that 'we need change', not that aff has to pick a change and advocate a gain. All aff has to do is point out why we're screwing ourselves where we are right now. The end.
I can run enough to vastly outweigh any offense you can find, and no you can't. I just don't run them as DAs. I don't need too since you already removed any chance you had to generate offense through advantages anyway. Every "DA" is proof of another case where change from the SQ makes things worse not better, and means we shouldn't be advocating a change in policy.
See, once again, you're thinking so traditionally that you are shooting yourself in the foot.
Do you not realize what you're saying? You're saying I get no offence on Advs, but you can somehow keep your DA's, even though BOTH in order to be taken seriously need to HAVE FIAT TO TAKE PLACE.
If a round were unlimited in time, I would get to have LOTS of fun with you delinking your DA's and then reading off three thousand advantages, using your own reasoning to legitimize their existence, and using them as proof that change makes things better.
But this is completely dumb. Why?
You run a DA of nuclear war.
I run an advantage of stopping nuclear war.
You say my Adv comes from a specific change.
I say your DA comes from a specific change.
So now we cancel out, and we're left with....MY HARMS.
Impact Calculus suddenly works in my favor.
No, Whole res says "This sucks, so we need change". If it doesn't say we need change it fails to uphold the res. The res clearly calls the aff to advocate that policy should be reformed. That's "we need change" plain and simple. Whole res focuses on the SQ is bad aspect of that far more then traditional plan debate, but at its core, it still advocates a change. Just not a specified one.
Eehh, semantics, but whatev; this is the least important aspect of the whole case.