homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Fri Feb 23, 2018 9:54 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




Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 15 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 1:39 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
So, I've missed the discussions on whole-rez, but I really want to discuss it.

If nobody's up for it, I want to at least ask a question: Do whole-rez cases make several reforms? Or do they just say the current system is really, really bad and therefore we should reform it (but without offering a specific plan)?

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 3:57 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
Thnx. I thought that was what it was -- just wanted to be sure.

Personally, I wouldn't even argue DAs against possible plans (strike that -- I might). I would just say that aff can't prove reform is warranted without justifying a specific plan. They can harp all day long on how bad the current system is and how it looks like it needs reform -- but they need to actually analyze those reforms to prove that they are warranted. After that, I may give examples of where reforms are not warranted -- to prove the point that all reforms must be analyzed.

I'm glad you didn't run this :)

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 5:21 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)
razilane.debater wrote:
thehomeschooler wrote:
So, I've missed the discussions on whole-rez, but I really want to discuss it.

If nobody's up for it, I want to at least ask a question: Do whole-rez cases make several reforms? Or do they just say the current system is really, really bad and therefore we should reform it (but without offering a specific plan)?


Option two... ;)

Riaz and I were going to run one this year, but later switched to a Partial Res. Long story short, Whole res. cases advocate that any reform on any policy towards Russia is justified. Basically all that the Neg. has to say is, "here is a policy that getting better in the SQ...by reforming it, you could be hindering its improvement! Vote Neg." When running a Whole Res. case the Aff. must prove that the SQ is so bad (in every area under the Resolution) that every policy must be reformed significantly. The Aff. can't guarantee that the reform will be better than the SQ. Overall it requires a TON of research and time and I don't recommend it anymore.

Hope this helps! :)

EHhh, you're partially right, but there's a little more detail then that.

The smart way to run them is to take advantage of the fact that the word "policy" in the res is singular, so you try to make an overall case that EVERYTHING towards Russia sucks; even with little success stories, we aren't cooperating enough, we're missing out on our economic gains, or even go the reverse rout and say we're becoming too close and this is bad. But it's not so much "multiple policies stink" it's that we need to reform in an overarching category.

Where things get fun is that the neg strat you outlined is a very bad idea because it's both hypocritical AND impossible.
It's impossible because the aff is incapable of blocking progress in a policy; they claim no fiat power and make no action, the simply prove that the resolution is true and that reform is needed. How can you stop progress without taking an action? [You can't.]

But setting that aside, it's hypocritical because neg says "You might be hindering improvement by voting aff", but then makes aff PROVE that things will be better. I assume neg would be running your argument as a DA; neg has the BOP to uphold their DA's as much as aff does their advantages, so any sharp aff shouldn't let neg get away with a "we say something bad MIGHT happen, but you have to prove something good WILL happen."

Overall, they do require a lot of prep and pre-planning, but I would love to give one a try this year; they're much stronger then people give them credit for, if you prepare them correctly.

_________________
Some days, words are not enough.

- Five year alumni turned debate coach.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Dec 03, 2010 2:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:17 pm
Posts: 1547
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Researching...
Jacob Dean wrote:
The smart way to run them is to take advantage of the fact that the word "policy" in the res is singular, so you try to make an overall case that EVERYTHING towards Russia sucks; even with little success stories, we aren't cooperating enough, we're missing out on our economic gains, or even go the reverse rout and say we're becoming too close and this is bad.


So you have proved that the status quo was bad. Now what? You will not advocate a change, so we're stuck with the status quo. Not only that, but you still haven't proven that any reform is a good idea.

Yeah, the healthcare system was bad, everyone agreed on this, but that didn't mean that universal healthcare was a good idea. ;)

Secondly, you can run DA's on every case you wanted to, and the Aff would have to bite them. You couldn't even de-link. If you advocate that we should change our policy, and you say the current system is bad, then that would justify ratifying New START, or assassinating Putin, or nuking Russia, because you advocate we should change. In that case, I will be running nuclear war DA's on you all day long.

If you try to de-link, I'll hit you with vagueness and case-shifting. If you're going to say we should change, and then all of a sudden we're not going to do that change, you've completely shifted what it is that you're trying to defend.

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: Mon Dec 06, 2010 6:02 am 
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)
You're so cute.
Wrong, but cute.

Delta_FC wrote:
Jacob Dean wrote:
The smart way to run them is to take advantage of the fact that the word "policy" in the res is singular, so you try to make an overall case that EVERYTHING towards Russia sucks; even with little success stories, we aren't cooperating enough, we're missing out on our economic gains, or even go the reverse rout and say we're becoming too close and this is bad.


So you have proved that the status quo was bad. Now what? You will not advocate a change, so we're stuck with the status quo. Not only that, but you still haven't proven that any reform is a good idea.

Yeah, the healthcare system was bad, everyone agreed on this, but that didn't mean that universal healthcare was a good idea. ;)

Secondly, you can run DA's on every case you wanted to, and the Aff would have to bite them. You couldn't even de-link. If you advocate that we should change our policy, and you say the current system is bad, then that would justify ratifying New START, or assassinating Putin, or nuking Russia, because you advocate we should change. In that case, I will be running nuclear war DA's on you all day long.

If you try to de-link, I'll hit you with vagueness and case-shifting. If you're going to say we should change, and then all of a sudden we're not going to do that change, you've completely shifted what it is that you're trying to defend.

Delta_FC

1. "So you have proved the status quo is bad. Now what?"
I win, because that's all the resolution tells me to do.

2. You can NOT run DA's on every case you want too, and yes I CAN delink because a DA is post fiat and a whole res case utilizes no fiat at all. What DA's you could pretend you could run would depend on what way I prove the SQ is bad, [for example, proving we trust russia too much actually means that supposedly I'm saying we had better block START so...oops, there went THOSE DA's] but irregardless, you can waste your time doing DA's and I will get to have lots of fun delinking them all in one giant smash because a DA takes place after an action.

You ALSO cannot hit me with case shifting, as I never shifted what I advocate: I advocate the SQ sucks. That's all the resolution requires, and I never change from my position. A DA requires a change, as you have already admitted via your wording, so I don't have to say "I'm not advocating THAT change", I just have to say "I'm saying that our policy towards russia could use improvement."
The only point you have any hope whatsoever on is vagueness, which I have always agreed with.

Whole Res =/= "We need change." It = "Well this sucks."
;)

_________________
Some days, words are not enough.

- Five year alumni turned debate coach.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 pm
Posts: 152
Home Schooled: Yes
Jacob Dean wrote:
1. "So you have proved the status quo is bad. Now what?"
I win, because that's all the resolution tells me to do.

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.

Jacob Dean wrote:
2. You can NOT run DA's on every case you want too, and yes I CAN delink because a DA is post fiat and a whole res case utilizes no fiat at all. What DA's you could pretend you could run would depend on what way I prove the SQ is bad, [for example, proving we trust russia too much actually means that supposedly I'm saying we had better block START so...oops, there went THOSE DA's] but irregardless, you can waste your time doing DA's and I will get to have lots of fun delinking them all in one giant smash because a DA takes place after an action.

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.


Jacob Dean wrote:
Whole Res =/= "We need change." It = "Well this sucks."
;)

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.

_________________
Come to Puget Sound Debate Camp!
debatecamp.pssda.net


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 3:29 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
^Bam. That.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 3:56 am 
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)
I swear, you guys make me so tempted to write one of these it's not even funny...
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

_________________
Some days, words are not enough.

- Five year alumni turned debate coach.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:02 am
Posts: 635
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: South Carolina
But that's not what the rez tells us to do... :|
The rez doesn't say: "affirm the suckage of the squo in our pol'y w/ Russia." The rez says: "reform in pol'y w/ Russia should be adopted." So at least according to your analysis...whole rez cases ain't even topical, because their only affirming an assumed yet unstated plank of the rez...not even the whole rez.
Please alert me if i'm missing something :? :?

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 4:49 am 
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)
The res calls for the aff to advocate change.
In other words, Aff has to answer the unwritten question, "Why?" The way you do that is through harms. Harms affirm the suckage of the SQ.

_________________
Some days, words are not enough.

- Five year alumni turned debate coach.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:02 am
Posts: 635
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: South Carolina
Jacob Dean wrote:
The res calls for the aff to advocate change.
In other words, Aff has to answer the unwritten question, "Why?" The way you do that is through harms. Harms affirm the suckage of the SQ.

This makes sense and I understand exactly where you're coming from.

But negs can also affirm the suckage of the squo...so if you run a whole rez on me...I can talk allllll of your rhetoric and run a CP w/ say...New START. I automatically win via net benefits because while I scream at the squo...I'm actually doing something about it...not just sitting on my thumbs whining about a problem that I'm too lazy to solve.

And you can't perm because you stated that you utilize no fiat whatsoever...if you attempted to, then that is a clear example of case shifting because until I run the CP, the only thing the aff does is affirm the squo's suckage. To magicalluy add this other device (ie fiat/solvency) would be incredibly abusive. Thus the 2 are mutually exclusive and I win just for the sake of sanity.

Again...please alert me if I'm missing something...you are totally givin' me a new spin on whole rez :becool:

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 2:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:17 pm
Posts: 1547
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Researching...
Jacob Dean wrote:
Your flaw in reasoning is assuming that we have to do something. My response is, "ORLY? It does? Where?"


Resolved: The United States Federal Government should reform its policy toward Russia.

You need to prove that we "should reform." In my book, a reform is a change.

Jacob Dean wrote:
The wording says that 'we need change',


No, it says you need to prove that change should happen.

Jacob Dean wrote:
All aff has to do is point out why we're screwing ourselves where we are right now. The end.


But unfortunately, that's not the end. Proving that the status quo is hell on earth, even, doesn't mean we should change. I provided you earlier with the healthcare debate example. The Democrats were trying to justify their change because the status quo sucked. But that doesn't mean their change is good, or even that we should change.

Jacob Dean wrote:
The res calls for the aff to advocate change.
In other words, Aff has to answer the unwritten question, "Why?"


You're creating your own hidden assumptions out of the resolution. And you're missing the rest of the resolution. All you're seeing is "CHANGE WHY???" not the "[we] should reform," aspect of policy debate.

Until you can prove that a bad system = a necessity of change, you can't be topical.

As far as DA's go, I like how ZaR put it. While you're saying, squo sucks = need change, the Neg is saying, "change sucks = need squo." It works both ways. However, since after both ballots, we're still in the squo, Neg wins on net benefits.

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 Dec 07, 2010 7:48 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
We "need" change =/= we should change. You know why? Because "we should change" (1) means we've proven that changing would be good, and (2) is what the resolution calls for. Go look for the word "should" in the rez. I'm sure you'll find it.

Discussion over.

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


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 15 posts ] 

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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited