Why should this arbitrary topic selection hold any merit? Answer: Education and abuse. The team you referenced is outdebating the negs and should win. "BUT YOU SHOULD STILL LOSE CAUSE I FIND THIS TECHNICALLY INCORRECT" is not a good argument - what are your warrants? Where are your reasons to prefer this interp? The educational impacts of my interp outweigh this pedantry.
Okay, so let's say you prove that my case stinks and causes a second holocaust. Would I be "outdebating you" if I argued "but judge, who cares if my case stinks, you should still vote for me!" Um, no. Because if my case is no good, duh, the judge should vote against me. In the same way, if your case is off topic, the judge should vote against you. Why? Because. That's why.
And you may say: "the reason the judge should vote against bad policies is because they're voting for the better debaters, and arguing for a bad policy makes you a bad debater." Okay, fine. But I could just as easily respond "arguing off-topic makes you a bad debater" and therefore the judge should vote against you. Furthermore, try and prove that a judge should vote for whichever team is better at debate. You can't.
Nor can you prove that a judge should vote against a bad policy. Nor can you prove that a judge should vote against an untopical policy. However, all these things are so self-evident that they really don't need proving.
Arguing that you need to prove any of these things is like arguing to the judge of a Samoyed dog-show that he needs to prove why he shouldn't except your Golden Retriever as a contestant.
No, it doesn't. In that instance, you have proven that to be a specifically true statement. If your car had 20 different problems, it would be a generally true statement.
That's just simply false.
No one would argue that my car does not need fixing unless it has 20 problems with it. That's really a bit ridiculous if you think about it. Using that logic, pretty much no car ever needs fixing unless it's about to fall apart.
Can you provide any actual warrants for why a car with a broken transmission somehow doesn't need fixing? Can you provide warrants for why a court system with a single significant problem does not need reforming?
Your implication is that the resolution and the truth thereof is the real question and it isn't. Debating that, in and of itself, is purposeless without plans. The plans are the point here, and the only real purpose to debate is comparing plans, not testing the truth of an arbitrarily chosen statement. If it were about the resolution itself, what is the point? Topic education is why we have policy topics, and topic education should take precedence over pedantry.
1: The first two sentences here are mere statements without warrants. Why do you think we're supposed to be debating arbitrary plans rather than arbitrary chosen statements?
2: In answer to the question posed in the third sentence: The point is to have a good debate. There's no reason you can't have a good debate discussing the truth of a statement.
3: In response to your final statement, how exactly does it harm "topic education" to debate the actual resolution? Again, no warrants.
Lol, custom does not make it necessary. Also, just because affs concede something they shouldn't doesn't change any of my warrants.
The reason I mention custom is because I'm talking about what actually wins rounds.
I swear you're trolling. The purpose of policy debate is to compare policies. That's why CP's are legitimate. This has infinitely more point than comparing a resolution in abstract or making the resolution itself the focal point of the debate.
No, I'm not trolling. I legitimately believe that's the purpose of the debate, and you've given me zero warrants for why this is not the case. If you think that NCFCA created a resolution that Affirmative teams somehow are NOT supposed to affirm, I'd love for you to provide some evidence of this. As for CPs, I agree that untopical CPs are legitimate, but I don't really think Topical CPs are. And why, exactly, does it have "infinitely more point"? Debating the actual truth or falsity of the resolution and getting into the merits super-specific plans are not mutually exclusive. I'm not saying people shouldn't provide specific problems or specific plans, I'm just saying that the REASON they're bringing up said plans is to prove the resolution factually true.
And I'd get up and say that we answered that because neg shouldn't be splitting hairs and arguing over semantics instead of really debating a policy that was adequately predictable and reasonable, and judge should side aff on T because neg can't explain why it matters.
And I'd say, "judge, that's like arguing that it's okay to bring a cherry pie to an apple pie competition. This is just flat out ridiculous. It's just as ridiculous as if Aff argued you should 'vote for them even though their case is bad' or something like that." And I'd win.
So, in closing, a few more thoughts:
1: Why exactly do you think the resolution says "the court system should be reformed" if you don't think that Aff is even supposed to be proving this?
2: Why can't a team just say "our case is well known, therefore neg can prepare and we aren't abusive, even though we're off-topic"? Doesn't that destroy all your impacts to T?
3: If Neg "preparedness" is your only impact to T, doesn't this mean that all squirrel cases are abusive too, since Neg can't possibly prepare for them?