homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Sat May 27, 2017 8:28 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  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 12:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:17 pm
Posts: 58
Home Schooled: Yes
Top12Gun wrote:
Cyberknight wrote:
Quote:
Nope according to the JO slides which I have printed out the NEG has to Negate the resolution or the AFF team.

This is JO slides, not NCFCA rules. Mrs. Hudson specifically said that counterplans are open for debate. Plus, if you accept this interpretation of the duties of the two teams, wouldn't that mean the Aff team can just ignore the resolution and propose any plan whatsoever?


Nope, Topicality checks with impacts of abuse and education. The purpose of a resolution is to provide common ground for preparation and debate. If that purpose is met, then a lot of this is just semantics because there is more topic education by evaluating through a real-world policy stand point, and it's more argumentatively strenuous to allow a broad range of argument. Therefore, it's better for education. Abuse checks idiocy.

As an aside, the JO slides were put together by individuals with a fairly limited understanding of theory to provide a brief introduction to a complex world, for people entirely unfamiliar with it. They should never be construed as the ultimate guide on anything other than what judges are hearing in orientation.


The AFF has to present a topical plan bc it is there job to Affirm the resolution not negate the negative team, although in order to affirm the resolution negating the neg is almost always (except in rare cases of forfeits) needed. I get JO slides aren't rules but it shows that the NEG has to negate the resolution isn't a rule either. Remember if that were true the neg can't even admit a problem bc problems are reasons to reform and therefore the system should be reformed. I think counter-plans are a legitimate form of neg argumentation and specifically I think inferred counter-plans are the best (obviously debatable). Ultimately the Neg team wins by getting the judges ballot so it all depends on how well you present your theory to the judge(s) and whether or not they except it. I chose to run counter-plans under the label of Alt. Reforms and it seems to work pretty well, no team has critiqued us on running a counter-plan or tried to theory debate their way out of the argument successfully yet. So ultimately counter-plans can be debated but inferring them makes it harder to wiggle out of a doesn't seem to turn off any judges. Just my thoughts feel free to test them in round against me anytime 8-). Have fun at all y'all qualifiers our's starts tonight and it should be fun :).

_________________
Hammy wrote:
Noah is right


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Thu Mar 31, 2016 2:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1374
Home Schooled: Yes
Top12Gun wrote:
Nope, Topicality checks with impacts of abuse and education.

That's the very worst way to impact T. The real impact of T is that Aff hasn't proven the resolution true, and thus ought to lose. :P

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 7:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:42 am
Posts: 44
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 6
NerdRipper7 wrote:
The AFF has to present a topical plan bc it is there job to Affirm the resolution not negate the negative team, although in order to affirm the resolution negating the neg is almost always (except in rare cases of forfeits) needed.

But what's the real impact of them not upholding the rez? Why does that burden matter? If debate were truly rez-centric, we'd debate the rez on a macro level and have a general threshold of proof (i.e. treat it like a fact rez with a standard of x% more true than false). Instead, we debate the plan because the true purpose of the rez is to provide common ground for preparation (so that we can prep a specific topic such as FCS instead of FCS, agriculture, entitlements, Russia, environment, and every other topic. This leads to better, deeper topic education by allowing neg to prepare effectively and consequently forcing aff to run good plans.) What else is the point of it?
Top12Gun wrote:
Nope, Topicality checks with impacts of abuse and education. The purpose of a resolution is to provide common ground for preparation and debate. If that purpose is met, then a lot of this is just semantics because there is more topic education by evaluating through a real-world policy stand point, and it's more argumentatively strenuous to allow a broad range of argument. Therefore, it's better for education. Abuse checks idiocy.

Pull the underlined through to this speech. ;)

NerdRipper7 wrote:
I get JO slides aren't rules but it shows that the NEG has to negate the resolution isn't a rule either.

Bro, the only rules in debate are speaking time and skirt length. Neg doesn't HAVE to do anything (and for that matter, neither does aff), although it's prolly wise to if you want to win (not doing so means you waste your opponents' and judges' time, which links back to Gabe's favorite impact (and the impact for your kritik, should your opponent do this): education! ;)). Even whether they have to negate the plan, the rez, or anything at all should be decided in-round based on the framework that they argue (sidenote: framework goes assumed and uncontested on both sides in so many rounds and it really shouldn't. This is why we get ballots back and think judges are morons for not using our framework to evaluate us - we didn't tell them to!). That should all be part of the debate - if I think the judge should vote neg if there isn't a highly significant advantage and aff thinks that a comparative advantage of a penny saved merits an aff ballot, that's part of the debate we should have! Whoever wins framework there will probably win the round. So irrespective of what you personally think about burdens for each side, when opinions differ, they should be debated in-round so that debaters have the chance to determine what framework they're evaluated under (and judges should at least be tabula rasa enough to judge based on the framework that wins).

NerdRipper7 wrote:
Remember if that were true the neg can't even admit a problem bc problems are reasons to reform and therefore the system should be reformed.

Wrong (although in a purely theoretical sense, you're right). In the real world, problems aren't reasons to reform if there isn't a solution that is better than the squo. Comp-ad framework should always be implied, which mean that basic impact calculus allows both sides to just claim that they outweigh, which removes that problem.

NerdRipper7 wrote:
I think counter-plans are a legitimate form of neg argumentation ... .

Well, duh. Anything is legitimate argumentation until one side proves why it isn't. Running ten contradictory, conditional counterplans is legitimate until aff (pretty easily) proves abuse. You could say that that's illegitimate, in the sense that it's a terrible strategy (especially in this league) and aff should always be able to prove abuse, but as far as legitimacy under the rules, anything can and should be allowed, because bad arguments will lose and natural selection will take place.

NerdRipper7 wrote:
Ultimately the Neg team wins by getting the judges ballot so it all depends on how well you present your theory to the judge(s) and whether or not they except it.

YES. Same goes for aff.

NerdRipper7 wrote:
Just my thoughts feel free to test them in round against me anytime 8-). Have fun at all y'all qualifiers our's starts tonight and it should be fun :).

This is how all theory should be tested.

Cyberknight wrote:
Top12Gun wrote:
Nope, Topicality checks with impacts of abuse and education.

That's the very worst way to impact T. The real impact of T is that Aff hasn't proven the resolution true, and thus ought to lose. :P

...and why does that matter at all? If the interp of the rez was predictable and you had the opportunity to procure evidence to debate, who cares about playing word games or upholding that burden? ;) Essentially, what's the impact to your "impact"?

If we were voting for the rez in abstract, we wouldn't present plans, we would present harms and say that in the theoretical sense, all of them merit solutions so the rez is true. The plans come in because the abstract is far less debatable and educational than a real world policy discussion. Therefore, since policy is really the center of policy debate, whether aff upholds a semantic burden formed as a fictitious construct by playing word games doesn't matter if a debate can occur. Further, by evaluating T in this way, judges would force better preparation, more topic education (not just by forcing neg to debate the policy on its merits instead of arguing meritless T presses, but also by forcing negs who want to run T to prove that aff truly doesn't understand the topic (e.g., by proving that bankruptcy is really not a part of the FCS and that the aff truly is misunderstanding the topic)), and encourages more rigorous argumentation.

_________________
click for details
14-15: Churchman/Wright
19-20
15-16: Churchman/Kauk
46-20

WI Open: 7-1 | 6-0 | 5th
KY: 4-3 | 4-2 | 12th
NC Open: 9-3 | 4-2 | 2nd
WI: 7-1 | 6-0 | 5th
OH: 4-3 | 4-2 | 13th
IL: 5-3 | 4-2 | 7th
Regionals: 5-4 | 3-3 | 4th
Nats: 6-2 | 5-1 | 5th

now coaching
top12gun@gmail.com
-
Chapman/Chapman


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 8:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1374
Home Schooled: Yes
Top12Gun wrote:
...and why does that matter at all? If the interp of the rez was predictable and you had the opportunity to procure evidence to debate, who cares about playing word games or upholding that burden? ;) Essentially, what's the impact to your "impact"?

It matters for a couple reasons. Number one, judges are not idiots, and they aren't going to vote for a team that is off-topic. :P The res is literally printed right there on their ballot...very few of them are dumb enough to say "oh well, he's off topic, but I like his case anyway." Remember, the judge is voting for or against the resolution, not for whichever team he thinks is cooler.

Number two, it logically makes sense. The Aff presents a case. They read the resolution. The resolution is their thesis statement. If their entire speech contradicts or does not uphold their thesis statement, they not only are bad debaters, they also didn't even prove what they said they were going to prove to the judge at the beginning of their speech. :P Therefore, they lose the round.

Honestly, 99% of the time you can just get the Aff team to admit right there in CX that they ought to lose if they're off-topic. Actually, that's an understatement. 100% of the time. I've never seen a debate team that didn't agree to this.

Quote:
If we were voting for the rez in abstract, we wouldn't present plans, we would present harms and say that in the theoretical sense, all of them merit solutions so the rez is true. The plans come in because the abstract is far less debatable and educational than a real world policy discussion.

That's an interesting point, but I always saw plans as a way of demonstrating that there is a possible way to solve the problems presented. Because if there is no way to solve the problem, the SQ should not be reformed. So part of demonstrating that the Federal Court System should be reformed is offering a possible solution for fixing it.

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2016 8:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:42 am
Posts: 44
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 6
Cyberknight wrote:
It matters for a couple reasons. Number one, judges are not idiots, and they aren't going to vote for a team that is off-topic. :P

You're missing my point. ;) Why does being on-topic matter in the first place? Education and abuse.

Cyberknight wrote:
Remember, the judge is voting for or against the resolution, not for whichever team he thinks is cooler.

That's what YOU think. Outrounds beg to differ. ;) More seriously though, the judge doesn't vote for the resolution as a whole, but for the plan. Just because the plan supports the rez doesn't make the rez a generally true statement. Rather, it becomes a specifically true one, and thus, the plan is the centerpiece. Further, this can be seen in that neg wins if they refute the plan, despite other areas of the rez almost certainly meriting reform. The plan is at question, not the general truth of the resolution.

Cyberknight wrote:
Number two, it logically makes sense. The Aff presents a case. They read the resolution. The resolution is their thesis statement. If their entire speech contradicts or does not uphold their thesis statement, they not only are bad debaters, they also didn't even prove what they said they were going to prove to the judge at the beginning of their speech. :P Therefore, they lose the round.

So aff only has the burden to uphold the rez if they read it in their 1AC? :lol: What's binding them to that? Also, why does that burden merit deciding the round? How does that outweigh the benefits of the policy (or, on a meta level, the merits of discussing the benefits of the policy)?

Cyberknight wrote:
Honestly, 99% of the time you can just get the Aff team to admit right there in CX that they ought to lose if they're off-topic. Actually, that's an understatement. 100% of the time. I've never seen a debate team that didn't agree to this.

You've never debated me. ;) That's aff's mistake. Best answer is "if neg can prove why it matters." (Or, with a judge that would understand the jargon, "only if neg can prove abuse or loss of education.")

Quote:
That's an interesting point, but I always saw plans as a way of demonstrating that there is a possible way to solve the problems presented. Because if there is no way to solve the problem, the SQ should not be reformed. So part of demonstrating that the Federal Court System should be reformed is offering a possible solution for fixing it.

Agreed! Proving a topical plan does prove the rez to be a specifically true statement. But the plan is what's being voted for, not the rez, because that doesn't prove the rez to be generally true, just true in one instance. Further, this is answered under my earlier points about the purpose of the rez: the goal is to center debate on a subject area so plans can be debated, not to test the general truth of the resolution statement. There's simply more educational merit in this approach.

_________________
click for details
14-15: Churchman/Wright
19-20
15-16: Churchman/Kauk
46-20

WI Open: 7-1 | 6-0 | 5th
KY: 4-3 | 4-2 | 12th
NC Open: 9-3 | 4-2 | 2nd
WI: 7-1 | 6-0 | 5th
OH: 4-3 | 4-2 | 13th
IL: 5-3 | 4-2 | 7th
Regionals: 5-4 | 3-3 | 4th
Nats: 6-2 | 5-1 | 5th

now coaching
top12gun@gmail.com
-
Chapman/Chapman


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Fri Apr 08, 2016 1:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1374
Home Schooled: Yes
Top12Gun wrote:
You're missing my point. ;) Why does being on-topic matter in the first place? Education and abuse.

How about common sense? How about the idea that we ought to be debating the resolution because that's simply what's been chosen for us to debate?

The main issue I have with this whole "abusiveness" impact to T is that if that's your only impact to T, you can easily lose to teams that go off topic. Last year, there was a team that ran a case involving Pakistan. When you argued T against them, they responded: "the only impacts to Topicality are educational harm and abusiveness; but our case is well known and everyone preps it, so it's not abusive. And it's a good topic to be debating, so it doesn't harm education." Yeah, well guess what: you should still lose, because you're not proving the resolution true, which is what you claimed you were going to do in your 1AC! (Also, if you asked this team in CX whether they should lose if their case is off topic, even they would say "yes.")

Quote:
Agreed! Proving a topical plan does prove the rez to be a specifically true statement. But the plan is what's being voted for, not the rez, because that doesn't prove the rez to be generally true, just true in one instance.

Proving the resolution true in one instance automatically proves it true generally. If I were trying to prove to you that my car needed fixing, it would be enough for me to show that that the ignition was broken, and that i should replace it with my spare ignition. I wouldn't need to show that every single part of the car needed to be replaced. Same goes for the resolution. Proving part of it proves all of it. If I show one problem in the court system, however small, one solution, and one advantage, I HAVE proven the statement "the federal court system needs reform" ABSOLUTELY true.

The policy proposed by Aff is used as an example of how to reform the court system. Reforming the court system is what the Aff team is saying should happen, and the plan is an example of why this is so. This is not a remotely outlandish idea. Most debate coaches who are theory-nerds will back up what I'm saying here.

Quote:
So aff only has the burden to uphold the rez if they read it in their 1AC?

Yes. That's their burden. That's why pretty much every Aff structures their opening paragraph like "there are so and so problems in the current system, and our plan would fix them, which is why we stand resolved: that the federal court system should be reformed." Their harms, plan, and advantages are offered as proof that the court system needs reforming.

A simple way to set this up is to ask the Affirmative team in CX if they are ultimately trying to prove the resolution true. If they say "yes" (which they will), just point out that their plan doesn't prove the resolution true, and thus ought to lose. And if an Aff team argues all they are trying to prove is that their plan should be passed, just ask them why on earth they bothered stating a resolution as their thesis statement if all they are trying to do is pass their plan. :P

The only instance in which I think you should impact it to abuse is if the Aff team states a different resolution in their 1AC and advocates that instead...or if they say the real resolution, but say that it's beside the point and they aren't really trying to prove it. In instances such as these, just point out to the judge that they are running a case that is willingly off topic, which is sort of like bringing a cherry pie to an apple pie competition. Any judge who isn't an idiot will vote negative. :P

Quote:
:lol: What's binding them to that? Also, why does that burden merit deciding the round? How does that outweigh the benefits of the policy (or, on a meta level, the merits of discussing the benefits of the policy)?

It doesn't outweigh the benefits of any policy, but that's irrelevant. We aren't discussing which team can propose a better policy, we're discussing whether the court system should be reformed or not. :P

Quote:
You've never debated me. ;) That's aff's mistake. Best answer is "if neg can prove why it matters." (Or, with a judge that would understand the jargon, "only if neg can prove abuse or loss of education.")

Okay, well, in that case, I'd get up in my speech and say "judge, the Aff team is arguing that even if they're off topic, they should still win. This is absurd, because we are supposed to be debating x topic, and Aff is debating something else instead. Therefore, vote negative." Again, unless the judge is clueless, he will vote negative. :P

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Sat Apr 09, 2016 1:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2014 12:21 am
Posts: 35
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Running
The great thing about debate theory, and debate everything in general, is that it's open to discussion/interpretation/debate.

If you're going to win with a "topical" counter-plan, you can interpret debate theory in a way that allows that (i.e., aff case becomes rez.) If you're aff, you can respond by saying "actually, our case is a warrant for the rez."

Light a stick of dynamite because boom. We have a debate.

There's nothing inherently wrong with running a "topical" counterplan because like everything else, it's up for debate.

_________________
Region VII - AL
Poythress B/Poythress P (Criminal Justice) 2012
Hurst B/Poythress P - (United Nations) 2013
Poythress B/Poythress P - (Election Law) 2014
Poythress B/Poythress P - (Middle East) 2015
Hudson W/Poythress P - (Court Reform) 2016
Poythress P/Roberts J - (China) 2017


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Sat Apr 09, 2016 5:43 am 
Offline
Hint hint peoples.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:18 pm
Posts: 1359
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: San Diego, California
Peter_Policy wrote:
The great thing about debate theory, and debate everything in general, is that it's open to discussion/interpretation/debate.

If you're going to win with a "topical" counter-plan, you can interpret debate theory in a way that allows that (i.e., aff case becomes rez.) If you're aff, you can respond by saying "actually, our case is a warrant for the rez."

Light a stick of dynamite because boom. We have a debate.

There's nothing inherently wrong with running a "topical" counterplan because like everything else, it's up for debate.

This. I firmly stand on the side of topical counterplans but I recognize that it is (or should be) primarily the debaters' job to explain and argue theory in-round. All of these arguments and this whole debate will probably never end unless one or both of the major leagues explicitly ban topical counterplans - and that's a good thing. People will have differences of opinion and the arguments about topical CPs will be good testing grounds for students on how to present arguments in the real world.

_________________
Evan Buck, LD Coach
Twitter | Seeking Alpha | Coaching Website | YouTube

As the deer pants for the water brooks, so pants my soul for You, O God. -Psalm 42:1

Truth is treason in an empire of lies...


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 2:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:42 am
Posts: 44
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 6
Cyberknight wrote:
How about common sense? How about the idea that we ought to be debating the resolution because that's simply what's been chosen for us to debate? The main issue I have with this whole "abusiveness" impact to T is that if that's your only impact to T, you can easily lose to teams that go off topic. Last year, there was a team that ran a case involving Pakistan. When you argued T against them, they responded: "the only impacts to Topicality are educational harm and abusiveness; but our case is well known and everyone preps it, so it's not abusive. And it's a good topic to be debating, so it doesn't harm education." Yeah, well guess what: you should still lose, because you're not proving the resolution true, which is what you claimed you were going to do in your 1AC! (Also, if you asked this team in CX whether they should lose if their case is off topic, even they would say "yes.")

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.

Cyberknight wrote:
Proving the resolution true in one instance automatically proves it true generally. If I were trying to prove to you that my car needed fixing, it would be enough for me to show that that the ignition was broken, and that i should replace it with my spare ignition. I wouldn't need to show that every single part of the car needed to be replaced. Same goes for the resolution. Proving part of it proves all of it. If I show one problem in the court system, however small, one solution, and one advantage, I HAVE proven the statement "the federal court system needs reform" ABSOLUTELY true.

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.

Cyberknight wrote:
The policy proposed by Aff is used as an example of how to reform the court system. Reforming the court system is what the Aff team is saying should happen, and the plan is an example of why this is so. This is not a remotely outlandish idea. Most debate coaches who are theory-nerds will back up what I'm saying here.

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.

Cyberknight wrote:
Yes. That's their burden. That's why pretty much every Aff structures their opening paragraph like "there are so and so problems in the current system, and our plan would fix them, which is why we stand resolved: that the federal court system should be reformed." Their harms, plan, and advantages are offered as proof that the court system needs reforming. A simple way to set this up is to ask the Affirmative team in CX if they are ultimately trying to prove the resolution true. If they say "yes" (which they will), just point out that their plan doesn't prove the resolution true, and thus ought to lose. And if an Aff team argues all they are trying to prove is that their plan should be passed, just ask them why on earth they bothered stating a resolution as their thesis statement if all they are trying to do is pass their plan. :P

Lol, custom does not make it necessary. Also, just because affs concede something they shouldn't doesn't change any of my warrants.

Cyberknight wrote:
The only instance in which I think you should impact it to abuse is if the Aff team states a different resolution in their 1AC and advocates that instead...or if they say the real resolution, but say that it's beside the point and they aren't really trying to prove it. In instances such as these, just point out to the judge that they are running a case that is willingly off topic, which is sort of like bringing a cherry pie to an apple pie competition. Any judge who isn't an idiot will vote negative.

You're entirely correct that abuse is the right impact to these, but you address it badly; the impact is not simply that they're doing something unexpected, but that this destroys any ability for neg to prepare, harming education.

Cyberknight wrote:
It doesn't outweigh the benefits of any policy, but that's irrelevant. We aren't discussing which team can propose a better policy, we're discussing whether the court system should be reformed or not. :P

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.

Cyberknight wrote:
Okay, well, in that case, I'd get up in my speech and say "judge, the Aff team is arguing that even if they're off topic, they should still win. This is absurd, because we are supposed to be debating x topic, and Aff is debating something else instead. Therefore, vote negative." Again, unless the judge is clueless, he will vote negative. :P

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.

_________________
click for details
14-15: Churchman/Wright
19-20
15-16: Churchman/Kauk
46-20

WI Open: 7-1 | 6-0 | 5th
KY: 4-3 | 4-2 | 12th
NC Open: 9-3 | 4-2 | 2nd
WI: 7-1 | 6-0 | 5th
OH: 4-3 | 4-2 | 13th
IL: 5-3 | 4-2 | 7th
Regionals: 5-4 | 3-3 | 4th
Nats: 6-2 | 5-1 | 5th

now coaching
top12gun@gmail.com
-
Chapman/Chapman


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 3:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1374
Home Schooled: Yes
Top12Gun wrote:
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. :P 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. :P 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.

Quote:
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. :P 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?

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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. :P

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?

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 3:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:19 pm
Posts: 123
Home Schooled: Yes
Just wanted to say that I think education is a usually a terrible impact to T. If you're a good debater, the educational value of the debate shouldn't decrease just because you don't know the case / haven't prepped it. When you impact T to education you're basically saying "Wah judge, I wasn't expecting this case so I don't have my piles of experts to rely on to come up with arguments for me. Therefore, I can't make good arguments or have a good debate. It's aff's fault vote against them." Also, what Gabe said about that same impact not being unique to non topical cases. "Resolution not affirmed" is the best T impact in my opinion. It's very clear for judges to understand and nearly every judge will vote on it even if a squirelly teams tries to say that that impact doesn't really matter.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Sun Apr 10, 2016 5:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:01 am
Posts: 649
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Flying a UFO to an undisclosed location ;)
Top12Gun wrote:
Cyberknight wrote:
It doesn't outweigh the benefits of any policy, but that's irrelevant. We aren't discussing which team can propose a better policy, we're discussing whether the court system should be reformed or not. :P

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.

I haven't completely followed this thread so sorry if I'm misapplying this. Daniel, you said earlier on the thread that if Aff runs a case that isn't topical your response is "why does it matter?" More of a curiosity on my part, but do you not read the resolution in the 1AC (Resolved: That the US blah blah blah blah . . .)? I suppose teams can do that, but it's very rare that they do (and often a mistake on their part). And if you do say that, you can't suddenly say "well, tell me why it matters if I run a non-topical case." By stating the resolution early in the round, you have implicitly pledged to present a plan that affirms that resolution.
atshelton wrote:
Just wanted to say that I think education is a usually a terrible impact to T. If you're a good debater, the educational value of the debate shouldn't decrease just because you don't know the case / haven't prepped it. When you impact T to education you're basically saying "Wah judge, I wasn't expecting this case so I don't have my piles of experts to rely on to come up with arguments for me. Therefore, I can't make good arguments or have a good debate. It's aff's fault vote against them."

I generally distaste Educational Value impacts to T as well, but you don't have to run them for yourself. You can admit to the judge that you are an expert on the case ;) and say that on principle we shouldn't accept this case because it is a slippery slope and will eventually lead to a decrease in educational value of the league as a whole unless we nip it in the bud in this round.

_________________
John Mark Porter, Alumni
Arx Axiom/Carpe Dictum/Verdict/UADC/HSDC/HSDRC

2011-12 l Porter/Thomason, Light/Porter
2012-13 l Bailey/Porter
2013-14 l Bailey/Porter
2014-15 l Folkert/Porter

2015-16 I Childs/Porter


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Fri Nov 25, 2016 11:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 25, 2016 10:54 pm
Posts: 4
Home Schooled: Yes
Topical counter plans should only be run if the affirmative team does not provide definition to define the resolution.
So imagine the resolution as a pie. off claims that pie by establishing the definitions thus creating a bright line in order to have a clear and fun debate round, but if the Aff does not provide any definitions then the debate round gets confusing and the neg team can claim the pie/resolution and uphold it since the Aff never narrowed the res to their case. Another reason not to run topical counter plans is that the neg teams jobs is to show how the Aff does not uphold or cannot uphold the resolution.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 1:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 07, 2015 4:35 am
Posts: 34
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frequently in front of a computer
After having dipped my toes in college TP debate, I have to say reading this is a little funny. Gabe's position is completely unknown in the college world and would be laughingly dismissed if brought up in round (which I think is unfortunate, since I rather agree with him). The impacts to topicality are always abuse and/or education and it is an argument that often fails, even for blatantly, unashamedly off-topic affs. Oh yes, there are affs that not only are not topical, they don't even have a policy proposal. At this point I miss the straightforward NCFCA.

_________________
"The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit." —Milton Friedman

Currently geeking out about econ and math at the University of Wisconsin-Madison


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Wed Dec 14, 2016 2:47 pm 
Offline
Kenya debate as good as me?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:06 am
Posts: 1926
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: In your head.
MeAndMyBriefcase wrote:
After having dipped my toes in college TP debate, I have to say reading this is a little funny. Gabe's position is completely unknown in the college world and would be laughingly dismissed if brought up in round (which I think is unfortunate, since I rather agree with him). The impacts to topicality are always abuse and/or education and it is an argument that often fails, even for blatantly, unashamedly off-topic affs. Oh yes, there are affs that not only are not topical, they don't even have a policy proposal. At this point I miss the straightforward NCFCA.

Truth. College debate sucks haha.

_________________
I desire to know nothing but Christ and him crucified.

SDG.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1365
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
I still argue on here because I can't move on with my life and you should not listen to anything that I say because I'm no longer dope because I'm old and can't move on because I'm hammy and have a B in my speech class right now because my professor hates me because I'm no longer dope.

Hacking courtesy of yours truly-

Andrew Wortham :P

_________________
-Joshua
08-09 | Half-Timer | Verdict | R8
09-10 | Timer | Verdict | R8
10-11 | Folkert/Folkert | Verdict | R8
11-12 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
12-13 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
13-14 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
14-15 | Folkert/Porter | Arx Axiom | R8
15-16 | Doto/Folkert | Verdict | R8


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6

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