homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Wed Oct 18, 2017 1:17 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  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 pm
Posts: 152
Home Schooled: Yes
Dr. Srader is correct as usual, and that's kind of what I was getting at with what I said about PECs. If cp doesn't replace something, its not going to work.

In response to Isaiah's examples, those can all be permed. Just because you say my plan is better if we take additional action doesn't mean we shouldn't do my plan. The counterplan unnecessarily ties 2 issues together which could be treated separately. And if you can win that the intermediate state is worse, perm/cp doesn't matter anyway because you can just win the status quo vs plan debate. (not to say winning a DA to plan means you shouldn't have run the cp, merely that the only case here where the perm fails, you'd win without the cp)

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 5:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:54 am
Posts: 321
Home Schooled: Yes
Why are PICs always considered topical CPs? A PIC can be nontopical.

Example.
Rez: Policy towards Iran.
Aff: US sanctions Iran.
Neg: CP - All members of the UN sanction Iran.

This is a PIC because the US is obviously in the UN.

If an Aff ran "all countries sanction" then it would be extratopical.

ExtraT=NonT. This is because if an Aff does anything in addition to the resolution, they're not proving it true.

So if the Neg runs a PIC that is ExtraT, then it is NonT. And there's no ground for any parametric discussion to take place.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 1:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
Dr. Srader = horsesense. Wish more debaters had that.

ZaR wrote:
In response to Isaiah's examples, those can all be permed. Just because you say my plan is better if we take additional action doesn't mean we shouldn't do my plan. The counterplan unnecessarily ties 2 issues together which could be treated separately.


Most successful debaters here actually don't do that. They run DAs on just the plan without the other part, therefore you have DA with plan by itself and advantage with the whole CP. Beating the idea that you even can "perm" such a CP becomes easy at that point, in my opinion.

We have a lot of success arguing "perms make no sense" when they're of the variety you mention. When a permutation is used a PROOF of non-competitiveness (e.g. we defeated the DAs neg gives to our plan alone, therefore CP elements are just add-ons that don't function as a reason to not pass my plan...). So you're going to have to fight each of the proposals on the grounds "only works," assuming a CP was even run and the argument wasn't merely made outright.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 10:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 pm
Posts: 152
Home Schooled: Yes
The perm says its possible to do both, so its a false choice to be choosing between plan and counterplan. An artificial construct of a debate round. It says nothing about whether it would be a good idea to do both, merely that it is an option. Because it is an option, the only way you can win the net benefit debate is if plan is worse than status quo because either plan or plan+counterplan is vote aff...and counterplan is plan+counterplan. And if you argue that means I can't perm, that's proof of abuse for my theory position on a PIC being bad because it steals all offense from aff and would neg would never lose if they just had to add something awesome to plan then say it couldn't be permed. To respond to the specific arguments:
Isaiah wrote:
Most successful debaters here actually don't do that. They run DAs on just the plan without the other part, therefore you have DA with plan by itself and advantage with the whole CP. Beating the idea that you even can "perm" such a CP becomes easy at that point, in my opinion.

And running DAs specific to plan is the correct strategy, but it isn't benefited by a plan-plus CP. Either those DAs outweigh the advantages or they don't. If they do, you would win whether you ran the CP or not, so its pointless. If they don't, the perm works because it says the plan doesn't need to be the best option to win the round, it simply needs to be beneficial without blocking better options. It doesn't matter that CP is better than plan, because that's the point of a perm; to say that the judge shouldn't vote for a non-competitive option that happens to be better than plan.
I think you're trying to get to a net-benefits competitiveness, but that falls apart with a plan-plus CP because perm=CP (by definition) so the perm solves back for any DAs you run. Thus, the perm has the same net-benefit as the CP, meaning CP isn't a reason to vote neg. If you say the perm doesn't work, you're back into the theory position.
Isaiah wrote:
We have a lot of success arguing "perms make no sense" when they're of the variety you mention. When a permutation is used a PROOF of non-competitiveness (e.g. we defeated the DAs neg gives to our plan alone, therefore CP elements are just add-ons that don't function as a reason to not pass my plan...). So you're going to have to fight each of the proposals on the grounds "only works," assuming a CP was even run and the argument wasn't merely made outright.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. The perm shows the false choice being presented, and would actually be run the same as any other perm, the justification is just a bit different. The second sentence seems incomplete, and the last one doesn't seem to quite fit as completing it, so I'm not entirely sure what you're saying happens when a perm argues based on defeating neg DAs. The perm should be made in either case, and just argue there are 2 scenarios, and just admit they lose either way if DAs outweigh case, so the perm and cp are both irrelevant, but the perm functions if the DAs don't outweigh case. For net-benefits competitiveness to work, the DAs must exist in the perm, which will never happen with plan-plus

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 1:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
Quote:
It says nothing about whether it would be a good idea to do both, merely that it is an option

Hence the DAs. So next point is crux.

Quote:
...but it isn't benefited by a plan-plus CP. Either those DAs outweigh the advantages or they don't.


Plan+ let's you say the GENERAL idea is good, but IMPLEMENTATION is bad because it leaves out some things that cause true disadvantage. The CP is a demonstration of the truth of that statement and allows NEG to abandon SQ as what AFF is comparing against.

So AFF says Perm. It's permable if you just added stuff (ban abortion) and your only DA is the "absence" of whatever new advantage the CP causes. But you argue CP is COMPETITIVE because the DAs are actually caused (link) by the plan and solved by the CP.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:42 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
Isaiah wrote:
But you argue CP is COMPETITIVE because the DAs are actually caused (link) by the plan and solved by the CP.

I still think it would be illegit. But that's just because of my position on topicality and CPs.

::EDIT:: But yeah it certainly would be competitive.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 2:49 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
Isaiah wrote:
at which point you either just prove your plan or start telling the judge about PICs, resolutionality, perms, parametrics, and all these words that you alone are introducing to the round :-P

Daniel and I had to make that decision against Lydia and Peter. We chose both. And we won.

Just messin' guys.

::EDIT:: And Drew, if a CP is 1% Topical, it fails. That may confuse you, because aff has to be 100% topical, but that's because aff is limited TO the resolution. Neg is excluded FROM the resolution. Make sense?

::EDIT:: I definitely don't see resolutions like you do, Dr. Srader. I don't see them as "guidelines" for what teams should debate about. I've said this before, but just think about an LD resolution. Yeah LD isn't TP-- but the resolutions are worded very similar, aren't they? I like what Daniel said:
Quote:
Resolutions are always worded as a true/false statement that can be affirmed or denied.

Why do we treat LD and TP so differently in this case? Why is LD clearly a clash of two ideas (rez vs. not-rez) while TP is not (for some reason it's plan vs. not-plan). I think the answer is simple: people like their counterplans.
Quote:
ExtraT=NonT. This is because if an Aff does anything in addition to the resolution, they're not proving it true.

That doesn't mean aff is non-T-- it just means that they didn't prove that the rez could stand on its own two feet. The way I see it, aff has to be 100% topical, neg has to be 100% non-topical.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 5:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
thehomeschooler wrote:
Yeah LD isn't TP-- but the resolutions are worded very similar, aren't they?
No. Value topics are deliberately written to be generalizable, and policy topics are deliberately written to be completely and hopelessly meaningless as generalizations. That's true for the more narrow topics I'm used to, and it's infinitely more true for the broader topics that Stoa and NCFCA gravitate toward. "Resolved, that loving and being loved is the greatest experience in human existence" is a generalizable value topic. "Resolved, that you should get married" is completely meaningless and impossible to argue if you don't know who you're talking about marrying.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 6:23 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
DrSraderNCU wrote:
No.

I meant in a very simple, obvious way. In the way Daniel was talking about:

LD rez: "X is Y". We take that to mean aff's position is "X is Y" and neg's position is "X is not Y". Heck. That makes sense.

TP rez: "X should Y". Now why the heck do we not take that to mean that neg's position is "X should not Y", especially if we insist that aff's position must be "X should Y and nothing else"?

That's what I meant. Sure LD and TP are vastly different in on other ways. I'm just talking about, at the most basic level, how we react to what a rez says. If aff and neg LDers agree and disagree with the rez, why don't TPers do the same thing?
DrSraderNCU wrote:
"Resolved, that you should get married" is completely meaningless and impossible to argue if you don't know who you're talking about marrying.

Yeah, of course you can't debate about that without going into specifics. I know that's why policy debate uses "plans". I'm sure that was and is the purpose of that form of debate-- so that people can debate about specific policies. But, now that I think of it, that's the only big difference between the TP and LD formats. There is no difference between the two formats that implies that the policy format only limits aff cases, whereas the LD format actually focuses on agreeing/disagreeing with the rez. At least, I can't think of one.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:34 pm 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
Also, remember that single Aff plans prove the entire resolution. You don't have to prove general principals, because the word "should" merely requires you to affirm a need - which you can do with a single plan. The standard resolution wording fully explains TP debate.

Dr. Srader's argument is that TP debate has evolved out of this interpretation, to the point where the resolution is just a topic statement and the wording is just from convention. This is a valid viewpoint, but I don't think it's necessary, and it introduces a lot of complexity and unpredictability.

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 8:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:46 am
Posts: 678
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I can't think of anything witty right now...so...RIX
My philosophy on PI-CPs stems from my philosophy on Topical CPs.

They affirm the resolution.
Saying that you affirm the plan but let's do B actually answers the judge's question "should we reform the justice system significantly"? to the affirmative. See, you're not there to debate the merits of the plan. You're there to be a negative team or an affirmative one in regards to a resolution.
The judge is deciding whether reform is needed.
The AFF concedes all reforms (of course) except the one he's proposing: X. The judge must now decide whether X reform of the justice system is a good idea.
The NEG says that it's not. Fair point. Run a DA and leave it alone.
But when the NEG says it's not a good idea but then proposes an addition that WOULD make it a good idea, the judge is now looking at plan Y. And the NEG just admitted that Y reform of the justice system is a good idea. The Judge thus affirms the resolution. In other words, PI-CIPs are just a more nuanced form of a topical CP.

Of course, if your plan is something like "Pass AFF plan + do something else to solve even more", it is even worse.

_________________
http://siftingthroughmythoughts.blogspot.com/

08-09 | Thomas/Young | Broke to Regionals
09-10 | Brake/Thomas | Broke to Nats
10-11 | Black/Thomas | Won Regionals, 7th at Nats
11-12 | Comfort/Thomas | Won 2 Qualifiers, Won Regionals
12-13 | LD Debater | 3rd overall in RIX, 7th at Nats


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 10:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
Dr. Srader... try this analogy on for size.

A Meyers-Briggs would identify the approach to debate theory as XYZJ. Culturally this community is a super strong J (Judging) rather than P (Perceptive).

Thus, they will consistently look for rules by which to make a judgement (topicalitaahh), even if the judgement lacks perception (aren't we talking about what to do or not do... and shouldn't the team that loses its solution lose...?).

MSD, I think it's a litttllee ignorant to say "evolved" out of this interpretation if you're not sure whether they even used words like counterplans, parametrics, etc in the "pre-evolved" state where they likely as not merely made arguments like "Your plan doesn't work because of X thing that makes the plan flawed even if the idea was good". I've found suggestions like this, even referred to as a counterplan, in debate texts from the 1960s.

Quote:
This is a valid viewpoint, but I don't think it's necessary, and it introduces a lot of complexity and unpredictability.

Here's where I really think you're misled. There is literally zero complexity in the following:

AFF: Pull troops out of Japan.
NEG: Only if you leave a nuclear monitoring party.

This is why Josiah and Patrick were able to win nationals with multiple "topical counterplans" to community and parent judges by simply going to the heart of the argument, leaving it to AFF to either defend their case or introduce complexity by saying a legitimate challenge wasn't actually legitimate because of really complex ideas.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:09 pm 
Offline
Hint hint peoples.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:18 pm
Posts: 1372
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: San Diego, California
Isaiah wrote:
AFF: Pull troops out of Japan.
NEG: Only if you leave a nuclear monitoring party.

This is why Josiah and Patrick were able to win nationals with multiple "topical counterplans" to community and parent judges by simply going to the heart of the argument, leaving it to AFF to either defend their case or introduce complexity by saying a legitimate challenge wasn't actually legitimate because of really complex ideas.


^this. PICP's aren't always right for every circumstance, but if run well and they effectively prove why a NEG ballot is warranted/AFF ballot is insufficient, then go ahead.

The job of the Negative team is to refute the Affirmative's plan, not to refute the resolution. If AFF says "we can't vote for the CP because it is topical, there's two Affirmative teams, yadayadayada," they're bringing parametrics onto themselves.

Yes, PICP's do give some ground to AFF. But the possible ground gained by NEG can far outweigh any positions given to AFF. In fact, it is actually probably better for Negative to once in a while say, "yeah, AFF's right on some stuff, but there's one problem with their case, which we fix with our counterplan," instead of always appearing like the team which says "NONONONONONONO."

_________________
http://www.ebsd.us/

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:18 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
Isaiah wrote:
This is why Josiah and Patrick were able to win nationals with multiple "topical counterplans" to community and parent judges by simply going to the heart of the argument, leaving it to AFF to either defend their case or introduce complexity by saying a legitimate challenge wasn't actually legitimate because of really complex ideas.

But aff just has to think one speech ahead in order to turn neg's strategy on them. All they do is point out that a RESOLUTION exists, and, well, negative is negative and it seems like neg is an affirmative team. From my experience, this concept isn't confusing to community judges. Then, if neg wants to dig themselves out of the whole they're in, they can introduce their complex justification for the CP in the 2N. For the rest of the round, they'll be fighting a losing battle, because if aff starts out right, their position just makes more sense-- and now neg is the team that introduces the confusing stuff. At least that's been my experience.

And it's a legitimate challenge (if you're referring to a hole in the aff plan that the CP tries to fix). The problem is how neg reacts to the problem they're challenging: by shooting themselves in the foot and agreeing with the resolution.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 1:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 pm
Posts: 152
Home Schooled: Yes
Isaiah wrote:
Quote:
It says nothing about whether it would be a good idea to do both, merely that it is an option

Hence the DAs. So next point is crux.

Quote:
...but it isn't benefited by a plan-plus CP. Either those DAs outweigh the advantages or they don't.


Plan+ let's you say the GENERAL idea is good, but IMPLEMENTATION is bad because it leaves out some things that cause true disadvantage. The CP is a demonstration of the truth of that statement and allows NEG to abandon SQ as what AFF is comparing against.

So AFF says Perm. It's permable if you just added stuff (ban abortion) and your only DA is the "absence" of whatever new advantage the CP causes. But you argue CP is COMPETITIVE because the DAs are actually caused (link) by the plan and solved by the CP.

That's artificial competition. There are 2 sources of competition, text (textual comp/mutual exclusivity) and effects (net benefits) In the case of competition based on the text, the perm asks "Is it possible to do both?" In the case of competition based on the effects, the perm asks "Does CP by itself create a better world than plan or perm?" Sure the DAs are linked off of the plan and solved by the CP, but the perm still solves them. This is the same as arguing that the perm shields the links to a disad in a normal CP...except in this case the argument that the DA won't happen with a perm is actually true :P To win the debate, you have to argue that I can't legitimately perm a plan-plus CP, because there is no reason we can't do both (since CP IS doing both). And arguing that I can't perm is a quick way to lose on proof of abuse for plan-plus CP bad.

Basically, it boils down to the fact that there is no reason I can't perm and reach the scenario to do both. Any arguments you make that I can't perm can also justify a ban abortion CP as long as it solves some DA you come up with against the plan itself. You just have to run an arg that plan increases abortion and your argument works. A plan-plus says we shouldn't do A, we should do A+B. The perm says we can do A and it has no effect on our ability to do B, so we could still do B, thus, no opportunity cost to plan. As I said before, net-benefits competition works because the CP has a different solvency mechanism for the advantages. This allows them to run DAs that exist in BOTH the plan and the perm. If, as I argued above, the perm solves the DAs, it functions, and counterplan has no offense.

EDIT: I think I repeat myself some in the 2 paragraphs. I wrote the first one, then left for a bit and came back to finish, and didn't read through what I'd already written in detail

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 3:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:46 am
Posts: 678
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I can't think of anything witty right now...so...RIX
Isaiah wrote:
Dr. Srader... try this analogy on for size.

A Meyers-Briggs would identify the approach to debate theory as XYZJ. Culturally this community is a super strong J (Judging) rather than P (Perceptive).

Thus, they will consistently look for rules by which to make a judgement (topicalitaahh), even if the judgement lacks perception (aren't we talking about what to do or not do... and shouldn't the team that loses its solution lose...?).

MSD, I think it's a litttllee ignorant to say "evolved" out of this interpretation if you're not sure whether they even used words like counterplans, parametrics, etc in the "pre-evolved" state where they likely as not merely made arguments like "Your plan doesn't work because of X thing that makes the plan flawed even if the idea was good". I've found suggestions like this, even referred to as a counterplan, in debate texts from the 1960s.

Quote:
This is a valid viewpoint, but I don't think it's necessary, and it introduces a lot of complexity and unpredictability.

Here's where I really think you're misled. There is literally zero complexity in the following:

AFF: Pull troops out of Japan.
NEG: Only if you leave a nuclear monitoring party.

This is why Josiah and Patrick were able to win nationals with multiple "topical counterplans" to community and parent judges by simply going to the heart of the argument, leaving it to AFF to either defend their case or introduce complexity by saying a legitimate challenge wasn't actually legitimate because of really complex ideas.


Okay, to me, here's how I would argue that...

It's a topical CP so then that's that. Obviously that's a different subject.
But should the judge negate anyway just because of the DA of not having a monitoring party? That's a very valid question. So then the question becomes to me at least, is pulling out without a nuclear monitoring party better than the status quo?

_________________
http://siftingthroughmythoughts.blogspot.com/

08-09 | Thomas/Young | Broke to Regionals
09-10 | Brake/Thomas | Broke to Nats
10-11 | Black/Thomas | Won Regionals, 7th at Nats
11-12 | Comfort/Thomas | Won 2 Qualifiers, Won Regionals
12-13 | LD Debater | 3rd overall in RIX, 7th at Nats


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 3:25 am 
Offline
Cupcake
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:08 pm
Posts: 1211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Illinois
@Preston:

My point is the following.

Aff gets lemons and sugar (the res) and says that squeezing the lemons and mixing the juice with the sugar is good. Neg says that mixing sugar and lemons is good, but only with water (PIC; res -> plan + outside res). Aff says, "But you agree! The res is good!" Neg says, "The res ISN'T good unless you add something outside the res."

According to some of those on this thread, neg is in the wrong for supporting the res through an extra-topical PIC. But also according to some, aff should still lose, because the resolution has been proven a terrible idea when put in a vacuum.

Now my question to you all (and not one that I can't answer for myself) is WHO is in the right if you believe both theories (because they do mesh well; aff has only the res, and neg has only outside the res)?

_________________
Drew Chambers
LinkedIn


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 3:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:46 am
Posts: 678
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I can't think of anything witty right now...so...RIX
Drew wrote:
@Preston:

My point is the following.

Aff gets lemons and sugar (the res) and says that squeezing the lemons and mixing the juice with the sugar is good. Neg says that mixing sugar and lemons is good, but only with water (PIC; res -> plan + outside res). Aff says, "But you agree! The res is good!" Neg says, "The res ISN'T good unless you add something outside the res."

According to some of those on this thread, neg is in the wrong for supporting the res through an extra-topical PIC. But also according to some, aff should still lose, because the resolution has been proven a terrible idea when put in a vacuum.

Now my question to you all (and not one that I can't answer for myself) is WHO is in the right if you believe both theories (because they do mesh well; aff has only the res, and neg has only outside the res)?


If the resolution is a terrible idea when put in a vacuum, then I'd agree that the judge should vote NEG. I just don't think he's voting for the CP - he's voting for the fact that the AFF plan didn't convince him it was better than the SQ. In other words, he just has to treat it like a fundamental DA.

_________________
http://siftingthroughmythoughts.blogspot.com/

08-09 | Thomas/Young | Broke to Regionals
09-10 | Brake/Thomas | Broke to Nats
10-11 | Black/Thomas | Won Regionals, 7th at Nats
11-12 | Comfort/Thomas | Won 2 Qualifiers, Won Regionals
12-13 | LD Debater | 3rd overall in RIX, 7th at Nats


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 3:32 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
Drew wrote:
Neg says, "The res ISN'T good unless you add something outside the res."

And if the neg was smart, they wouldn't run a CP with that. If you can seriously prove that the aff plan is no good, then there's no need for a PIC. You prove that by, as Daniel (Thomas) said, showing that it isn't better than the SQ. Where things get skrewey is when you compare the aff plan to your CP and ask for a neg vote, when in fact the aff plan is better than the SQ. That's the only case in which the CP would actually be of use (when the aff plan is better than the SQ but the CP is competitive and preferable); the problem is, you can't say "The res ISN'T good unless you add something outside the res."

Dangitt. Daniel beat me.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jun 16, 2012 3:34 am 
Offline
Hint hint peoples.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:18 pm
Posts: 1372
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: San Diego, California
Amodeum wrote:
Drew wrote:
@Preston:

My point is the following.

Aff gets lemons and sugar (the res) and says that squeezing the lemons and mixing the juice with the sugar is good. Neg says that mixing sugar and lemons is good, but only with water (PIC; res -> plan + outside res). Aff says, "But you agree! The res is good!" Neg says, "The res ISN'T good unless you add something outside the res."

According to some of those on this thread, neg is in the wrong for supporting the res through an extra-topical PIC. But also according to some, aff should still lose, because the resolution has been proven a terrible idea when put in a vacuum.

Now my question to you all (and not one that I can't answer for myself) is WHO is in the right if you believe both theories (because they do mesh well; aff has only the res, and neg has only outside the res)?


If the resolution is a terrible idea when put in a vacuum, then I'd agree that the judge should vote NEG. I just don't think he's voting for the CP - he's voting for the fact that the AFF plan didn't convince him it was better than the SQ. In other words, he just has to treat it like a fundamental DA.


Wait...isn't the rez assumed to be amoral when "put in a vacuum"? From my understanding, it's the job of the AFF to prove the resolution is inherently good or that it is good to uphold it.

_________________
http://www.ebsd.us/

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


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 83 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


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