homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:52 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  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 7:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:49 am
Posts: 62
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 10 (from Ohio)
Ginger Josh wrote:
superben21 wrote:
1. I was talking about sig-t. T is a stock issue..includes sig-t, extra-t, non-t, jus-t...the stock issue of sig is not relevent to this charge. Which is the point.


DrSraderNCU wrote:
I treat people calling topicality a stock issue the same way I treat people calling spiders insects. I overlook it, but inwardly roll my eyes. Topicality isn't a stock issue.

The stock issues are substantive, not procedural, and for each of them the burden of proof is on the affirmative. If the affirmative never mentions one of the three, they can lose for failure to present a prima facie case. The negative can simply note that it hasn't been proven, explain why that matters, and enjoy an easy win. Not true for topicality: the negative has to bring it up and win it pretty overwhelmingly; a tie, or even a marginal edge for the negative, tends to result in an affirmative win.

Categorically, topicality belongs with the various "Spec" arguments and the arguments that goofy counterplans are illegitimate. It's a theoretical objection. It's such a respectable and widely used theoretical objection that it gets taught along with the stock issues as a package of the very basics, but that doesn't make it a stock issue.

When we teach children their numbers, we include zero, even though zero has a lot of qualities that place it in an entirely different category. It's just a good moment to introduce the concept and get them accustomed to thinking about it.

No reason to believe its not a stock issue. While I highly respect Dr. Srader, he presented no reason for why it wouldn't be. The affirmative team must present a prima facie case yes, but I would argue that includes topicality. I see no reason why it wouldn't.

Buy "Lines of Argumentation for Policy Debate", it explains everything better than I can. It shows the why and how very clearly IMO.

_________________
Benjamin Erste ~ guy who likes to always have a good time.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 8:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
superben21 wrote:
No reason to believe its not a stock issue. While I highly respect Dr. Srader, he presented no reason for why it wouldn't be. The affirmative team must present a prima facie case yes, but I would argue that includes topicality. I see no reason why it wouldn't.

Buy "Lines of Argumentation for Policy Debate", it explains everything better than I can. It shows the why and how very clearly IMO.

this is kinda getting off topic, but the reason is that aff must prove T much like they must prove that their plan outweighs the disadvantages. the stock issues refer to the elements that the affirmative team needs to prove their advantages (inherency, solvency, and significance). a 1AC without solvency isn't prima facie, but a 1AC that doesn't defend T is. just like a case that doesn't weigh advantages and potential DAs is.

basically, stock issues =/= "things that aff must prove to win". they refer to something more specific.

_________________
- Will

2010-11 | Freshman | Bardsley/King | IX | 13th at Regionals
2011-12 | Sophomore | Dovel/King | IX | Q'd to Nationals
2012-13 | Junior | Dovel/King | IX | 17th at Nationals
2013-14 | Senior | Dovel/King | IX | 5th at Nationals

Baylor University class of 2018


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 10:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:49 am
Posts: 62
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 10 (from Ohio)
kingwill wrote:
superben21 wrote:
No reason to believe its not a stock issue. While I highly respect Dr. Srader, he presented no reason for why it wouldn't be. The affirmative team must present a prima facie case yes, but I would argue that includes topicality. I see no reason why it wouldn't.

Buy "Lines of Argumentation for Policy Debate", it explains everything better than I can. It shows the why and how very clearly IMO.

this is kinda getting off topic, but the reason is that aff must prove T much like they must prove that their plan outweighs the disadvantages. the stock issues refer to the elements that the affirmative team needs to prove their advantages (inherency, solvency, and significance). a 1AC without solvency isn't prima facie, but a 1AC that doesn't defend T is. just like a case that doesn't weigh advantages and potential DAs is.

basically, stock issues =/= "things that aff must prove to win". they refer to something more specific.

We should start a separate thread about this cause i disagree ;)

_________________
Benjamin Erste ~ guy who likes to always have a good time.


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2013 11:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 8:14 pm
Posts: 20
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: don't you just wish i knew
Highlander wrote:
I.rule.this.game wrote:
superben21 wrote:
The argument has seemed to work well from my experiances on it. So long as you can explain to the judge the fundamental difference between Sig-T and the stock issue Significance, you should have no problems. Just come up with some good impacts (both generic and case specific) and you should be able to win on it.

This ^
I actually like running Top/Sig better than stock issue/Sig. In my experience, I've almost found it harder to impact stock issue/Sig.


I don't understand this statement. Significance as a stock issues is easy. The harm isn't big enough to merit a reform. Simple as that. Sig T is harder to impact. You have to link the size of a reform to the resolution, however, with any definition you give to create a bright line doesn't matter. Significance is a relative term. You can't just say that plan X is insignificant, because who decides what is significant, and what is insignificant? What are the guidelines? Where is that line drawn. No one can quantify that, or place that line there.


Let me see if I can clarify my statement.
Here's an example: last year with CJS, there were numerous cases that dealt with death penalty/criminal sentencing. Say the affirmative was reforming one small little aspect of the CJS (like DNA evidence, or how prosecutors handle eyewitness testimony, etc.).
The Negative can come up and say that it's not that significance, so nbd. There's no reason to vote Aff.
What happens if the Aff comes back then, and claims that even if they are saving one innocent person's life from unfair punishment, then the judge should vote for them? They are being significant in some aspects, while in other's they are not.
This seems kinda unfair, although I did win an Aff round last year on this type of argument.
(Disclaimer: I have nothing whatsoever against this argument in real life. I totally respect the sanctity of life, but this is just used as an example)
Or another example: What happens if Aff is running a Criterion, which is something like net benefits. They can argue that even however small the benefits they get by an Aff ballot are, it's still better than the SQ, so Sign doesn't matter.

Then the obvious response is: Pin them down through their own guidelines. Topicality.
It's just a matter of showing why they don't fulfill their own definition of significant (or provide a counter one), impact it, etc. Then, even if they say they claim net benefits, or even save one life, you can prove that it doesn't matter because they provided the resolution, and are bound to uphold their own rules. You can use the classic basketball analogy: The resolution says to shoot a three pointer. They shoot a layup. It doesn't matter if they make it or not. It doesn't count, cause it's not what the resolution said to do.
Make any sense?

_________________
Feel The Power Of Red!!!


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Feb 18, 2013 3:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
Stock issues are a "real world" deliberative decisionmaking paradigm.
1) What are we doing now? Full analysis of causes. (inherency)
2) What would happen in proposal? Full analysis of what new causes do. (solvency)
3) On balance, is it good or bad? Full analysis of harms/advs of SQ and DAs/advs of plan. Usually a criteria helps filter this, because "net benefits" is the question itself (more good or bad) and doesn't help us resolve things.

That'll get you through lots of things in life... because it's the essence of a decision to act or not. Without any one, your decision to act is... illogical.

Topicality is a "debate" thing. Life doesn't have just two sides, just one question, and the inability to modify your proposal as you go. Debate needs these things to establish a competition. So topicality is typically referred to as a "stock issue" since the policy debater encounters FOUR concrete areas to "win" logically. But it's not one.

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


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3

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