homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Fri May 26, 2017 9:51 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  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Topical counterplans
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 1:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
Masked Midnight wrote:
I see more danger with rez-centrism, where the AFF has to run a whole rez to be legitimate -- that's the only way that the entire resolution can be effectively affirmed.

I don't think so. Affirming the resolution is a "do or do not" type ot thing. Affirming one case affirms the resolution, and it's impossible to affirm it "better" or "more effectively."

_________________
- 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
   
 Post subject: Re: Topical counterplans
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 4:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 20, 2011 6:46 pm
Posts: 212
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Mars, obviously.
kingwill wrote:
Masked Midnight wrote:
I see more danger with rez-centrism, where the AFF has to run a whole rez to be legitimate -- that's the only way that the entire resolution can be effectively affirmed.

I don't think so. Affirming the resolution is a "do or do not" type ot thing. Affirming one case affirms the resolution, and it's impossible to affirm it "better" or "more effectively."


Well, some cases are better than others, meaning that they're upholding the res more effectively.
I look at it this way: Say the resolution is that Razi should run for political office. To uphold that rez, AFF doesn't need to prove that Razi should run for political office in general-- for one thing, he couldn't run for most offices because of age and residency requirements. AFF can just prove that Razi should run for one particular political office, and the resolution has been effectively proven.
I the resolution is that John Smith should eat lunch, the AFF doesn't need to prove that he should eat every lunch possible-- they can just say he should eat sushi. Boom, resolution upheld.

_________________
ShaynePC wrote:
Guys. John Bush III is coaching this club. In Greek, jonbush means SIGN UP NOW.

Join Speech and Debate USA
[Avatar photo credit]


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Topical counterplans
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 6:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 2:58 pm
Posts: 340
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Manhattan KS (Region V)
MSD wrote:
JBWilson wrote:
(sure you may half be addressing the resolution but if you do a nontopical counterplan I would soooooo kritik your theory (not necessarily your case) and say that it is abusive to the aff to run a nontopical counterplan.)
Do explain. How is it abusive to the Aff?
Because the Aff is supposed to be studying FEL not every idea there is in the world that might have some affect on FEL, to be able to refute anything that the Neg brings up. It is totally fine for the negative to research some other real life way to fix the problem in there own time (because no one is making them) but it is abusive to make another team do research outside of the Rez to be able to defend there case inround against who knows what the Negative pulls that might have only a little affect on FEL. So therefore nontop counterplans are abusive.

Masked Midnight wrote:
Quote:
Is neg supposed to persuade the judge that the status quo is perfect, or that the plan should not happen?
The NEG should negate the AFF's plan/case as proposed; once the AFF presents the case, the resolution narrows to fit that proposal. #parametricist
... because of the law of perfection-by-silence. But that doesn't mean that they can bring up a topical counterplan because then you are affirming the Rez

Masked Midnight wrote:
Quote:
The resolution is set before the round starts and there is no reason that it would disolve to the affirmative plan otherwise CPs wouldn't be aloud because they're different from the case. Narrowing it down is dangerous territory.
Not quite. If the CP refutes the AFF directly, then it is perfectly legitimate. I see more danger with rez-centrism, where the AFF has to run a whole rez to be legitimate -- that's the only way that the entire resolution can be effectively affirmed.[quote]Lets assume for a moment that the Resolution for the 2013-2014 season is "Resolved: that there is oil under the Rocky Mountains" (yeah, kinda boring rez but it works for this example). Now as the Aff do you have to look under every single mountain to prove the rez true? No. All you have to do is look and find that somewhere un that whole chain of mountains, at least one has oil under it, then you have successfully proved that "Yes there is indeed oil under the Rocky Mountains" (You didn't prove that there is oil under every mountain just that there was oil somewhere under the Rocky Mountains) (I ran this soooooooo many times with my Aff last year (In LD) because my aff was government only have a MO in this certain circumstance.) The same applies to the real rez. It says that FEL should be significantly reformed, and the Aff says "yes it should be because of this problem" (therefore they are saying that it should be reformed).

_________________
Alius Iudex Alius Dies, Sola Deo Gloria


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Topical counterplans
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 7:15 pm 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1910
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
JBWilson wrote:
MSD wrote:
JBWilson wrote:
(sure you may half be addressing the resolution but if you do a nontopical counterplan I would soooooo kritik your theory (not necessarily your case) and say that it is abusive to the aff to run a nontopical counterplan.)
Do explain. How is it abusive to the Aff?
Because the Aff is supposed to be studying FEL not every idea there is in the world that might have some affect on FEL, to be able to refute anything that the Neg brings up. It is totally fine for the negative to research some other real life way to fix the problem in there own time (because no one is making them) but it is abusive to make another team do research outside of the Rez to be able to defend there case inround against who knows what the Negative pulls that might have only a little affect on FEL. So therefore nontop counterplans are abusive.
That's like saying, "crime rates are a totally different topic from elections, so it's abusive for the Negative to point out how my plan increases crime rates!" If the CP legitimately refutes the Affirmative plan (as it should), then it's relevant to the topic.

You're not forcing the Affirmative to research irrelevant off-topic information - you're forcing them to research arguments directly related to whether their plan should be adopted.

_________________
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 - v1.4 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Topical counterplans
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 8:59 pm 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1910
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
Masked Midnight wrote:
JBWilson wrote:
Lets assume for a moment that the Resolution for the 2013-2014 season is "Resolved: that there is oil under the Rocky Mountains" (yeah, kinda boring rez but it works for this example). Now as the Aff do you have to look under every single mountain to prove the rez true? No. All you have to do is look and find that somewhere un that whole chain of mountains, at least one has oil under it, then you have successfully proved that "Yes there is indeed oil under the Rocky Mountains" (You didn't prove that there is oil under every mountain just that there was oil somewhere under the Rocky Mountains)
So, in essence you're agreeing with me. Using your example, rez-centrists advocate searching under every mountain for oil in order to justify the full (or whole) resolution. Parametricists argue that finding one mountain with oil under it fulfills the resolution and then the debate narrows to that mountain. At this point the debate focuses on that mountain and not the others.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but rezcentrists don't say you have to search under every mountain. The same logic applies to both frameworks - one example proves the resolution true.

_________________
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 - v1.4 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Topical counterplans
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 9:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
Masked Midnight wrote:
Using your example, rez-centrists advocate searching under every mountain for oil in order to justify the full (or whole) resolution. Parametricists argue that finding one mountain with oil under it fulfills the resolution and then the debate narrows to that mountain. At this point the debate focuses on that mountain and not the others.

Still not right.

Rez-centrism: one case justifies the full resolution, but the resolution stays the same in size.
Parametrics: one case justifies the full resolution, and the resolution shrinks to encompass only that one case.

You're saying that for a rez-centrist to prove the resolution true, he needs to justify every case under the resolution, but that's simply not true. If you find one mountain, then the resolution has been completely affirmed, regardless of whether or not you're going by rez-centrism or parametrics. The difference between the two theories is in what happens after the resolution has been affirmed.

_________________
- 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
   
 Post subject: Re: Topical counterplans
PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 10:33 pm 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2954
Home Schooled: Yes
Dr. Srader makes an important point that seems to have been overlooked: there are different rule sets by which the debaters can play. Rezcentrism ("aff affirms the rez; neg negates it") and plancentrism ("aff presents a plan and affirms it; neg negates it") are both internally consistent even though they contradict each other. They are different games. The question is: which would you rather play?

Comparing the educational value of the games is a potential way to weigh them against each other. So is comparing their adherence to the goals of donors (at least in college debates).

My favorite way to compare the games is: which is the least naïve to common practice?

Common practice is to state the resolution as a formality in the 1AC and to focus the rest of the debate on the merits of the plan. When aff runs a nontopical plan, neg doesn't run topicality and then try to convince the judge that the status quo is perfect. Instead, they still debate the merits of the nontopical plan because the plan is still the true focus of the debate. "The plan is nontopical; vote neg to penalize aff's left field tactic" and "the plan should not happen; it does not earn your ballot" are different angles of attack against the plan.

A few logical fallacies I couldn't resist correcting:
Hammy wrote:
Why would it make any sense for the neg to negate the affirmative case. If that was true then it would be Aff's job to affirm the negs case. Aff and Neg are flip sides of the same coin, not different coins.
Aff takes the side of a particular statement (rezcentrism: the resolution / plancentrism: "our plan should happen") being true. Neg takes the side of it being false.
Masked Midnight wrote:
I see more danger with rez-centrism, where the AFF has to run a whole rez to be legitimate -- that's the only way that the entire resolution can be effectively affirmed.
The resolution is a statement. Like any statement, it is either true or false, not part-true-part-false. If a topical plan should happen, then the resolution is true. (By definition of "topical plan".) Actually, our imagination is the only limit to the variety of ways a statement like "_____ should reform _____" can be argued. It's not much harder to argue than "something in the world should change."
JBWilson wrote:
it is abusive to make another team do research outside of the Rez to be able to defend there case inround against who knows what the Negative pulls
Actually, there is a limit to the counterplans neg can run, and it's far more limiting than the resolution itself. That limit is competition. A topical counterplan means: if the CP should happen, then the resolution is true. A competitive counterplan means: if the CP should happen, then the plan should not happen. Not just any counterplan is competitive.

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2

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