homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:18 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  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Full Resolution cases
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 1:30 am
Posts: 23
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 6
I'm a newer debater. This is the first year I've heard of "full resolution" cases. I haven't been neg against one yet... which is a good thing, because I'm rather confused about it.

As I understand it, a full rez case says, essentially, we affirm the resolution, but offers no specific plan for implementation. My first question is this:

Is that an accurate summary?

My second question is this:

What is the rational behind this kind of case? The 1AC is eight minutes long, so there must be more to it.

And last:

How do you attack a case that simply says, "Yes. Let's reform,"?

Oh, and one more question:

If the resolution contains "should be reformed or abolished" does that mean the Aff is affirming that statement? Or just that reform should happen?

I hope those questions make sense...

Thanks!

_________________
M. Carpenter/S. Fraser 2011-2012
B. Carpenter/M. Carpenter 2011-2012 & 2012-2013

"We are too young to realize that certain things are impossible, so we will do them anyway." -William Pitt, Amazing Grace movie

http://www.thelittleadoptionmovie.wordpress.com/


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 06, 2013 11:28 pm 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1909
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
As far as definition, that's a pretty good summary. More technically, the Affirmative doesn't say they are reforming the SQ, but simply that we should reform the SQ. They claim this statement by itself affirms the resolution. (Which is theoretically uncertain - see below.)

As far as content, most whole-res cases basically consist of 8 minutes of harms.

As far as attacking, I wrote a blog post about this here. Basically, I would argue that whole-rez arguments don't affirm the resolution because they don't prove that a valid solution actually exists to the problems they present. Thus, they don't affirm that we should actually reform.

_________________
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
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 4:18 am 
Offline
Hint hint peoples.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:18 pm
Posts: 1356
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: San Diego, California
Never hit one of those cases when I did TP here in California, but it seems to me that a full-rez case would be fairly simple to defeat. I agree with MSD's chain of logic - if the AFF doesn't provide a plan, then they are not providing the mechanisms for affirming the resolution and showing it to be true. If the harms are such a big deal, why not provide a plan to solve the problems? I could say that GENOCIDE as well as dropping delicious ice cream cones are very bad things. But if I don't provide a way to change that, then all I'm doing is joining the chorus of voices without producing any actual action to stop genocide. (And it's impossible to defy gravity and stop all ice cream cones from falling.)

Also, you can take a stock-issues position and say that AFF fails the four stock issues (topicality, solvency, inherency, and significance) by not providing a plan.

Topicality - since there is no plan in the first place, then the AFF is not topical. Simply saying there is a problem doesn't show how we will change the situation.

Solvency - again, non-existent since there is no plan. If you vote AFF, then there is no way to help solve the harms. You're simply assenting the harms exist, but that's what the NEG already recognizes and/or has proven that the harms don't exist.

Inherency: AFF is simply telling what is in the status quo, not providing a way to change the SQ. They are functioning like another Negative team, in a sense.

Significance: Can be taken care of by either mitigating/turning the harms or again pulling through the logic chain that since there is no plan, then the harms might not be important enough to solve. Significance is derived from weighing advantages and disadvantages to the PLAN. Since there is no plan, there is no significance. There is no way to put advantages and disadvantages on a scale to weigh them properly.

_________________
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
   
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2013 7:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1361
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
I'd never even heard of such a case before. :P Once I did go against an Aff team that was Negating the resolution by saying that the Criminal Justice System shouldn't be reformed, never a full resolution case.

Anyway, I pretty much agree with Paradigm and MSD. Just adding to the Topicality argument a little bit. You can just take it to the exact wording of the resolution which is: Resolved: That the United Nations should be significantly reformed or abolished. In order to affirm the resolution, the Aff team has to provide a plan to reform or abolish the UN. If they don't provide a plan, then they are negating the resolution which is the Neg team's job. You can argue general debate principle for that.

_________________
-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
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 7:49 pm 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1909
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
More specifically, you have to show why they need to have a plan. The Aff's whole argument is that they don't need a plan to show that we "should" reform the UN.

_________________
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
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 08, 2013 8:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1361
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
MSD wrote:
More specifically, you have to show why they need to have a plan. The Aff's whole argument is that they don't need a plan to show that we "should" reform the UN.

Exactly. :)

_________________
-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
   
PostPosted: Sun Feb 10, 2013 1:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 1:30 am
Posts: 23
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 6
Thank y'all so much! Your responses, and the blog post, have been very helpful. :)

_________________
M. Carpenter/S. Fraser 2011-2012
B. Carpenter/M. Carpenter 2011-2012 & 2012-2013

"We are too young to realize that certain things are impossible, so we will do them anyway." -William Pitt, Amazing Grace movie

http://www.thelittleadoptionmovie.wordpress.com/


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

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