homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Mon May 22, 2017 6:22 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  [ 19 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2013 4:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 203
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region II Oregon
Well for this year, i liked original UN purpose. If the affirmative team is trying to pass a plan that strays from that orignal purpose (cases like weighted voting and UNSC veto reform) then it has been very efective here.

_________________
I am ninja!
Best/Tähtinen|Rainmakers|2010-2011
Mckenzie/Tähtinen|Rainmakers|2011-2012
Miu/Tahtinen|Rainmakers|2012-2013


Top
   
PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2013 6:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
I usually try to base negative cases around some value or goal. The value depends on the case obviously, but some ones that I've used are int'l peace and security, human rights, cooperation, etc.

Back when I was the 1N, I also experimented some with what I called frameworks. E.g. I used a precedence framework, where I tried to tie as many points as I could into the overarching theme of "this didn't work before, so let's not do it again". I've also tried an advocacy framework, where I laid out a theoretical advocacy press, and then looked at specifically why the plan wasn't advocated (solvency/DAs). That one didn't work, mainly because we also ran T, and I focused too much on the theoretical side of the advocacy press, as well as T.

Related question: What is the best way to integrate topicality into a negative strategy? Whenever I run T, it always feels like it's tacked on to the other arguments (which generally tie into each other), and less persuasive because of that. Is that inevitable because T is a procedural, or is there some way to put it in the same theme as the other arguments?

_________________
- 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: Sun May 19, 2013 8:49 pm 
Offline
I know not this "leverage" of which you speak.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:52 pm
Posts: 2269
Home Schooled: Yes
kingwill wrote:
Related question: What is the best way to integrate topicality into a negative strategy? Whenever I run T, it always feels like it's tacked on to the other arguments (which generally tie into each other), and less persuasive because of that. Is that inevitable because T is a procedural, or is there some way to put it in the same theme as the other arguments?

I might just come out and say, "This may feel like it's a tack on argument and isn't important. The exact opposite is true. It's so important that it proceeds all other arguments. No matter what else is said in the round, if they can't win on T, they shouldn't win anything else. Here's why..."

I'm not sure whether or not this would be effective.

_________________
This account doesn't express the opinions of my employers and might not even express my own.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 4:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1362
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
I'll normally just throw out a base philosophy to make me sound like I know what I'm talking about. Something like: "Harms will still exist under the Affirmative plan."

_________________
-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: Wed Oct 16, 2013 5:00 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.
Run a value if you want. Present a criterion and show how the SQ upholds the value and the AFF doesn't. Make them fight the round on your chosen turf. This will only really work if you prep it out in advance and have a lot of supporting evidence on a couple main points :)

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

SDG.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
It usually works well to have your value be whatever the impact of your biggest DA is. So, e.g., against voter ID, the big DA is disenfranchisement, so a logical value is political equality/enfranchisement/constitutionality, whatever you want to call it.

_________________
- 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: Wed Oct 16, 2013 8:43 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.
Masked Midnight wrote:
Is there a generic value that you'd suggest for this resolution, or would you recommend tailoring individual ones for each AFF?

Make individual ones. Oftentimes it's your biggest DA like Kingwill, but not always. Like think about our round, we valued truth with a criterion of the marketplace of ideas. It can't be something you just apply to everything under the sun. Things like "responsible policy" shouldn't be used unless coupled with a super specific criterion.

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

SDG.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:27 am
Posts: 107
Home Schooled: Yes
Take it from a 5th year debater: judges will not vote on a specific criterion or goal or whatever. It's a waste of time to run, especially because then the other team becomes obsessed with debating it. For some reason people love debating criterions =P.

Also, having your main Advantage or your main Disad as the "criterion" or "goal" seems pretty dumb to me. It's a cheap attempt to weigh your impacts against theirs without actually doing any impact weighing.

_________________
"Until the possible becomes actual, it's only a distraction." ~ Qui-Gonn Jin

Verve, WA
G. Smith


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1362
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
RPatz wrote:
Take it from a 5th year debater: judges will not vote on a specific criterion or goal or whatever. It's a waste of time to run, especially because then the other team becomes obsessed with debating it. For some reason people love debating criterions =P.

Yeah, pretty much this. ^ :D

_________________
-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: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:53 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.
RPatz wrote:
Take it from a 5th year debater: judges will not vote on a specific criterion or goal or whatever. It's a waste of time to run, especially because then the other team becomes obsessed with debating it.

If judges aren't voting on it, it's probably because you're running it wrong. The point of a criterion is not to be a - "oh look you dropped my criterion, I better win the round now trololololol" sort of argument. The point of the criterion is to focus your whole defence of the status quo. Incidentally you inadvertently hit the nail on the head in your comments. Your value and criterion should be so rock solid and your rhetoric about them so effective, that you are dying for the affirmative to spend all their time on it. That way you are picking the ground, not them.

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

SDG.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:54 pm 
Offline
I know not this "leverage" of which you speak.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:52 pm
Posts: 2269
Home Schooled: Yes
edit: Ninja'd

RPatz wrote:
Take it from a 5th year debater: judges will not vote on a specific criterion or goal or whatever. It's a waste of time to run, especially because then the other team becomes obsessed with debating it. For some reason people love debating criterions =P.

Also, having your main Advantage or your main Disad as the "criterion" or "goal" seems pretty dumb to me. It's a cheap attempt to weigh your impacts against theirs without actually doing any impact weighing.


Excellent debaters win by re-framing the debate. For example, before the United State's federal constitution took effect, the Anti-Federalists argued that a federal government would usurp power from the states. Instead of arguing that a federal government wouldn't usurp state power, the Federalists re-defined the debate by arguing that power lies in the hands of the people, not the States. If the people (through their representitive) approve of the federal government, then no usurpation has occurred. In this way, they defeated the anti-federalist position with three famous words, "We the people..."

Having a goal and criterion isn't about saying two fancy words and pretending like they magically hand you the win. Rather, they should fundamentally re-frame the debate. In some instances it may be helpful to call your re-framing a, "goal and criterion," other times it may be more helpful to just re-frame the debate without fancy debate lingo. Re-framing is powerful. Debate jargon is not.

That being said, it's extremely difficult to effectively re-frame a debate. It requires deep insight and penetrating thought. Learning it requires practice and careful thought. Heck, I debated for 6 years and never got the hang of it.

_________________
This account doesn't express the opinions of my employers and might not even express my own.


Last edited by Mr Glasses on Thu Oct 17, 2013 12:30 am, edited 6 times in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Oct 16, 2013 10:02 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.
Masked Midnight wrote:
John III wrote:
Make individual ones. Oftentimes it's your biggest DA like Kingwill, but not always. Like think about our round, we valued truth with a criterion of the marketplace of ideas. It can't be something you just apply to everything under the sun. Things like "responsible policy" shouldn't be used unless coupled with a super specific criterion.

So, in essence, you can have a generic idea for a philosophy, but create a criterion that is tailored?

Yep! You can definitely do that. Or tailor both if you'd like. You don't even NEED to have both, depending on the argument and the team. :)

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

SDG.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Oct 17, 2013 11:58 pm 
Offline
Is now cool
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 3495
Home Schooled: Yes
It's really important to have a negative philosophy. But you don't have to boil that philosophy down to one word, and it doesn't have to sound like a value.

For example, the philosophy of my neg last year when I went up against Abolish the HRC was: "The function of the HRC has changed since its creation." Everything I said, every argument that I made and every quote I used was purposed around proving that the HRC no longer functions the same way that it used to. It functioned perfectly as a negative philosophy, and the judges understood it. But if I had tried to introduce this concept like: "My negative philosophy is changing function"... the judges would have been like "lol wut?"

So just keep in mind that a negative philosophy doesn't have to be a value, criterion, or phrase. :)


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Nov 21, 2013 10:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2012 2:27 am
Posts: 636
Home Schooled: Yes
+X wrote:
It's really important to have a negative philosophy. But you don't have to boil that philosophy down to one word, and it doesn't have to sound like a value.

For example, the philosophy of my neg last year when I went up against Abolish the HRC was: "The function of the HRC has changed since its creation." Everything I said, every argument that I made and every quote I used was purposed around proving that the HRC no longer functions the same way that it used to. It functioned perfectly as a negative philosophy, and the judges understood it. But if I had tried to introduce this concept like: "My negative philosophy is changing function"... the judges would have been like "lol wut?"

So just keep in mind that a negative philosophy doesn't have to be a value, criterion, or phrase. :)


Thats actually really helpful, thanks!

_________________
:lol:


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited