homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Thu Jul 27, 2017 7:52 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  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Trichotomy
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:23 pm 
Offline
Hint hint peoples.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 5:18 pm
Posts: 1363
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: San Diego, California
Disclaimer for mods: This might go under debate theory discussion, but since tricot doesn't apply to either TP or LD and there's the Parliamentary debate forum, I'm posting it here. You can move it if you wish, but IMHO I think it should stay here.

This is the place to discuss Trichotomy, an argument used in Parliamentary debate.

Trichotomy is a very cool argument to use if you're OPP and the GOV team has just defined the resolution in a way that is abusive or is clearly not how the resolution should be defined. You can also link back to a redefinition you provide. For example:

Resolved: This House sees the light at the end of the tunnel.
GOV: this is a policy resolution. (Sidenote: I'd be very interested to see how any GOV could pull it off with that kind of interpretation,but for the sake of explanation well go with it.)
OPP: Trichotomy: this is clearly metaphor resolution.

The structure of a Tricot goes somewhat like a topicality press. You can think of tricot as a tpress against the GOV's definition of what the resolution is.

Trichotomy outline:
A. Standards.
B. Violation.
C. Impact.

GOV can also use tricots against OPP cases but it would probably be better to refute any tricot by the OPP and leave it at that. If OPP doesn't provide a redo Uruk al analysis or reasons why your interpretation. Of the resolution shouldn't be preferred, then it's GOV prerogative to take care of that.

_________________
Evan Buck, LD Coach

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


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Trichotomy
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 7:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
Having seen/done this way too much, I just don't like how much it distracts from debating the actual content. There are debaters who just learn trichot and then go into every round and argue it (and they'll argue interping a value resolution as a value rez is bad because policy is action oriented and therefore inherently better, so shame on you for not having a plan).

Thing 2... metaphor resolutions are always interpreted into fact, value, or policy..........

So I'd 85% of the time interp that rez as a policy rez.

A. "Light at the end of the tunnel" implies final event of significance after...

B. The tunnel. Something not so great to be in that is miry and you're in for awhile. You try to get out of it.

Interp: The U.S. will 100% pull out of Afghanistan. (policy)

Another arguable one: There is finally a clear solution to some long time problem. Plan: Value Added Tax.

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


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Trichotomy
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 pm
Posts: 152
Home Schooled: Yes
Policy reses are the best because they create the most clash, and equal ground for both sides.

Values res ultimately end in seeing who can pin the other team to the most morally reprehensible actions/actors, and don't result in substantive debate about the actual merits of the values. Its also very aff slanted because its much easier to point out problems with current values than it is to give a concrete problem with the SQ and then defend a specific change.

Fact reses...are debates about facts. Still not sure who thought trying to prove via a debate round whether an event happened for a specific reason was a good idea. Its not. Heavily neg slanted, because aff has no real way to generate offense, while its incredibly easy for neg to generate offense. Even if neg never touches the aff case, if one of their counterwarrants pulls through, they stand a pretty good chance of winning.

If I'm gov in a round, I'll find a way to make the res a policy res (pass a policy to uphold the value, etc) and try to debate policy, and defend it with the above. I'd probably defend a policy NTP of the res as opp too, though I would engage the case with the NTP they used.

Fortunately, this isn't really an issue, the vast majority of parli tournaments in the area (Northwest college circuit) have rejected the idea of trichotomy and only use policy reses.

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


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Trichotomy
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 1394
Home Schooled: Yes
Or just have gov pick the rez and get rid of tricot, fact rezes, and bad value rezes altogether. Like APDA. ;)

(but seriously... I'd be interested in seeing a Stoa tournament implement an APDA-style parli track. It would be an interesting test case.)

_________________
Andrew Min
ahmin@princeton.edu
Arete Speech & Debate, NCFCA, Class of 2011


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Trichotomy
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
This is, sadly, a huge deal in my region. A lot of resolutions are so ambiguously written that they can be any one of the three.

Here's my general strategy:
1. If I'm aff and the res is vaguely worded, make it a fact round if possible. That way its a lot easier to surprise the neg, and, unlike a policy res, they can't run generics in a fact round.
2. My partner and I are very good theory debaters, so if we're interpreting the res a weird way just have him, as the 2AC prep out tons of answers while I shell the case.
3. As neg, try to pin them into a policy res, so that we can run generics and, since we're faster than most other parli debaters and we're faster doing policy, we can spread them out.
4. Avoid running trichot, and run it as a last resort. If you prepped out for policy, usually you can co-opt your DAs into countercontentions with a framework of "ideas have consequences, and the advocate is responsible for the endgame of the implementation of their ideas." If you prepped out for fact/value, usually the counter-contentions can be used as DAs with some edits on teh fly. You can also run generics you have memorized.

In-round strategy aside, my personal belief is that all rounds should be policy. Very few "fact" resolutions are actually fact, and those that are make for crummy debates. Value rounds always follow one or both of the following: reducto ad Hitler and/or a quasi-policy round. The fact is most parli debaters are policy debaters and will co-opt any topic to make it as policy as possible. Therefore, parli topics should be policy.

_________________
-Bryan
Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

Google it, we're the second link that pops up. We're pretty proud of that.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Trichotomy
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 8:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
ZaR wrote:
Values res ultimately end in seeing who can pin the other team to the most morally reprehensible actions/actors, and don't result in substantive debate about the actual merits of the values. Its also very aff slanted because its much easier to point out problems with current values than it is to give a concrete problem with the SQ and then defend a specific change.

Fact reses...are debates about facts. Still not sure who thought trying to prove via a debate round whether an event happened for a specific reason was a good idea. Its not. Heavily neg slanted, because aff has no real way to generate offense, while its incredibly easy for neg to generate offense. Even if neg never touches the aff case, if one of their counterwarrants pulls through, they stand a pretty good chance of winning.


Have you ever debated a fact rez? The whole point of a fact rez is the PHRASING, not that you debate whether a non-subjective thing is a fact or not. "Democracy is overvalued" contains a subjective element yet doesn't require AFF team to solve the overvaluation of it. The Separation of Church and State is being inappropriately eroded is another fantastic fact rez I debated. (Wal Mart's business practices are detrimental to the United States is another good one).

Fact rez = "X area is [subjective term]"

Inherent ground for debate is established.

Meanwhile your values analysis sounds like someone repeating what they heard from their parents. That's not what has to happen at all. (and I HATE value rez's most of the time... just for other reasons)

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


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Trichotomy
PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2012 10:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 pm
Posts: 152
Home Schooled: Yes
Isaiah wrote:
ZaR wrote:
Values res ultimately end in seeing who can pin the other team to the most morally reprehensible actions/actors, and don't result in substantive debate about the actual merits of the values. Its also very aff slanted because its much easier to point out problems with current values than it is to give a concrete problem with the SQ and then defend a specific change.

Fact reses...are debates about facts. Still not sure who thought trying to prove via a debate round whether an event happened for a specific reason was a good idea. Its not. Heavily neg slanted, because aff has no real way to generate offense, while its incredibly easy for neg to generate offense. Even if neg never touches the aff case, if one of their counterwarrants pulls through, they stand a pretty good chance of winning.


Have you ever debated a fact rez? The whole point of a fact rez is the PHRASING, not that you debate whether a non-subjective thing is a fact or not. "Democracy is overvalued" contains a subjective element yet doesn't require AFF team to solve the overvaluation of it. The Separation of Church and State is being inappropriately eroded is another fantastic fact rez I debated. (Wal Mart's business practices are detrimental to the United States is another good one).

Fact rez = "X area is [subjective term]"

Inherent ground for debate is established.

Meanwhile your values analysis sounds like someone repeating what they heard from their parents. That's not what has to happen at all. (and I HATE value rez's most of the time... just for other reasons)

Yes, I have. And I realize you're not actually debating a non-subjective thing (at least if the res is good...there have been cases where the res isn't subjective at all...) But I'd say both of those are value reses. You're questioning how highly democracy should be valued, not just whether its value is at too high of a point. If you deleted inappropriately from the second res, that becomes a fact res which still gives decent ground for both sides on whether its true or not. But its also going to be unbalanced (towards aff in this case) toward whichever side merely needs to prove examples rather than the whole for their side, because the other side must prove all of the aff's examples false, and prove at least some counter instances. And your other fact res example is again aff biased because it easier to prove the some instead of the all. And the other reason against fact reses is that if Wal mart's practices are bad for US, wouldn't it be more educational to debate that in terms of a change to try and fix it instead of just leaving the debate at whether its detrimental or not? It basically forces a whole res harm proving style of debate.

Yes, my value analysis was pretty short. That's a very basic shell of a basic "values res bad" position I'd run in a round, so it wasn't fully developed, and gave exaggerated examples. Not every round does that. But there's strong incentive to do so, and it invites extreme and absurd examples for the end result of upholding a value. Basically you get 2 Ks going against each other without a strong incentive to argue anything besides the Links and MPX (FM isn't an issue really, and Alts don't matter in a values world). Which is basically a value MPX only debate, which is problematic when its the terminal impacts of an "all-in" implementation of values, rather than an actual analysis of the implementation of the values. The only reason you'd have a value res is to make sure you aren't always using "deterministic" net-ben analysis, but Ks give that now. Though I'll still run my wrong forum args against Ks :P

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


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Trichotomy
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 3:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
Quote:
Wal mart's practices are bad for US, wouldn't it be more educational to debate that in terms of a change to try and fix it instead of just leaving the debate at whether its detrimental or not? It basically forces a whole res harm proving style of debate.


The most crucial part of a fact debate is proving there is a possible alternative. Just like a K, haha.

The part that's good though is you focus on that in general, rather than "here's exactly what wal mart would do". So the DAs/Solvency isn't there on a granular level but in general.

I think we're saying the same thing about phraseology. I just think of rez's this way:
- X is subjective = traditional "fact" phrasing
- X is greater than Y = traditional value phrasing
- X should be changed = traditional policy phrasing

_________________
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  [ 8 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