homeschool debate | Forums Wiki


Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Mon Feb 26, 2018 12:09 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

Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 3 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 2:07 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:00 am
Posts: 1406
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: King's College, Manhattan, NYC
The Res was "USFG should act to prevent NKorean nuclearization."
Gov ran "offer them US nuclear energy tech (provided we run it)" w/the observation that the Gov doesn't need solvency because Res says "act" not "succeed."
Opp put them in a double-bind in the MOC: either they get solvency (and you get tons of DAs) or you don't, but you still get other DAs (soft power, etc, can't remember...honestly I was playing L4D2 and don't know.)

So the PMR kicked out of solvency and went for their Advs about recognizing NKorea as a legit country (L4D2) etc.

Opp obviously called a pt of order: is it okay for PM to do that if the MO puts them in a double-bind?

Also, if the double-bind happens in the LOC and Gov responds to both scenarios, can they still kick out of a position in the PMR?

Two hundred degrees, that's why they call me Mr. Fahrenheit.

PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 2:31 am 
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
Yes, if they have decent arguments for it. It sounds to me like Gov did exactly what Opp asked for... they chose just one of the options. A successful Opp would've argued something like only one set of advantages is even possible, but both sets of DAs are potential, so weigh ALL scenario DAs vs. only one scenario Advs. This is screwy, but puts things in the right direction--you can accept a decent argument for just weighing all impacts (both scenarios of DAs vs. both scenarios of Advs).

In a perfect world, Opp should point out in the POO that Gov nowhere foreshadowed their intention to kick out of an arg, which Opp would surely have argued against in MO. Sounds like it may have actually happened though, in which case yeah, it's legit. Opp could've seen this coming and spiked by, when laying out the DAs, saying "we're putting our capital here, so don't let Gov kick out of their advocacy later in the round just to avoid our best set of DAs" and seeing what happened with that. If Gov doesn't touch it, fine you're good. If they do, have a huge 8 point justification for the argument in the MO.

Another thing Opp can say is that Gov COULD'VE, when the double bind came out, made a POI to state "we are fully advocating X course of actions". You'd probably have to squeeze this into the POO if you forgot to make a point along these lines earlier.

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

PostPosted: Sun Mar 13, 2011 5:44 am 
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
Yeah, unless otherwise stated, the general understanding is that arguments are conditional, especially advs. So the PMR can kick them if they want. Actually sounds like a good strategic move, and the neg probably should have waited until the block to articulate the double-bind.

Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

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

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 3 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited