homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Mon May 22, 2017 10:18 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




Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Parli hypothetical...
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:56 am 
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
Suppose the resolution is "Resolved: That This House believes World War III is imminent."

PM: We have the right to define "this house," so we define "this house" as the Government team. Since we personally believe that WWIII is imminent, the resolution is true: this house believes WWIII is imminent.

LO: This is an abusive definition of "this house," because it leaves us with literally no ground. We can't argue about their personal beliefs, since we're not omniscient. We should instead debate about whether WWIII is, in fact, imminent. (presents some reasons why it is not)

MG: The Opposition's standard for abuse is "when we have no ground." But they clearly DO have ground - they can clearly argue that we're abusive, as they just have. Thus, their standard is self-refuting, so you should reject the abusiveness argument.

Opposition Block: Their response is paradoxical. If you reject our abuse argument, we DON'T have any ground anymore, so our standard is legitimate, in which case we DO have ground, in which case you should reject our argument, in which case we DON'T have ground, etc. It's like going back in time and shooting your grandfather. Their response creates an impossible situation, so it should be disregarded. (Extends WWIII arguments.)

PMR: There is a paradox, but it's with their argument, not our response. Our whole point is that their argument is paradoxical; our response merely points that out. If an argument devolves to a paradox, it cannot further logical discourse, so it should be disregarded. We believe WWIII is imminent. Vote Gov.

Who wins?

_________________
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: Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:59 am 
Offline
Evil Democrat
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 3:23 am
Posts: 3334
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Advancing the gay agenda
My brain hurts.

_________________
josephsamelson.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:22 am 
Offline
The Great White Sharc
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:58 pm
Posts: 4769
Home Schooled: Yes
Opp clearly wins, though they could even more clearly win if they would have just provided impacts to the "no ground" argument. That would preempt the stupid equivocation of "ground" the MG makes.

_________________
Marc Davis

I currently help coach at TACT in Region X.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:00 am
Posts: 1406
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: King's College, Manhattan, NYC
The judge is always going to buy the truism argument from Opp.
No Gov is ever going to run that.

Interesting though.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:02 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
Obviously the Opp is right, but they didn't say a lot of stuff they should have said (like impacts, pointing out the difference between abuse arguments and ground, etc.) Based only on what was presented in the round, a pure tabula rasa/games judge could justify voting Gov, because the Opp basically conceded that their argument was paradoxical (through not addressing the ground equivocation.)

Any sane judge would vote Opp, however, on the ground that, basically, the members of the government team are both idiots.

_________________
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: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:00 am
Posts: 1406
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: King's College, Manhattan, NYC
THB resolutions are common. Even a tab judge ain't gonna go for "Gov't team."

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 7:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
Opp doesn't win so much as Gov loses for establishing a pathetic debate

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2440
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
willmalson wrote:
The judge is always going to buy the truism argument from Opp.
No Gov is ever going to run that.

Interesting though.

I would vote gov based on the argumentation in the last rebuttal. But I would hate myself for doing it, and would probably dock several speaker points.

But yeah....don't do that in a real round. In rounds like that just go with the advocacy of this room and have a legit debate. That is, as legit as you can have with a fact res. (which isn't particularly legit)

_________________
-Bryan
Assistant Mock Trial Coach, University of Nebraska at Omaha


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 4:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:52 am
Posts: 156
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Middle-of-Nowhere, Western PA
op def. :)

_________________
NCFCA | 2005-2013
NCFCA & Stoa | 2012-2013
Hoping for more and more Stoa in Western PA


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:21 pm
Posts: 806
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Running the opposite way
My opinion? Take some advil and vote Opp b/c gov fallaciously equated "ground" with a-priori arguments. Just because you can run an a-priori argument doesn't mean you have ground. Ground means the ability to argue non-a-priori arguments. i.e. you have to be able to argue with the basic premises of the affirmative team after the theoretical parameters of the round have been set (in this case, the question of whether WWIII is imminent). In this instance, the opp correctly pointed out that they cannot argue with because the parameters of the debate were set incorrectly and abusively. So the aff team *is* abusive, which justifies an opp ballot.

I think? Sounds good to me... I just need to find some advil now...

_________________
"Don't waste your life making yourself look good. Spend your life making God look good."
--John Piper


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:00 pm 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2954
Home Schooled: Yes
Opp block's "explanation" of the paradox makes no sense.

First, it should be articulated as follows:

"You either accept or reject our statement that they leave us with no ground.
If you accept our statement, then they leave us with no ground and therefore should lose on fairness.
If you reject our statement, then we have neither the ground to argue that THB WWIII is not imminent nor the ground to argue that opp is abusive. Therefore, gov should lose on fairness.
Either way, gov should lose on fairness."

Second, that's still a poor way to refute gov's equivocation. Opp assumes that, just because they lose an argument, they suddenly don't have the ground to make that argument. Opp block should instead argue as follows:

"What we mean by 'ground' is our ability to argue against the resolution. We need ground in order to have a fair debate. When we call gov abusive, we're not using ground because we're not arguing against the resolution."

The fact that opp could have refuted gov's equivocation in a way that actually means something in English means that I could justify voting gov. Opp block actually had a chance, but simply missed it.

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 8:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:10 am
Posts: 637
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: CUI
The problems start out of the PMC. The PM doesn't read any warrants for why they believe WW3 is imminent, which seems to indicate that there is not a complete argument out of the PMC. The top of the LOC should sound like "Look, there's literally no warrant for the aff or why you'd think the resolution is true. They just assert that it's true, which means our burden of rejoinder dictates that we assert the opposite. We believe WW3 is not imminent. Cool. Now we have equally warranted claims (read: not warranted at all), and therefore we win because you go neg on presumption."

That's a stupid debate, but it's why you read harms/solvency or advantages in policy instead of reading just a plan text.

On the ground question, the Gov's arg is asinine because questions of "ground" are not decided by arguments that establish ground. T is about getting access to your DA/CP or K (or more) strat, and if they functionally don't have an advocacy (which is the situation in the PMC), you have zero predictable ground, which makes T a gamewinner.

_________________
-Will
Concordia University Irvine

NITOC 2011 - Personal & Team coaching (Team Policy)


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 04, 2011 9:50 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
The PMC doesn't provide warrants because he doesn't need to. The Gov's whole argument focuses around reframing the debate so that they only have to prove that they believe that WWIII is imminent, not that it actually is. Opp can't just assert the opposite, because "WWIII is, in fact, imminent" is not actually the opposite of the Gov's argument.

_________________
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: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:21 am 
Offline
Order of Merlin, First Class
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2007 6:33 am
Posts: 1443
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Sunny San Diego(yes I'm rubbing it in)
MSD wrote:
The PMC doesn't provide warrants because he doesn't need to. The Gov's whole argument focuses around reframing the debate so that they only have to prove that they believe that WWIII is imminent, not that it actually is. Opp can't just assert the opposite, because "WWIII is, in fact, imminent" is not actually the opposite of the Gov's argument.

In a world where the Gov's affirmative is true, there is no possible way for the opposition to win. That is the ground abuse that happened. T isn't your ground (unless you are Concordia MM) it is a way for you to protect your ground. So the argument: Your ground is that you get to complain about how we abused you makes sense in no world.

You could just be cool and run a policy.

Or the opp could be cool and tag on an education voter. That sorta pre empts all the arguments the aff is making.

_________________
There are those of us with a sense of Humor, and we suffer for it. -Some Loser


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:49 am 
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
db8rox wrote:
T isn't your ground... it is a way for you to protect your ground.
I like this way of explaining it.

_________________
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: Tue Apr 05, 2011 3:15 pm 
Offline
Truth In Advertising
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:43 am
Posts: 2373
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
T isn't your ground (unless you are Concordia MM)

Too true.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 6:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2440
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
db8rox wrote:
MSD wrote:
The PMC doesn't provide warrants because he doesn't need to. The Gov's whole argument focuses around reframing the debate so that they only have to prove that they believe that WWIII is imminent, not that it actually is. Opp can't just assert the opposite, because "WWIII is, in fact, imminent" is not actually the opposite of the Gov's argument.

You could just be cool and run a policy.

Let's not teach people that lazy resolutional analysis and case construction is acceptable, ok? This is either a fact or value round (you can make the case either way). This is not policy and should not be run as policy.

_________________
-Bryan
Assistant Mock Trial Coach, University of Nebraska at Omaha


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Apr 05, 2011 10:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2007 12:10 am
Posts: 637
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: CUI
Nothin' like a little vacuous fact debate to make everyone long for days when arguments had meaning and relevance.

Yes, Elephants.

_________________
-Will
Concordia University Irvine

NITOC 2011 - Personal & Team coaching (Team Policy)


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 12:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2440
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
notMensa wrote:
Nothin' like a little vacuous fact debate to make everyone long for days when arguments had meaning and relevance.

Don't blame the aff for the framers' mistakes. Not the aff's fault for following the grammatical construction of the resolution.

notMensa wrote:
Yes, Elephants.

:roll: Cutting against that case is my assignment. I hate you. :P

Although I am impressed that y'all managed to get Foucault in there. Not a bad touch.
I assume you guys are coming to NFA?

_________________
-Bryan
Assistant Mock Trial Coach, University of Nebraska at Omaha


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 3:40 am 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2954
Home Schooled: Yes
Isn't "This House believes" just another way of saying "Resolved:"?

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

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