homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:29 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.  [ 18 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 12:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 1:09 pm
Posts: 390
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: wandering down the rabbit hole
I have heard a lot of these lately.

My question;

what is the most effective way to run this kind of topicality press as a negative team?

and

what is the most effective way to win them as an affirmative team?

_________________
The world may be broken but hope is not crazy.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 2:14 am 
Offline
Laugh, or I will kill you
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:33 pm
Posts: 2492
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: College in San Diego Baby!
Neg: Don't run it
Aff: Define Russia to include the population

problem solved :)

_________________
+X wrote:
Oh, come now, Daniel. Your mafia playing habits make you a no-good double-crossing manipulative liar. But I would never call you a jerk!

;) <3


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jan 18, 2011 3:04 am 
Offline
melancholy milkshakes. no straws.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:31 pm
Posts: 3984
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Hinnom, TX
A lot of the most annoying T presses an Aff team will ever face would be sidestepped by simply defining the controversial word in your 1AC.

lucky13 wrote:
Neg: Don't run it

Naaaaaah don't listen to him, Negs. If Aff doesn't define words that are potential lead-ins to T presses, it should be open season for Neg. Eat it up.

Although there's nothing more obnoxious than counter definitions, because usually there's almost no way to decide which one should be preferred. So if Aff defines a word that Neg wants to T Press, do it some other way. Don't bring up definitions unless Aff's definitions are ridiculous or if they don't even have definitions.

A definition to include the Russian people would not be ridiculous at all. Put one in your 1AC, Susanna, and you kill the T press.

_________________
Joe Hughey
joehughey24@gmail.com

Two roads diverged in a wood and I -
I took the one less traveled
And that has made all the difference


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:08 am 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
lucky13 wrote:
Neg: Don't run it
Aff: Define Russia to include the population

problem solved :)

Neg: Run something called a "standard".

And win.
Quote:
A definition to include the Russian people would not be ridiculous at all. Put one in your 1AC, Susanna, and you kill the T press.

I just hit Cybersecurity the other day. Aff thought they had me beat on T because they defined "towards" as "in regard to".

But I ran a legit, 7-min T-press with actual STANDARDS and won because they couldn't address the standards.

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Last edited by thehomeschooler on Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:12 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:10 am 
Offline
Laugh, or I will kill you
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 6:33 pm
Posts: 2492
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: College in San Diego Baby!
thehomeschooler wrote:
lucky13 wrote:
Neg: Don't run it
Aff: Define Russia to include the population

problem solved :)

Neg: Run something called a "standard".

And win.
lol you people do love your nitpicky topicality arguments don't ya? :D

Allow me to rephrase that: "Neg: NEVER run it in California, but do what you want outside of Cali :D"

_________________
+X wrote:
Oh, come now, Daniel. Your mafia playing habits make you a no-good double-crossing manipulative liar. But I would never call you a jerk!

;) <3


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 12:11 am 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
lucky13 wrote:
lol you people do love your nitpicky topicality arguments don't ya?

You shoul've seen it, man...

And read the edit.

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jan 19, 2011 1:40 am 
Offline
melancholy milkshakes. no straws.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:31 pm
Posts: 3984
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Hinnom, TX
thehomeschooler wrote:
Quote:
A definition to include the Russian people would not be ridiculous at all. Put one in your 1AC, Susanna, and you kill the T press.

I just hit Cybersecurity the other day. Aff thought they had me beat on T because they defined "towards" as "in regard to".

But I ran a legit, 7-min T-press with actual STANDARDS and won because they couldn't address the standards.

:idea: :idea:
Well there ya are. T presses are never quite gone are they

but since all of us aren't as smart as Preston, you can prolly still get away with it, Susanna ;)

_________________
Joe Hughey
joehughey24@gmail.com

Two roads diverged in a wood and I -
I took the one less traveled
And that has made all the difference


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
lucky13 wrote:
thehomeschooler wrote:
lucky13 wrote:
Neg: Don't run it
Aff: Define Russia to include the population

problem solved :)

Neg: Run something called a "standard".

And win.
lol you people do love your nitpicky topicality arguments don't ya? :D

Allow me to rephrase that: "Neg: NEVER run it in California, but do what you want outside of Cali :D"

Its not nitpicky at all. Its actually a totally valid T. How I would personally run it...

A Interp.
(definition from the OED)
B. Violation
Deals with RUssians, not Russia
C. Standards
1. Source superiority (OED>any other dictionary)
2. Stability of words
3. Ground
D. Voters
1. NCFCA-TP Rules
2. Fairness
3. Jurisdiction
4. Apriori

That should probably take 3-4 minutes to get out, going NCFCA speed.

_________________
-Bryan
Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 9:55 pm 
Offline
Hot Ta-Molly
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 4:19 am
Posts: 1325
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Steubenville, OH
kj_eowyn613 wrote:
Would anyone happen to have a good definition that includes the population? I've been looking for one, but haven't managed to really find a good one.
If you go to Onelook Dictionary search, it searches bunches of dictionaries at once for definitions. :) Search there, and you'll find several good ones. :D

_________________
~Molly

"Isn't it bewildering…that everything is so beautiful, despite all the horrors that exist?" -Sophie Scholl

Life Posterz


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Feb 05, 2011 10:03 pm 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1910
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
Wolky wrote up an interesting response to this T-press here. http://wolkenpowerdb8t.blogspot.com/201 ... cross.html His most interesting point is that nations are defined by their populace (popular sovereignty and all that), so "russia" inherently includes "russians".

As the person who actually wrote this T-press for COG, I feel qualified to make a couple of statements:

1. If you're running this frequently, you're doing it wrong. Just because a policy is towards Russians doesn't mean it's not towards Russia. Often, this is just splitting hairs; for example, if we're sending money to Russia to help Russian farmers, there's lots of government bureaucracy involved, so most judges aren't going to buy that it's not a policy towards Russia.

2. On the flip side, there are some cases that absolutely beg to have this run against them, for example, the spies case. The case tries to up the maximum sentence for Russian spies to life in prison. The policy is solely and entirely towards Russians. Not "Russia". Not even "residents of Russia". Not even always "citizens of Russia". Just Russians. In this case, it's a very legitimate topicality press.

3. If you do run it, for heaven's sake, have some standards. COG basically sets it up as "must be a policy towards the government of Russia, or Russia as a single entity" and has some reasons-to-prefer for that. You might try something similar.

_________________
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 11, 2011 1:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 08, 2010 5:37 am
Posts: 767
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 2, Washington
UGH! DONT EVEN CONSIDER RUNNING IT. Yeah for all caps. I'm serious. It's so nit-picky that the judge will be asleep by your 10th word.

_________________
Potent Speaking: the only debate website exclusively dedicated to speaking tips. http://potentspeaking.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:08 am 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
^That depends both on the debater and the judge. And the round and the aff case.

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:34 am 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2954
Home Schooled: Yes
"A policy x is toward entity y if and only if the nonexistence of y would make impossible the fulfillment of what x requires."

Call that the intrinsic interpretation of "toward". The intrinsic interpretation subsumes the useful limit imposed by the interpretation implied by the "Russians vs. Russia" violation, while discarding the extraneous. In other words, you need an interpretation if you want to run a "Russians vs. Russia" violation. That requirement is not unique to the aforementioned violation. Use the intrinsic interpretation if you want to win with a "Russians vs. Russia" violation. If the plan does not violate the intrinsic interpretation, then you probably cannot win with a "Russians vs. Russia" violation anyways.

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:36 am 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
^Could the Russian government exist without the rest of the Russian populace? Technically, yes.

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:39 am 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2954
Home Schooled: Yes
The nonexistence of Russia would make impossible the existence of a Russian populace. Therefore, if a policy x contains anything logically equivalent to "if person z is a Russian citizen, then b is required" (for any person z and for any action b), then x is toward Russia by the intrinsic interpretation of "toward".

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 2:44 am 
Offline
Ok, maybe not the ONLY homeschooler.
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 3:44 pm
Posts: 4047
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: The Zone of Danger
Halogen wrote:
The nonexistence of Russia would make impossible the existence of a Russian populace.

But we aren't arguing whether Russia is necessary for Russians -- the rez isn't "change policy toward Russians." We're debating whether or not Russians are necessary for Russia in foreign policy.

I don't really have a personal position on this T-press yet.

_________________
Taxes and regulations may restrict my freedom of choice, but words will never coerce me.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:24 am 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2954
Home Schooled: Yes
The question is whether x is toward Russia.

Aff answers "yes" and informally proves it as follows: "x is toward Russia if x is toward Russians; x is toward Russians; therefore, x is toward Russia."

I am offering definitions of the terms that aff does not define:

"Policy x is toward nation y" = "the nonexistence of y would make impossible the fulfillment of what x requires."

"Policy x is toward set of people c" = "x contains the logical equivalent of 'if z is in set c, then b is required.'" (for any person z and any action b.)

To formalize the proof offered by the affirmative team:

x contains the logical equivalent of 'if z is Russian, then b is required" (for any person z and a given action b). Aff could prove this premise by reading a sentence from the policy or could simply persuade the judge of its truth by other means.
If Russia does not exist, then there is no such thing as a Russian. By definition of "Russian"
Therefore, the nonexistence of Russia would make impossible the fulfillment of what x requires. Note: "what x requires" means not simply b, but instead the entire sentence in blue.
x is toward Russia if and only if the nonexistence of Russia would make impossible the fulfillment of what x requires. By the intrinsic definition of "toward"
Therefore, x is toward Russia.

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Feb 11, 2011 4:41 am 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1910
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
(Did I ever mention that you always write my favorite theory posts?)

If we accept that target-existence is the only standard by which to judge "towards"ness, then this logically follows. However, I think this premise does not stand on its own - i.e. there is more to being "towards" something than just requiring that thing's existence. In other words, while the existence test can prove that something is not towards Russia, it cannot prove the antecedent (that something is towards Russia.)

If we assume multiple factors, the proof falls apart, because the linkage of Conclusion A and Conclusion B ("x is toward Russia if and only if the nonexistence of Russia would make impossible the fulfillment of what x requires") is broken.

I haven't fully thought this through, however, so I can't yet give a specific counterexample.

_________________
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
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 18 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