homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Tue Nov 21, 2017 7:43 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.  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: "Significantly" T-press
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 3:59 pm 
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
Okay, I couldn't hold it in any longer. I hate this press. I think it is 100% theoretically unsound, and allows ridiculous neg abuse.

Why? Quantify "significant" for me. Just try. Use any definition you want to use (besides "have an effect", which is the def I would use). It's impossible. It's all subjective.

Neg defines "sig" as "big". Who decides whether or not aff meets this? I think cups are big. Neg thinks hippos are big. Neg says ants are tiny and therefore insignificant. A biologist would slap them in the face.

In a recent round I watched (okay, finals at the last qualifier), neg did two things I disagree with (okay, they did a LOT things I disagree with -- these are two specifics):

(1) They argued that old things are insignificant. I can just picture the RFDs of the three oldest judges: "I was insignificant. Therefore, I voted double-loss."

(2) They argued as a "standard" that "insignificant" cases (remember, this is purely subjective) are "unfair" (who's talking?) because aff has to "step out on a limb". According to whom? The NCFCA board of directors? No. And I'm sure if you asked an expert in international policy if he thought going out on a limb was a good idea, he would say "no" :|

My problem with this press is that I lost twice to it with JVA in prelims and therefore did not break. I also won on it against JVA in the first round without even arguing it. I don't see how in the world judges buy it. But they did in finals.

This press annoys me because it's used by neg to skew the round in their favor. They say: "Aff's plan has to be "big". Well, my partner and I concede the obvious NET BENEFIT, but we don't think it's important, so you should vote neg." <== It's not important?! Says you, who researched the case for what, like two hours? The Jews, Russian students, and every major U.S. company doing business in Russia disagree with you. Oh, and so does the U.S. Commission on Policy toward Russia.

Professor Charles T. Hagel [Distinguished Professor of National Governance at Georgetown University; Co-Chairman of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board; Member of the Secretary of Defense’s Policy Board], Dr. Gary Hart [Ph.D. in Politics from the University of Oxford; J.D. from Yale University Law School; former Co-Chair of the U.S. Commission on National Security; Member of the Council on Foreign Relations; Advisory Board Member of the Partnership for a Secure America; former Member of the National Commission on Terrorism], Professor Dimitri K. Simes [President of the Nixon Center, a Washington D.C.-based Think Tank; former Research Professor of Soviet Studies at the School of Advanced International Studies at John Hopkins University; Expert on U.S.-Russia Relations and U.S. Foreign Policy; M.A. in History from Moscow State University; former Chairman of the Center for Russian and Eurasian Programs at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; former foreign Policy Analyst for the Administration of Richard Nixon; former Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies], Paul J. Saunders [Executive Director of the Nixon Center, a Washington D.C.-based Think Tank; Director of the U.S.-Russia Relations Program of the Nixon Center; Expert on Russia and U.S. Foreign Policy; M.A. in Political Science; former Senior Advisor to the Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs of the Bush Administration; former Senior Policy Advisor to the Speaker’s Advisory Group on Russia], Rexon Y. Ryu [former Nonproliferation Analyst for the U.S. Department of State; Director of the National Security Council of the Nonproliferation Directorate], Dr. Graham T. Allison [Ph.D. in Political Science from Harvard University; Professor of Government and Director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government; former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy and Plans], Robert D. Blackwill [Fellow for U.S. foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations; Member of the Executive Committee of the International Institute for Strategic Studies; former Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Planning; former Coordinator of Strategic Planning for the National Security Council; former Belfer Lecturer in International Security at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University], Charles G. Boyd [former Vice Commander of Strategic Air Command of the 8th Air Force; former Director of Plans at the U.S. Air Force Headquarters; former Deputy Commander-in-Chief of U.S. European Command; former Senior Vice-President and Washington Program Director at the Council on Foreign Relations; former Executive Director of the U.S. Commission on National Security; former Strategy Consultant and Speaker of the House], Richard R. Burt [Chief Negotiator of the U.S.-Russian Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty; former Assistant Director of the International Institute of Strategic Studies; Senior Advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies; M.A. in International Relations from Tufts University], Sarah C. Carey [one of the first and most prominent Washington lawyers to help open the former Soviet Union to foreign investment by providing legal counsel for U.S. and multinational companies that wished to do business there; Senior Partner at the Law Firm of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey], James Collins [Director of the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Diplomat in Resident at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; former U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation; Expert on the Soviet Union and its Successor States, Russia and Eurasia, U.S. Foreign Policy, U.S. Relations with Russia, and Arms Control and Nonproliferation], Susan Eisenhower [Chairman of Leadership and Public Policy Programs at the Eisenhower Institute; Chairman Emeritus at the Eisenhower Institute; former Appointee of the Committee on International Security and Arms Control of the National Academy of Sciences; Expert on International Security and U.S.-Russia Relations], Robert F. Ellsworth [Vice President of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London; J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School; former Deputy Secretary of Defense; former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs], Thomas Graham [Senior U.S. Diplomat for Strategic Arms Limitations Talks, Strategic Arms Reduction Talks, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Intermediate Nuclear Force Treaty, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; former Special Representative of the President for Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament; former General Counsel to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; former Chair of the Committee on Arms Control and Disarmament of the American Bar Association], Maurice Greenberg [Honorary Vice-Chairman and Director of the Council on Foreign Relations], Lee Hamilton [the President’s Homeland Security Advisory Council; President and Director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; J.D. from Indiana University School of Law; former Chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs; former State Representative of Indiana; former Member of the CIA Advisory Board; former Advisory Board Member and Co-Chair of the Partnership for a Secure America], Carla Hills [Trustee of the Forum for International Policy; Co-Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations; Advisory Board Member of the Partnership for a Secure America; Counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies], Jack Matlock [Specialist in Soviet Affairs; former Director of Soviet Affairs at the U.S. Department of State; former Deputy Director of the Foreign Service Institute; former Special Assistant to the President on National Security Affairs; former Senior Director of European and Soviet Affairs at the National Security Council; former Ambassador to the Soviet Union for the Reagan Administration; former Professor of International Diplomacy at Columbia University], Robert C. McFarlane [former National Security Advisor to President Ronald Reagan; Member of the Advisory Board of the Partnership for a Secure America; Member of the Committee on Present Danger; former Staff Member of the Senate Armed Service Committee; former Counselor to the U.S. Department of State], Mark Medish [Visiting Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Member of the Council on Foreign Relations; Board Member of the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy; J.D. from Harvard University; former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director of the U.S. National Security Council for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian Affairs; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs], Professor Sam Nunn [Co-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative; J.D. from the Emory University School of Law; Distinguished Professor at the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs at Georgia Tech; Chairman of the Board of Trustees for the Center for Strategic and International Studies; Advisory Board Member of the Partnership for a Secure America; Member of the Supervisory Council of the International Luxembourg Forum on Preventing Nuclear Catastrophe], Peter G. Peterson [former Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations], Thomas Pickering [former Under-secretary of State for Political Affairs; former Special Assistant to the Secretaries of State William Rogers and Henry Kissinger; Chairman of the American Academy of Diplomacy; Member of the Council on Foreign Relations], Dr. Brent Scowcroft [Ph.D. in International Relations from Columbia University; former National Security Advisor for the Administrations of Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush; former Chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board], J. Robinson West [J.D. from Temple University] & Dr. Dov S. Zakheim [Ph.D. in Economics and Politics from Oxford University; former Foreign Policy Advisor to President George W. Bush; Member of the Council on Foreign Relations; Member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies; Senior Associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies]

WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?!

Virginians, please don't run this press. It ruins debate.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 1:09 pm
Posts: 390
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: wandering down the rabbit hole
I completely agree with everything you just said.

It is completely subjective. Who decides what is significant? Even through a definition, we cannot exactly quantify what a significant change is. Is it ending a program? Is it adding $5 billion dollars to something? Aff plan has to be big. But tell me what is big? And tell me how I am not meeting it.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:05 pm 
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
SusannaC wrote:
I completely agree with everything you just said.

It is completely subjective. Who decides what is significant? Even through a definition, we cannot exactly quantify what a significant change is. Is it ending a program? Is it adding $5 billion dollars to something? Aff plan has to be big. But tell me what is big? And tell me how I am not meeting it.

This. Looks like we're both in the same boat :|

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:08 pm 
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
BTW, guys, I'm not trying to be rude here. I know Josiah McPeak and Drew Chambers have run this before, and the Kohnkes beat me with it. I'm not trying to insult any of these debaters. The post above is simply something I had to hold in during finals and while reading all of my ballots. I hate it when people bash my case. I had to say something.

This thread is really meant to prompt those who support this press to explain to me why it's legit.

...And for me to respond.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:02 am
Posts: 635
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: South Carolina
I agree with the concern and it is rather annoying...but yet...I still think it has a place. I mean, it's obviously important enough to put into the rez in the 1st place...

If a team increases foreign aid to Russia by 2 dollars, you bet that I'm gonna run it...they have to significantly reform pol'y...simply adding money to the aid supply is a reform that is in NO WAY significant...

Oh, one more thing...community judges buy it...I used to run this all the time in immigration and India year...I think we won just about every time we ran it. It's simpler to understand than a conventional, textbook style T-press...so I think judges will buy it.

Just my thoughts.

_________________
God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist.
- Saint Augustine


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:34 pm 
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
nate hammett wrote:
Oh, one more thing...community judges buy it...I used to run this all the time in immigration and India year...I think we won just about every time we ran it. It's simpler to understand than a conventional, textbook style T-press...so I think judges will buy it.

Exactly. And that's the problem.

I concede that it may have its place if we give 2 bucks to Russia. But negs step over the line when it comes to JVA. The problem is, if the judge doesn't think my advantages are "big enough", they'll vote me down for no other reason. It's not fair, and it ripped my partner and I off of two aff rounds that we won hands-down.

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


Last edited by thehomeschooler on Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:17 pm
Posts: 1547
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Researching...
I don't think it really works as a T-press, but I think it's a legitimate argument.

I finally figured out why a plan needs to have some kind of benefit, even if there aren't any DAs: 1) It meets the value/criteria all you JVAers stole from me ;) , and 2) It protects against the Law of Unintended Consequences. How many times in policy have we done something because there were no DAs, but it ended up being pretty bad due to an unintended consequence. Significant plans should outweigh those potential DAs.

:shrug:

T press? No. Legitimate? I'm inclined to think so.

Quote:
Oh, one more thing...community judges buy it...I used to run this all the time in immigration and India year...I think we won just about every time we ran it. It's simpler to understand than a conventional, textbook style T-press...so I think judges will buy it.


I don't know if anyone cares if judges buy it. The real question is: is the argument theoretically legitimate? Not as a T press (I think), and so it shouldn't matter if it can "win" I still don't want to run it.

Delta_FC

_________________
Cartman wrote:
Josh R.

Dawn wrote:
Josh R

Yes?
+X wrote:
Hm. Eminem/MNM would mean Delta F_C... oF course

Join the epidemic
Variola Eradication, Geneva, May 2011


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:38 pm 
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
Delta_FC wrote:
I finally figured out why a plan needs to have some kind of benefit, even if there aren't any DAs: 1) It meets the value/criteria all you JVAers stole from me , and 2) It protects against the Law of Unintended Consequences. How many times in policy have we done something because there were no DAs, but it ended up being pretty bad due to an unintended consequence. Significant plans should outweigh those potential DAs.

The thing with JVA is that all the analysts agree on positive impacts. Just because we don't know how many billions of dollars it entails doesn't justify voting aff down.
Delta_FC wrote:
T press? No. Legitimate? I'm inclined to think so.

Possibly. At least judges won't vote you down because "you didn't follow the rules of the game".
Delta_FC wrote:
I don't know if anyone cares if judges buy it. The real question is: is the argument theoretically legitimate? Not as a T press (I think), and so it shouldn't matter if it can "win" I still don't want to run it.

This.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:02 am
Posts: 635
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: South Carolina
thehomeschooler wrote:
nate hammett wrote:
Oh, one more thing...community judges buy it...I used to run this all the time in immigration and India year...I think we won just about every time we ran it. It's simpler to understand than a conventional, textbook style T-press...so I think judges will buy it.

Exactly. And that's the problem.

I concede that it may have its place if we give 2 bucks to Russia. But negs step over the line when it comes to JVA. The problem is, if the judge doesn't think my advantages are "big enough", they'll vote me down for no other reason. It's not fair, and it ripped my partner and I off of two aff rounds that we won hands-down.

1. Yes...judges buy stuff hook line and sinker when they have no clue about the ramifications of the stuff they're actually accepting.

2. ::snap's fingers:: Darn...I was seriously thinking about running this next time I hit JVA... :lol:
Fo realz...
You take your cases to personally, Preston... :P

ninja'd

_________________
God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist.
- Saint Augustine


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:45 pm 
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
nate hammett wrote:
1. Yes...judges buy stuff hook line and sinker when they have no clue about the ramifications of the stuff they're actually accepting.

Well if they read the freakin 1AC...
nate hammett wrote:
2. ::snap's fingers:: Darn...I was seriously thinking about running this next time I hit JVA...

If you do, so help me...
nate hammett wrote:
You take your cases to personally, Preston...

You mean I take breaking to regionals too seriously... :|

But really guys, if you have to argue sig, do what Josh said. And impact it. I'll have loads of responses, but hold on to your stance and you can win. But don't skew the round in your favor by defining a subjective term. It's unfair. Like, really.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 07, 2010 3:02 am
Posts: 635
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: South Carolina
thehomeschooler wrote:
nate hammett wrote:
1. Yes...judges buy stuff hook line and sinker when they have no clue about the ramifications of the stuff they're actually accepting.

Well if they read the freakin 1AC...
nate hammett wrote:
2. ::snap's fingers:: Darn...I was seriously thinking about running this next time I hit JVA...

If you do, so help me...
nate hammett wrote:
You take your cases to personally, Preston...

You mean I take breaking to regionals too seriously... :|

But really guys, if you have to argue sig, do what Josh said. And impact it. I'll have loads of responses, but hold on to your stance and you can win. But don't skew the round in your favor by defining a subjective term. It's unfair. Like, really.

Nah...don't worry Preston...we impact it =)

I do think that Josh's recommendation is definitely the way to go...

_________________
God judged it better to bring good out of evil than to suffer no evil to exist.
- Saint Augustine


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 4:57 pm 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
Problem A: Affs need to be significant. This is a fact. If we remove this burden, absolutely an ridiculous policy (such as the aforementioned two bucks) is legitimate. This isn't really true because of the resolution; it's true because of presumption. The Aff needs to demonstrate a real reason to vote for them. (I say it's not a resolutional issue, although it really is; it's just that, generally speaking, significance is best measured by its outcome.)

Problem B: What is "significant" is wholly and exclusively subjective. Metaphysically speaking, the entire word is pretty much useless. It's not tha significance is completely undefinable, it's just that it changes in different situations. Therefore, there has to be a standard of some sort:

Definitional. This works until the Negative proposes a counterdefinition; they you're back where you started.
The judge decides. This is actually a lot more legitimate than you might think; the judge is the final arbiter in the round, so why shouldn't he or she decide what is significant?
A standard specific to what is significant in policymaking. This is probably the best option. My favorite one is "something worth actually taking the time and money necessary to get through Congress" (remember; it costs a lot of money to run Congress.) Some judges might buy a harder-line standard: "Something worth convening a special session of Congress to get passed."

My point is that the fact that significance is subjective does not make it a moot point. You just need some kind of objective reference point, like a standard, to make it meaningful.

_________________
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 - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:26 pm 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2955
Home Schooled: Yes
Plan advocacy preempts T on significance, especially the quality and quantity of authors advocating JVA graduation. If it's significant enough for that many analysts to write about it, then it's significant enough for high school students to debate about it.

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:31 pm 
Offline
melancholy milkshakes. no straws.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:31 pm
Posts: 3986
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Hinnom, TX
thehomeschooler wrote:
Professor Charles T. Hagel [Distinguished Professor of National Governance at Georgetown University; Co-Chairman of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board; Member of the Secretary of Defense’s Policy Board], Dr. Gary Hart [Ph.D. in Politics from the University of Oxford; J.D. from Yale University Law School; former Co-Chair of the U.S. Commission on National Security; Member of the Council on Foreign Relations; Advisory Board Member of the Partnership for a Secure America; former Member of the National Commission on Terrorism], Professor Dimitri K. Simes [President of the Nixon Center, a Washington D.C.-based Think Tank; former Research Professor of Soviet Studies at the School of Advanced International Studies at John Hopkins University; Expert on U.S.-Russia Relations and U.S. Foreign Policy; M.A. in History from Moscow State University; former Chairman of the Center for Russian and Eurasian Programs at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; former foreign Policy Analyst for the Administration of Richard Nixon; former Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies], Paul J. Saunders [Executive Director of the Nixon Center, a Washington D.C.-based Think Tank; Director of the U.S.-Russia Relations Program of the Nixon Center; Expert on Russia and U.S. Foreign Policy; M.A. in Political Science; former Senior Advisor to the Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs of the Bush Administration; former Senior Policy Advisor to the Speaker’s Advisory Group on Russia], Rexon Y. Ryu [former Nonproliferation Analyst for the U.S. Department of State; Director of the National Security Council of the Nonproliferation Directorate], Dr. Graham T. Allison [Ph.D. in Political Science from Harvard University; Professor of Government and Director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government; former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy and Plans], Robert D. Blackwill [Fellow for U.S. foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations; Member of the Executive Committee of the International Institute for Strategic Studies; former Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Planning; former Coordinator of Strategic Planning for the National Security Council; former Belfer Lecturer in International Security at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University], Charles G. Boyd [former Vice Commander of Strategic Air Command of the 8th Air Force; former Director of Plans at the U.S. Air Force Headquarters; former Deputy Commander-in-Chief of U.S. European Command; former Senior Vice-President and Washington Program Director at the Council on Foreign Relations; former Executive Director of the U.S. Commission on National Security; former Strategy Consultant and Speaker of the House], Richard R. Burt [Chief Negotiator of the U.S.-Russian Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty; former Assistant Director of the International Institute of Strategic Studies; Senior Advisor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies; M.A. in International Relations from Tufts University], Sarah C. Carey [one of the first and most prominent Washington lawyers to help open the former Soviet Union to foreign investment by providing legal counsel for U.S. and multinational companies that wished to do business there; Senior Partner at the Law Firm of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey], James Collins [Director of the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Diplomat in Resident at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; former U.S. Ambassador to the Russian Federation; Expert on the Soviet Union and its Successor States, Russia and Eurasia, U.S. Foreign Policy, U.S. Relations with Russia, and Arms Control and Nonproliferation], Susan Eisenhower [Chairman of Leadership and Public Policy Programs at the Eisenhower Institute; Chairman Emeritus at the Eisenhower Institute; former Appointee of the Committee on International Security and Arms Control of the National Academy of Sciences; Expert on International Security and U.S.-Russia Relations], Robert F. Ellsworth [Vice President of the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London; J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School; former Deputy Secretary of Defense; former Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs], Thomas Graham [Senior U.S. Diplomat for Strategic Arms Limitations Talks, Strategic Arms Reduction Talks, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Intermediate Nuclear Force Treaty, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; former Special Representative of the President for Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament; former General Counsel to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency; former Chair of the Committee on Arms Control and Disarmament of the American Bar Association], Maurice Greenberg [Honorary Vice-Chairman and Director of the Council on Foreign Relations], Lee Hamilton [the President’s Homeland Security Advisory Council; President and Director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars; J.D. from Indiana University School of Law; former Chair of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs; former State Representative of Indiana; former Member of the CIA Advisory Board; former Advisory Board Member and Co-Chair of the Partnership for a Secure America], Carla Hills [Trustee of the Forum for International Policy; Co-Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations; Advisory Board Member of the Partnership for a Secure America; Counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies], Jack Matlock [Specialist in Soviet Affairs; former Director of Soviet Affairs at the U.S. Department of State; former Deputy Director of the Foreign Service Institute; former Special Assistant to the President on National Security Affairs; former Senior Director of European and Soviet Affairs at the National Security Council; former Ambassador to the Soviet Union for the Reagan Administration; former Professor of International Diplomacy at Columbia University], Robert C. McFarlane [former National Security Advisor to President Ronald Reagan; Member of the Advisory Board of the Partnership for a Secure America; Member of the Committee on Present Danger; former Staff Member of the Senate Armed Service Committee; former Counselor to the U.S. Department of State], Mark Medish [Visiting Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Member of the Council on Foreign Relations; Board Member of the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy; J.D. from Harvard University; former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director of the U.S. National Security Council for Russian, Ukrainian, and Eurasian Affairs; former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs], Professor Sam Nunn [Co-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative; J.D. from the Emory University School of Law; Distinguished Professor at the Sam Nunn School of International Affairs at Georgia Tech; Chairman of the Board of Trustees for the Center for Strategic and International Studies; Advisory Board Member of the Partnership for a Secure America; Member of the Supervisory Council of the International Luxembourg Forum on Preventing Nuclear Catastrophe], Peter G. Peterson [former Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations], Thomas Pickering [former Under-secretary of State for Political Affairs; former Special Assistant to the Secretaries of State William Rogers and Henry Kissinger; Chairman of the American Academy of Diplomacy; Member of the Council on Foreign Relations], Dr. Brent Scowcroft [Ph.D. in International Relations from Columbia University; former National Security Advisor for the Administrations of Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush; former Chairman of the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board], J. Robinson West [J.D. from Temple University] & Dr. Dov S. Zakheim [Ph.D. in Economics and Politics from Oxford University; former Foreign Policy Advisor to President George W. Bush; Member of the Council on Foreign Relations; Member of the International Institute for Strategic Studies; Senior Associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies]

:shock: :shock: :shock: :o :o :o :shock: :shock: :shock:
.......

um...ahhhhhhh

That OP scared the heck out of me. [No I'm not spamming]

Now to business. I do hate that T press, but I don't worry about it half so much as all that. ;) As you said, it is an awful T press and if you have the right definitions, it's excruciatingly easy to beat. Last time we faced this T baby with MSSIS, we simply brought it back to our definition (slightly squirrelly definition) which defines "significantly" as "having or likely to have influence or effect," so the significance in our plan does not relate to the actual foreign policy change, but the impacts of the foreign policy change. It's totally legit.

Bad T presses always have the potential to boost your speaker points too. Because when you're right, and you know you're right, and you the other guy is really wrong, it's not all that hard to come right up and say it.

_________________
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 Feb 02, 2011 5:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2008 10:49 pm
Posts: 1394
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
Last time we faced this T baby with MSSIS, we simply brought it back to our definition (slightly squirrelly definition) which defines "significantly" as "having or likely to have influence or effect," so the significance in our plan does not relate to the actual foreign policy change, but the impacts of the foreign policy change. It's totally legit.


Yeah, I've run that before. idk, though, cause:
1. under that standard, literally every case is topical. If we send Russia one dollar, that will definitely have an effect. It might not be a big effect, but there will be one.
2. that's FX T, isn't it?

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 5:43 pm 
Offline
melancholy milkshakes. no straws.
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:31 pm
Posts: 3986
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Hinnom, TX
andrewmin wrote:
Quote:
Last time we faced this T baby with MSSIS, we simply brought it back to our definition (slightly squirrelly definition) which defines "significantly" as "having or likely to have influence or effect," so the significance in our plan does not relate to the actual foreign policy change, but the impacts of the foreign policy change. It's totally legit.


Yeah, I've run that before. idk, though, cause:
1. under that standard, literally every case is topical. If we send Russia one dollar, that will definitely have an effect. It might not be a big effect, but there will be one.
2. that's FX T, isn't it?

All right, you're right. I might have to change that definition. I meant a "significant" influence or effect. One dollar isn't going to make a big difference. MSSIS is. ;) In essence, our definition of significantly stems from the impacts of the change, not the overall magnitude of the original change.

What is FX T? Effects Topicality?

_________________
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 Feb 02, 2011 6:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:21 pm
Posts: 806
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Running the opposite way
Preston, first of all, I promise I will never run a T press against a J-V case unless there's some screwy extra-topical mandate. So if you hit my partner and I, relax, it will be a T-less round.

Second, I don't think I'd spend too much time arguing against why a "significantly" T-press is the worst thing since J-V. Instead, just straight up show why your change is significant. I didn't watch your rounds, so I have no idea how you argued, but that's how I would approach it. Don't quibble about standards and definitions. Judges don't like that. Just show that graduating Russia from J-V is a huge deal.

Also, I'd phrase your responses to this in terms of your strongest arguments. aka... "Judge, for the past 20 years Russia has complied with J-V. Each and every year, the United States has refused to graduate them from the amendment. Now, after all that time, we have the chance to end this perversion of justice. That is the very definition of a significant policy reform... righting a wrong that has been harming our relations for 20 years."

idk... I haven't seen your case, so maybe your case structure is the problem? Maybe b/c you don't really have a bunch of concrete advantages, judges don't see your plan as significant?

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 6:11 pm 
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
MSD wrote:
Problem A: Affs need to be significant. This is a fact. If we remove this burden, absolutely an ridiculous policy (such as the aforementioned two bucks) is legitimate. This isn't really true because of the resolution; it's true because of presumption. The Aff needs to demonstrate a real reason to vote for them. (I say it's not a resolutional issue, although it really is; it's just that, generally speaking, significance is best measured by its outcome.)

Agreed.

MSD wrote:
Problem B: What is "significant" is wholly and exclusively subjective. Metaphysically speaking, the entire word is pretty much useless. It's not that significance is completely undefinable, it's just that it changes in different situations. Therefore, there has to be a standard of some sort:

Definitional. This works until the Negative proposes a counterdefinition; then you're back where you started.

What about the def "to have effect"?
MSD wrote:
The judge decides. This is actually a lot more legitimate than you might think; the judge is the final arbiter in the round, so why shouldn't he or she decide what is significant?

Because judges seem to buy it when neg cries and says "THEY AREN'T SIGNIFICANT! IT'S UNAFAIR :cry: ". Look who's talking.

MSD wrote:
My point is that the fact that significance is subjective does not make it a moot point. You just need some kind of objective reference point, like a standard, to make it meaningful.

My standard would be that the policy must have some important effect. Not "big" effect, because big is subjective. But "important", as in relevant to policy (in the case of JVA, Human Rights, Trade, Credibility, Leverage, etc.) can at least be detected.
lookingforangels wrote:
As you said, it is an awful T press and if you have the right definitions, it's excruciatingly easy to beat. Last time we faced this T baby with MSSIS, we simply brought it back to our definition (slightly squirrelly definition) which defines "significantly" as "having or likely to have influence or effect," so the significance in our plan does not relate to the actual foreign policy change, but the impacts of the foreign policy change. It's totally legit.

That's how my partner and I plan to spike the press out. I pray that it works.
lookingforangels wrote:
Bad T presses always have the potential to boost your speaker points too. Because when you're right, and you know you're right, and you the other guy is really wrong, it's not all that hard to come right up and say it.

Righto, chap!
andrewmin wrote:
under that standard, literally every case is topical.

No, literally every case that is TOPICAL is topical. It still has to meet every other word in the rez. And if it literally adds two bucks, then you can argue sig on other grounds.
andrewmin wrote:
that's FX T, isn't it?

No, it's saying that the only way we can tell if a change is significant is if it has an effect. That's it, and it's legit.
lookingforangels wrote:
I meant a "significant" influence or effect. One dollar isn't going to make a big difference. MSSIS is.

The problem is that you're stuck with defining "sig" again. The Kohnkes did this to us.

My 1AR: "'Sig' should be 'have effect.'"
The 1NR: "No, it needs to have a 'significant' effect."
Me: :?

Just don't run the press unless aff is obviously unfair (MSSIS and JVA aren't), otherwise youre being unfair.
kj_eowyn613 wrote:
I don't know exactly how you've structured your case

We basically argue (with precedent) that moving the goalpost destroys credibility and destroys leverage. Therefore, we should use things other than JVA for leverage (then we list seven alternatives that would work in lieu of Jackson-Vanik). The justification here is HRs, IPRs, etc. Effective leverage is better than coutner-productive leverage. Sisyphus analogy, FTW! Then we argue trade, with quotes from businesses and experts that PNTR is better than TNTR for trade stability.
kj_eowyn613 wrote:
The only J.V. round we lost was on the argument that essentially says the waivers are provided for within the amendment so we're not being unjust

Read my sig ;)
kj_eowyn613 wrote:
it is hypocritical to only graduate Russia and not the other countries under the amendment.

That's easy to respond to.

::EDIT:: ninja'd. Thanks, Nate :)

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 7:36 pm 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
Halogen wrote:
Plan advocacy preempts T on significance, especially the quality and quantity of authors advocating JVA graduation. If it's significant enough for that many analysts to write about it, then it's significant enough for high school students to debate about it.
I like this point. "It there a bunch of literature advocating this?" would make a good significance standard.

thehomeschooler wrote:
Because judges seem to buy it when neg cries and says "THEY AREN'T SIGNIFICANT! IT'S UNAFAIR :cry: ". Look who's talking.
In which case you argue that it is totally significant. Judge bias alone isn't a reason for something to be illegitimate.

For the record, I would never run T on J-V. That's just stupid. I might argue that the advantages are not sufficient to make it worthwhile wasting Congress's time on it - but only if I actually killed the solvency, of course. :P That's where most of the debate would be.

_________________
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 - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 02, 2011 8:25 pm 
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
MSD wrote:
For the record, I would never run T on J-V. That's just stupid. I might argue that the advantages are not sufficient to make it worthwhile wasting Congress's time on it - but only if I actually killed the solvency, of course. That's where most of the debate would be.

This would be a good debate round. And you can definitely win it if you argue PoliCap.

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


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 26 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