homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:44 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.  [ 11 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 25, 2012 3:12 am 
Offline
Cupcake
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:08 pm
Posts: 1211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Illinois
I'll be brief, because I'm really busy, but I've been thinking about (and have half used) a topicality press that is centered around case content.

Let's say the case technically reforms the justice system, but the entirety of the case (in terms of harms, advantages, justifications, rhetoric, goals, etc.) is based upon something peripheral to justice.


Hypothetical example:

Goal: Liberty
Crit: Representative government
Harm: SQ is tyrannical
Plan
Adv: More democracy

Yes you can argue that justice is achieved through liberty and through democracy, but the focus of the case is not truly the JUSTICE system.


So the t-press would loosely be:

Int: Must be justice central
a. Content
b. Rhetoric

S:
a. Education
b. Framers intent
c. Less weaseling ("Hmm, I don't really want to talk about the justice system, I think I can find some way to talk about democracy/innovation/foreign policy")

_________________
Drew Chambers
LinkedIn


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
Intriguing idea. Are there any particular cases which would be subject to this press?

_________________
- Will

2010-11 | Freshman | Bardsley/King | IX | 13th at Regionals
2011-12 | Sophomore | Dovel/King | IX | Q'd to Nationals
2012-13 | Junior | Dovel/King | IX | 17th at Nationals
2013-14 | Senior | Dovel/King | IX | 5th at Nationals

Baylor University class of 2018


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 4:47 am 
Offline
Cupcake
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:08 pm
Posts: 1211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Illinois
Well I ran this today against a certain case that was all about democracy and elected government and it worked wonderfully, in my opinion.

It's basically run like a K, but as a hybrid with a t-press. Rather than fiat/plan based interpretations and violations, it's all focused on rhetoric and content.

_________________
Drew Chambers
LinkedIn


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 2:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
That bodes poorly for Jesus and His parables. A bunch of them didn't include any mention of God or Heaven, so they must be in the Bible by accident.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 4:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 12:22 pm
Posts: 1389
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Austin, TX
You have to ask yourself, at the end of the day, if there is a JUSTIFICATION to CHANGE JUSTICE SYSTEM.

If the link to those harms/advantages is a change in the justice system, then... the case is justifying the resolution.

Now you might have a great argument to stick a bigger plan in there (counterplan) to get those huge advantages, or show that the plan's impact to those lofty ideals is nil, but I don't really see a topicality argument.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 4:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:29 am
Posts: 233
Home Schooled: Yes
The negative team isn't limited to running DA's that are specific to the justice system, so the aff team should be able to run advantages that aren't tagged "justice upheld". Good policy debate requires both teams look at the effects of a policy change outside of just the tiny area of criminal justice.

The better argument is to take the ground they've surrendered.

Counter-Goal: Provide justice.
- RTP: It's the highest purpose of the criminal justice system
- Impact of goal: Whoever creates a more just system or society should win the round.

Then DA them on justice and claim they have no offense on justice.

_________________
- Dan
Grove City Debate


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2012 4:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
Drew wrote:
Well I ran this today against a certain case that was all about democracy and elected government and it worked wonderfully, in my opinion.

DC-DA?

And as for the argument itself, I'd probably agree with Isaiah and baseballdebater. I think that as long as the mandates reform the CJS, the advantages (or even goal) of such a reform doesn't necessarily have to be justice.

_________________
- Will

2010-11 | Freshman | Bardsley/King | IX | 13th at Regionals
2011-12 | Sophomore | Dovel/King | IX | Q'd to Nationals
2012-13 | Junior | Dovel/King | IX | 17th at Nationals
2013-14 | Senior | Dovel/King | IX | 5th at Nationals

Baylor University class of 2018


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 3:21 am 
Offline
Cupcake
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:08 pm
Posts: 1211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Illinois
Yeah, I ran it against Kathleen and Nicolette's version of DC-DA.


The impact isn't resolution upheld though for the most part... We ran it more along the lines of education and intended focus of the resolution and then impacted it to loss. :P

_________________
Drew Chambers
LinkedIn


Top
   
PostPosted: Sat Jan 28, 2012 6:27 am 
Offline
Is now cool
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2009 9:29 pm
Posts: 3495
Home Schooled: Yes
From an LD perspective, it looks like you're just presenting a counter-criterion of Justice, and then arguing the superiority of Justice as a value by showing that your value meshes with the resolution better, and by appealing to structure and framer's intent to prove it. It's a common LD tactic with a weird twist: as opposed to just arguing that you are more topical than your opponent (like we would in LD) you're using this tactic to show that your opponent isn't topical enough.

It'll definitely work if your intent is to focus the round around justice or to take credibility away from their criterion. I'm not so sure how it will work as a T press, though.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Feb 01, 2012 1:48 am 
Offline
Cupcake
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 11:08 pm
Posts: 1211
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Illinois
Eh, it didn't work so much in the judge's (Jason Hughey's) mind.

But it was fun running it!

I still have some personal conviction that cases should be primarily focused on bettering justice rather than finagling their way into some other aspect of policy consideration.

_________________
Drew Chambers
LinkedIn


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2012 2:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:46 am
Posts: 678
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I can't think of anything witty right now...so...RIX
I agree with you Drew on this one.

_________________
http://siftingthroughmythoughts.blogspot.com/

08-09 | Thomas/Young | Broke to Regionals
09-10 | Brake/Thomas | Broke to Nats
10-11 | Black/Thomas | Won Regionals, 7th at Nats
11-12 | Comfort/Thomas | Won 2 Qualifiers, Won Regionals
12-13 | LD Debater | 3rd overall in RIX, 7th at Nats


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 11 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