homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Tue May 23, 2017 7:53 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.  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Theory for dummies
PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:14 pm 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2954
Home Schooled: Yes
tehepicpwnzor wrote:
I have seen in my 3 years of debating one round where the judge voted on topicality.
Just off the top of my head, I can name seven judges who have voted on topicality in my 2 years of debating. I could name more if I look through ballots.

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Theory for dummies
PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 6:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 6:38 pm
Posts: 784
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Insied ur interwebz
andrewmin wrote:
Are you saying T shouldn't be argued (when it's not blatantly non-T) because it doesn't win, or because it ruins educational value?


Both, actually.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Theory for dummies
PostPosted: Wed Apr 14, 2010 7:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
You should run a politics disadvantage when it's the best argument available to you for that affirmative in front of that judge. Same for a states counterplan. And the same for topicality. When it's the best argument available to you, you should run it. If you win, the W on the tab sheet doesn't have an asterisk next to it: it's a win, no different from any other.

Anyone can assert that there's no such thing as a good debate on topicality between two evenly matched teams, with each side doing a good job of making quality arguments and learning from the process, but asserting is not argument, repeating is not argument, and stubbornness is not proof. And brashness is a barrier to debate success. Debaters who know they are capable of being wrong win more debates than debaters who think if they just insist enough, that somehow makes them more right.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Theory for dummies
PostPosted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 2:45 am 
Offline
T-Rothasaurus
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:48 am
Posts: 3114
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Washington
DrSraderNCU wrote:
You should run a politics disadvantage when it's the best argument available to you for that affirmative in front of that judge. Same for a states counterplan. And the same for topicality.


EXACTLY, you run it when it is the best argument. You must be REALLY desperate if all you can say is that Creating E-Policy=/= Reforming it. Topicality is a Killer Argument against non-topical cases, against clearly topical cases it sounds whiny and hurts your credibility. If topicality is your best argument, or if the affirmative team has a case with no logical flaws, perfect evidence, killer advocacy, significant harm areas and disadvantages and airtight solvency than you run topicality. Unfortunately no, if any, such cases exist. If you can beat something on its own ground then their is no need to draw lines and hide behind them.

_________________
"The north remembers, Lord Davos. The north remembers, and the mummer's farce is almost done." - Wyman Manderly


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Theory for dummies
PostPosted: Thu Apr 15, 2010 7:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 3:23 am
Posts: 1300
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Second star to the right, and straight on till morning
:: Thread Cleansed ::

Mod Note: Lets try to keep the tone civil here. There are clearly different opinions on the legitimacy of various arguments. It's pointless to get upset at anyone because they don't share yours.


_________________
Middlebury Class of '15


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Theory for dummies
PostPosted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 2:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:17 pm
Posts: 1547
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Researching...
tehepicpwnzor wrote:
Well, I for one won't be wasting my life in a court room. I plan to go into politics when I'm 19. And if you were on the state senate floor and started arguing, HB3092 is NON-TOPICAL!!!!!! No one would care, everyone would think you were crazy, and you would never be elected to something bigger than janitor.


As someone looking very seriously at law as a career, I find your comment mildly offensive.

tehepicpwnzor wrote:
I am in debate to learn how to research and argue effectively. Not to learn how to distinguish between energy policy and environmental policy. It's a waste of my time and everyone who isn't going into law.


This is completely subjective, and not universal. As a clear example of where research and effective argumentation didn't quite line up, I argued Topicality against the Environmental federalism case, until I ran it into the ground. Where jurisdiction falls and under whose authority the Affirmative is placing, clauses, interpretations of parts of the Constitution became extremely important, and ended up deciding the round. It wasn't a 'waste' of time, it was essential for the decision-making process.

THAT was real-life.

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
   
 Post subject: Re: Theory for dummies
PostPosted: Fri Apr 16, 2010 4:11 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
Epic wrote:
tehepicpwnzor wrote:
IMHO, topicality should never be run in a round. If the plan is blatantly non-topical, topicality should be your only argument.

Ummm...wow?

There is truly nothing you can say to that.

Topicality is the shizzle.

You are so my friend :D

What he said ;) Cue my post on page one of here: http://www.homeschooldebate.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=9901

::EDIT:: Listen to Dr. Srader as well. And remember:
thehomeschooler wrote:
It [T] is like icing on the cake :D


::EDIT:: tehepicpwnzer: Somebody doesn't understand the phrase "abuse of the resolution" :roll:

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


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Theory for dummies
PostPosted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 6:00 am 
Offline
T-Rothasaurus
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:48 am
Posts: 3114
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Washington
thehomeschooler wrote:
::EDIT:: tehepicpwnzer: Somebody doesn't understand the phrase "abuse of the resolution" :roll:

Wrong, he understands it very well, abusing the resolution is interpreting the wording a different time every round just so you can say that the case you're going against is non-topical.

_________________
"The north remembers, Lord Davos. The north remembers, and the mummer's farce is almost done." - Wyman Manderly


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Theory for dummies
PostPosted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 7:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 6:38 pm
Posts: 784
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Insied ur interwebz
David Roth wrote:
thehomeschooler wrote:

Wrong, he understands it very well, abusing the resolution is interpreting the wording a different time every round just so you can say that the case you're going against is non-topical.


I am fully aware of what the resolution is. I've had fully topical cases every year so far, but topicality still gets run on us.

Immigration year, I ran H1b and the wall. Both had T run on them.
India year, I ran H1bs with India. And I had topicality run on me.
This year, I've run (FTR I'm not an openness proponent, but my region's regionals just got finished tonight so I'm fine sharing) ethanol subsidies with the intent of having a better environment. And had topicality run litterally every round this year.

Topicality is a dumb argument that subtracts from critical thinking, fosters laziness, is an excuse not to research, and something that is a waste of my time.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Theory for dummies
PostPosted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 8:12 am 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2954
Home Schooled: Yes
tehepicpwnzor wrote:
Topicality is a dumb argument that subtracts from critical thinking, fosters laziness, is an excuse not to research, and something that is a waste of my time.
Someone who cares about critical thinking wouldn't waste his time and ours by restating his opinion and ignoring 90% of the discussion. Read this:
DrSraderNCU wrote:
Anyone can assert that there's no such thing as a good debate on topicality between two evenly matched teams, with each side doing a good job of making quality arguments and learning from the process, but asserting is not argument, repeating is not argument, and stubbornness is not proof.

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Theory for dummies
PostPosted: Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:02 pm
Posts: 217
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: On my way
Yeah Halogen hit the nail on the head. but I wan't to add something:

tehepicpwnzor wrote:
Immigration year, I ran H1b and the wall. Both had T run on them.
India year, I ran H1bs with India. And I had topicality run on me.
This year, I've run (FTR I'm not an openness proponent, but my region's regionals just got finished tonight so I'm fine sharing) ethanol subsidies with the intent of having a better environment. And had topicality run litterally every round this year.


Immigration year: Well immigration year it was a legit T-press to argue "have to change policy on 'illegal immigration' not on avenues of legal immigration" + (just a question) are there seriously a ton of high-skilled workers in Mexico that would be able to use an H1B visa? cause the H1B visa is for high skilled workers.

India year: Well depends on how they were running T. What was the T-press on (sig., policy, india)?

Env. year: well there is a strong case to be made that we shouldn't include energy policy discussions in our environmental policy discussions (for limits reasons).

Honestly topicality is a part of the activity and its important to use/understand/appreciate that part of the activity for its educational value and real world applicability (regardless of how topical you think all your cases were).


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Theory for dummies
PostPosted: Sun Apr 18, 2010 7:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2010 6:38 pm
Posts: 784
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Insied ur interwebz
achilles wrote:

Immigration year: Well immigration year it was a legit T-press to argue "have to change policy on 'illegal immigration' not on avenues of legal immigration" + (just a question) are there seriously a ton of high-skilled workers in Mexico that would be able to use an H1B visa? cause the H1B visa is for high skilled workers.

India year: Well depends on how they were running T. What was the T-press on (sig., policy, india)?

Env. year: well there is a strong case to be made that we shouldn't include energy policy discussions in our environmental policy discussions (for limits reasons).


Immigration year, the Wall was 100% illegal immigration.

India year, there really was no excuse. People ran it for lack of a better argument.

This year, we talked about how the EIASA of 2007 was passed with the goal of a better environment, but ethanol was bad for the environment. We were changing our policy towards the environment. Still, we had topicality nearly every round.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Theory for dummies
PostPosted: Mon Apr 19, 2010 1:04 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
David Roth wrote:
thehomeschooler wrote:
::EDIT:: tehepicpwnzer: Somebody doesn't understand the phrase "abuse of the resolution" :roll:

Wrong, he understands it very well, abusing the resolution is interpreting the wording a different time every round just so you can say that the case you're going against is non-topical.

Yes, and if only the people you're arguing with right now did that ;)

But I don't. I have my own interp of the rez, andif a case doesn't meet it, I'll run T out the wazoo.

::EDIT::
Quote:
Topicality is a dumb argument that subtracts from critical thinking, fosters laziness, is an excuse not to research, and something that is a waste of my time.

Look at my brief on your case. I'll still run the T-press (and I've won with it), but I've also researched the heck out of it. T is not a "last resort" that "lazy" teams use -- it's just another weapon in the arsenal :)

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


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Theory for dummies
PostPosted: Sun May 02, 2010 4:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:22 am
Posts: 374
Home Schooled: Yes
thehomeschooler wrote:
David Roth wrote:
thehomeschooler wrote:
::EDIT:: tehepicpwnzer: Somebody doesn't understand the phrase "abuse of the resolution" :roll:

Wrong, he understands it very well, abusing the resolution is interpreting the wording a different time every round just so you can say that the case you're going against is non-topical.

Yes, and if only the people you're arguing with right now did that ;)

But I don't. I have my own interp of the rez, andif a case doesn't meet it, I'll run T out the wazoo.

::EDIT::
Quote:
Topicality is a dumb argument that subtracts from critical thinking, fosters laziness, is an excuse not to research, and something that is a waste of my time.

Look at my brief on your case. I'll still run the T-press (and I've won with it), but I've also researched the heck out of it. T is not a "last resort" that "lazy" teams use -- it's just another weapon in the arsenal :)

Yes that is so right. We run T on every team that doesn't meat our interpretation of the res. And T is most definitely another weapon in the arsenal....and a very powerful one :)

_________________
"Apply yourself both now and in the next life. Without effort, you cannot be prosperous. Though the land be good, You cannot have an abundant crop without cultivation." - Plato


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Theory for dummies
PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2010 2:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:34 pm
Posts: 224
Home Schooled: No
Location: St. Louis, MO
topicality, done *WELL* is the k2 learning how to make all of your other arguments. you learn the line-by line. you learn about the interaction of competing interpretations instead of right/wrong. you learn time management. you learn impact analysis. you learn how to make warrants. and you learn to teach judges about debate without using a bunch of jargon. lazy teams are lazy and bad no matter what argument that they use. i'd encourage you to watch good teams run T and say that it's useless.

go debate.

CoachJen

_________________
and this argument matters because...?


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Theory for dummies
PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 6:45 pm 
Offline
T-Rothasaurus
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:48 am
Posts: 3114
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Washington
CoachJen wrote:
topicality, done *WELL* is the k2 learning how to make all of your other arguments. you learn the line-by line. you learn about the interaction of competing interpretations instead of right/wrong. you learn time management. you learn impact analysis. you learn how to make warrants. and you learn to teach judges about debate without using a bunch of jargon. lazy teams are lazy and bad no matter what argument that they use. i'd encourage you to watch good teams run T and say that it's useless.

go debate.

CoachJen

I have. And while I wont say it's useless, it is not a convincing argument, especially when other arguments are run with it that are more convincing in their own right.

_________________
"The north remembers, Lord Davos. The north remembers, and the mummer's farce is almost done." - Wyman Manderly


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Theory for dummies
PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 6:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 26, 2010 12:22 am
Posts: 374
Home Schooled: Yes
I have won lots of debate rounds on T. And yes T isn't very persuasive unless A. the debaters are good or B. you have a really good impact on T

_________________
"Apply yourself both now and in the next life. Without effort, you cannot be prosperous. Though the land be good, You cannot have an abundant crop without cultivation." - Plato


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Theory for dummies
PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2010 9:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:16 am
Posts: 170
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Either "I can see Russia from my house" or "::stealing Jacob Dean's location::"
Some points that seem to have gone unnoticed:

1. Sometimes, teams run T on clearly topical cases, with or without a good reason (i.e., arguing the definition of India from India year). However, that does not mean that all T args are dumb.

2. Good teams can (and frequently do) run unconvincing, unnecessary, or lame T args that may or may not apply to the case (For instance, one particular club in our region is composed of excellent debaters that regularly place highly in tournaments. Unfortunately, I have never heard one of that club's teams deliver a compelling T arg).

3. A lack of Topicality causes problems in our national legislature today. If no legislation passed that contained text irrelevant to the main topic, much harm in our nation would be averted (See Healthcare Bill for details).

4. @ tehepicpwnzor: I didn't debate in immigration year, but I did run very legit T args (not the standard T presses either) vs. H-1B in India year and Ethanol this last year.

Food for thought.

_________________
Quote:
Why is irresponsibility automatically a bad thing?

Say wha...? Must I answer?


"The nine most feared words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'" (Ronald Reagan)

Quote:
Insert random statement useful for nothing but narcissism


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Theory for dummies
PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2010 12:01 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
I'm gonna say it right now: You guys are going to want a good T-press this year against Space Weapons. T against this case, while it may be hard to win, is legit -- and called for.

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


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Theory for dummies
PostPosted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2010 11:02 pm
Posts: 510
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Is that really any of your business? Why else do you need to know?
tehepicpwnzor wrote:
IMHO, topicality should never be run in a round. If the plan is blatantly non-topical, topicality should be your only argument.


Hmm, I had thought about that. Cuz then what's the point of arguigng it. I only run T on clearly non T cases.

_________________
Olivia de la Pena
Mark 8:36
Region IX ROX!

God's Gorgeous Princess

lucky13 wrote:
boys are gross!


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 77 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited