homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Sat Nov 25, 2017 8:44 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




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2015 11:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2015 4:21 am
Posts: 64
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: A place
I hope this topic's in the right place, but here I go.

So, this year's rez is "The United States should substantially reform their trade policies with one or more of the following countries: South Korea, China, Japan, Taiwan". I'm in Paradigm, and this is my first year. I'm going to do Team Policy debate, and my homework is to write a topicality argument against the definition of china: "a fine white or translucent vitrified ceramic material" as an example. I'm not sure if I understood how to write a topicality completely, and I wanted to make sure that mine was... like... not... weird. Or something. Just did I do it right?

Here's mine.
TP Topicality Speech

Judge, this year's resolution is that the United States should substantially reform it's trade agreements with one or more of the following countries: South Korea, Taiwan, China, Japan. Now the affirmative team has defined China as a material, and we do not agree with that definition. We, as the negative team believe the the resolution intended China to be a specific communist nation in East-Asia. We believe that our definition was what the resolution intended. Now into our reasoning: for one thing, if you ask an average person what they think China is, that will probably be their answer, and we think that the resolution would specify the material because of that, if the affirmative teams definition is what the resolution meant. And if that's not enough, China's also capitalized in the resolution, which would mean it's not a material. It's surrounded by countries, so in context, it only makes sense, and the resolution even says: “...reform trade agreements with one or more of the following countries”. The affirmative teams definition clearly does not fit into the resolution at all. So here we go, researching different countries and their trade agreements, and they're over researching our trade agreements with materials, we're clearly not going to have a very educated debate here. And, that's all I have, thank you.

_________________
My top 15 pokemon
Clicky?


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 1:38 am
Posts: 144
Home Schooled: Yes
Great start! It's definitely not weird. I like your readable, conversational style. There are a few changes I'd recommend to make it even better:

1. Cut the part about "ask an average person" -- the average answer will depend on the context, for example if you ask "What is china?" while staring pointedly at a teacup. ;) This section is just a distraction. Instead stress both the capitalization and the context, especially that it's described as "one.. of the following countries."

2. Frankly, your argument is airtight and it's obviously intended to be a country. But an important part of a good argument that's most often overlooked is the impact. You have one -- "we won't have a very educational debate" -- but you kind of rush over it and don't stress it. Spend a little more time elaborating on why we want to have an educational debate and how bad it would be if we don't (wasting time, etc), and then directly relate it to the judge voting for you, because your definition provides the educational debate.

3. Finally, never end with "and that's all I have to say" if you can help it -- it weakens the point of your argument and really isn't necessary. End with a strong impact like "Vote for me so we can have an educational debate" and then just move on to introduce your next point.


Since you posted over a week ago, you might have turned your homework in already, but I thought I'd give my ideas anyway because they can help you fine-tune other arguments as well.

_________________
Cuniculus mundum vincere vult. Cum exercitu fortissimo cuniculorum vinciet. Cuniculus cunicululos faciet, et terrae cuniculosae erit.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 8:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2015 4:21 am
Posts: 64
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: A place
addicted to books wrote:
Great start! It's definitely not weird. I like your readable, conversational style. There are a few changes I'd recommend to make it even better:

1. Cut the part about "ask an average person" -- the average answer will depend on the context, for example if you ask "What is china?" while staring pointedly at a teacup. ;) This section is just a distraction. Instead stress both the capitalization and the context, especially that it's described as "one.. of the following countries."

2. Frankly, your argument is airtight and it's obviously intended to be a country. But an important part of a good argument that's most often overlooked is the impact. You have one -- "we won't have a very educational debate" -- but you kind of rush over it and don't stress it. Spend a little more time elaborating on why we want to have an educational debate and how bad it would be if we don't (wasting time, etc), and then directly relate it to the judge voting for you, because your definition provides the educational debate.

3. Finally, never end with "and that's all I have to say" if you can help it -- it weakens the point of your argument and really isn't necessary. End with a strong impact like "Vote for me so we can have an educational debate" and then just move on to introduce your next point.


Since you posted over a week ago, you might have turned your homework in already, but I thought I'd give my ideas anyway because they can help you fine-tune other arguments as well.


Okay, than--A WEEK AGO?! xD I posted yesterday!

_________________
My top 15 pokemon
Clicky?


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 1:38 am
Posts: 144
Home Schooled: Yes
.... I'm living in the future. Shhhh, don't tell anyone.

_________________
Cuniculus mundum vincere vult. Cum exercitu fortissimo cuniculorum vinciet. Cuniculus cunicululos faciet, et terrae cuniculosae erit.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2015 4:21 am
Posts: 64
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: A place
HEY, EVERYONE! COME HEAR THI--

......Sorry

Um... What's the difference between the standards, and the violation here?

_________________
My top 15 pokemon
Clicky?


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 1:38 am
Posts: 144
Home Schooled: Yes
Standards are criteria that a good definition should meet.

Violation is why the other definition doesn't meet those criteria.


Your standards are "what the people writing the resolution meant" and your violations are the points about capitalization and context, because those show the material china does not meet the standard of "intended by the writers of the resolution".

_________________
Cuniculus mundum vincere vult. Cum exercitu fortissimo cuniculorum vinciet. Cuniculus cunicululos faciet, et terrae cuniculosae erit.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2015 4:21 am
Posts: 64
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: A place
Ah, okay. Thanks for all the help!

_________________
My top 15 pokemon
Clicky?


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 7 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