18 replies to this topic

[thechillsauce]

How should one go about making an effects topicality argument? Ie. What standards and voters apply for Extra T that don't really apply for T?

[jgorman]

thechillsauce, on 25 December 2011 - 07:09 PM, said:

How should one go about making an effects topicality argument? Ie. What standards and voters apply for Extra T that don't really apply for T?

PERF CON!

which one do you mean?

[thechillsauce]

jgorman, on 25 December 2011 - 09:26 PM, said:

PERF CON!

which one do you mean?

awk, fail, effects T

[jgorman]

thechillsauce, on 25 December 2011 - 09:33 PM, said:

awk, fail, effects T

1. limits
a. infinitely regressive - any action taken can eventually lead to a topical action
b. unlimits - no topic specific education - unpredictable mechanisms lead to ultrageneric disads
2. ground
a. counterplan ground - all cp's are as topical as the aff
b. disad ground - we can't predict how or when the aff becomes topical - kills off disad ground.
c. fair ground - aff can claim advantages from the initial action as well as the topical effect without an equal increase in predictable neg ground. even if we get more links, they're not predictable or topic specific.
3. theory
a. makes T a question of degree (58% topical) - should be binary (topical/untopical), best for brightline
b. mixes burdens - can't consider T until you weigh the advantages and solvency - like a court seeing if someone's guilty to decide if they can try them
c. arbitrary - they can't justify why their number of steps is worse than an aff that does just one more step. prefer our brightline.
4. voters
a. education - lack of predictable ground leads to ultrageneric debates - spending disads every round. each ground standard is a reason to vote on education - topic specific education is best. most real world - jurisdiction hearings preclude normal trials.
b. fairness - unbalanced ground makes debate a rigged game, everyone quits.
c. jurisdiction - if the aff's not topical the judge doesn't have the jurisdiction to vote for the plan.

tl;dr: much more abusive on all regular standards

[nathan_debate]

I often have a minimum of 2 examples of what types of affirmatives would be justified...at a minimum FX would legitimize any affirmative that increased economic growth . This exponentially and infinitely expands the topic.

This would also legitimize affs which provide funding for private space entrepreneurs (which don't actually have our agents explore space) or more high school science education leads to more nasa scientists, satelittes, and space exploration.


Also, they will say ground--but its un-predictable ground. Plus all the other reasons you give that this interp is wrong.

[Lantern360]

nathan_debate, on 26 December 2011 - 06:41 AM, said:

Also, they will say ground--but its un-predictable ground. Plus all the other reasons you give that this interp is wrong.

Unpredictability is going to be one of your strongest points, but not just on the standard of ground. Anything they could argue (like ground) becomes a nebulous issue. Hell, you could even go so far as calling them out on their solvency. In debate, solvency is a stock issues that must be met, and with an FX case, solvency becomes this overall nebulous issue - we never know what it could be in the end. A judge can't vote for it because it's never certain. The topicality and solvency of the plan is supposed to be a yes or no question, not a "maybe we are topical in the future, and maybe we will solve."

[nathan_debate]

I think the argument is above is:
a] risk of probablism &
b] risk of bi-directionality.
both of which destroy fair research burdens.

[Mister T Debater]

While we're here, what standards apply to Extra T that are unique?

[Lifeline]

a bit off topic, but what violations and interps are you guys running this with? I've had a really hard time this year finding t args that can be used effectively other than to create a double bind.

[Skirtsteak]

also,can anyone explain the "mixes burdens" argument? I'm a little confused about how it does that. I'm thinking that like the aff's solvency proves its topicality (ie our untopical action -> topical action so we're topical), so the neg argument is that they need to win solvency to win T?

[thechillsauce]

Lifeline, on 28 December 2011 - 10:40 PM, said:

a bit off topic, but what violations and interps are you guys running this with? I've had a really hard time this year finding t args that can be used effectively other than to create a double bind.

well, I use FXT on things that don't actually do things it space- it's like, after the plan has passed, it takes a couple of steps for it to be topical.

If you mean actual topicality- I like development=commercial, as well as exploration=human, because a lot of plans don't do either.

[nathan_debate]

Quote

well, I use FXT on things that don't actually do things it space- it's like, after the plan has passed, it takes a couple of steps for it to be topical.

If you mean actual topicality- I like development=commercial, as well as exploration=human, because a lot of plans don't do either.

Whenever you run FX, you should run extra-t as a hidden violation or at least as a standard so that you are in a better position to articulate a violation in the block. And probably vice versa.

In my opinion, this only works in the case of genuine violations--or at least works best in those cases. Contrived arguments may get dropped or mishandled don't tend to win rounds.

Judges don't like to vote on "rubber chicken legs are a voter-type arguments." Also, judges (particularly older ones & teachers) often feel themselves in the role of both
a) judges b ) educators c) truth finders. The precedent set on all 3 of these for contrived violations is just dirty. Judges don't like to be dirty.

[Rawrcat]

nathan_debate, on 20 January 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

Whenever you run FX, you should run extra-t as a hidden violation or at least as a standard so that you are in a better position to articulate a violation in the block. And probably vice versa.

This.

Throwing it in as a standard on applicable T violations, generally "increase" T's from what I've noticed, will give you a better standing in the T debate. One thing I love doing with T (when applicable) is having both FX and XT as standards, blow them up in the block as independent voters, and in the 2NR go for the standard T arg and have one or both XT and FX as independent voters.

Also, with FX T, use it to advance solvency arguments. Example: They read a case putting more money into whatever. You read "increase =/= funding" and have FX as a standard. Blow it up in the block as an independent voter and make one of the arguments with FX that "funding programs doesn't ensure solvency. the aff can't prevent potential cancellation. Constellation is an example of cancelled programs with funding."

At worst, you have a solvency arg they may miss that you can use to back the position of a DA or CP; at best, you get a presumption arg in with FX in the 2nr.

[nathan_debate]

Quote

Also, with FX T, use it to advance solvency arguments. Example: They read a case putting more money into whatever. You read "increase =/= funding" and have FX as a standard. Blow it up in the block as an independent voter and make one of the arguments with FX that "funding programs doesn't ensure solvency. the aff can't prevent potential cancellation. Constellation is an example of cancelled programs with funding."

Unless you have a reason why cancellation is likely, for instance it will be rolled back, I don't understand what this really gets you.
Lots of potentialities are possible.....its a question of which is likely. If you can articulate who AND why a funding roll back might occur you might be in a better position (this serves to give a little substance to your assertion). However these types of arguments should start at least in the 2nc. [your other potential argument would be based on an interpretation of normal means of budgeting post passage.....however I think it often goes in the opposite direction of growth vs. roll back as a historical matter. But thats just a guess.]

Also, that argument in the 2 seems like a brand new argument.

[Jive Turkey]

Plan in a vacuum test is a great way to prove FX T.

[codyarmstrong]

What is plan in a vacuum?

[Lifeline]

codyarmstrong, on 29 January 2012 - 11:01 PM, said:

What is plan in a vacuum?

Looking at the plan mandate itself, without taking into consideration the advantages. If the plan is topical only because it solves for issues that are related to space, then it is fx topical--evaluating the plan in a vacuum will allow the judge to recognize this clearly,

[enoryt]

What is extra-t?

[Mister T Debater]

One action of the plan is topical, but another part of it is untopical.
I believe in this a lot, but I just need help getting a proper neg strat for it.