Jump to content
Robert Bork

ResNull.org Up and Running: A Hub for Nullification and Change

Recommended Posts

not that it provides the only example, but it is an example of a movement type kritik that actually, and by actually I mean really, claims for changing the debate community. Others are much like it, and others came before it, so it is of course not all louisville, but many try to find some way to link rejection of the other team to success of their movement. It would seem that this res null movement would not want to reject/agitate/irritate the debaters, it would seem it would want to gain their support, but to gain support from the debaters themselves that would probablyy involve not debating against them and saying that they must be rejected because they debated a topic that, in my opinion, was not rightfully implemented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and saying that they must be rejected because they debated a topic that, in my opinion, was not rightfully implemented.
that's not their argument.

 

it's not that the other team should be rejected, or that they're wrong, but that the topic chosen wasn't chosen fairly

 

really, i don't even know where you're coming from when you say that support is necessary for any debate argument to change debate. even louisville doesn't get support in rounds, but you'd be hard pressed to find a college debater that disagrees with them.

 

starting a movement outside of debate is pretty useless in changing debate. organizations are not going to respond to popular demands, but they might respond to an argument that wins rounds and makes the educational value of debate null.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
that's not their argument.

 

it's not that the other team should be rejected, or that they're wrong, but that the topic chosen wasn't chosen fairly

 

really, i don't even know where you're coming from when you say that support is necessary for any debate argument to change debate. even louisville doesn't get support in rounds, but you'd be hard pressed to find a college debater that disagrees with them.

 

starting a movement outside of debate is pretty useless in changing debate. organizations are not going to respond to popular demands, but they might respond to an argument that wins rounds and makes the educational value of debate null.

 

A couple things, you're above parts say that they don't want the other team to be rejected yet you say that the only way that their movement can gain validity is through victory, can't have it both ways, sorry about that. If you want yourself to win than you are asking for the other side to be rejected, also their argument stems off of popular support from the debaters. For example, say all the slaves liked and actually loved slavery (not true, i know, but let us suppose) and this was not out of fear but because they really loved being slaves. I would be hard pressed, as one slave, to say that i speak for the rest of the slaves in saying that it was wrong to make us slaves in the first place. As you can see, when u are talking about something that u disagree with than you don't need public support, but when u are trying to give rights to a group that does not necessarily want the rights and is perfectly fine with the current system than you have to convince them over to your side. I am sure you read the website, the argument is that they will use debate rounds to convince the debaters to come to their side. That is what they said, refer to my former post for the exact quote. My point was that in opposing a person in a competitive environment and refusing the style they want to debate is not the way to gain the support that THEY want. U seriously misunderstand the approach they are trying to take.

 

What i was saying wit the louisville argument is precisely what u just said, there is a unique difference between louisville and this res null in that louisville can run their argument in rounds because the purpose is not to gain support from the debaters, it is to irritate them and critique them in the stylistic things they are doing wrong. While, the res null is not critiquing anything the debaters themselves did wrong, it is critiquing the community and the process by which the resolution was made. This is different because this a matter that can not be solved by critiquing a debater, this actually hurts u in that the support that u need to get the change (ie increae student participation in the electoral process of the resolution) are the people that u are critiquing in your rounds and demanding they should lose. I never said that every debate movement needs support from the debaters in order to become legit, but this movement, that is speaking on behalf of the rights of debaters, needs the support of debaters much the same as if u are speaking for slaves u need some support from the actual slaves before you can even try to make an official change.

 

Res Null can not be properly done through debate rounds because the argument is not trying to change an ideal inside debaters style or mindset or judgement techniques, it is trying to change something that i have no control over. So how can u debate ME on it, i have no control over it. This is why something like this is best done outside of debate rounds, in that u can gain support to bring before the people that decide the topic, and u can also gain support from debate coaches and other people outside of debate rounds. In this than you can make a demand to the people who have authority that this needs to be changed. You can't change the rules of deciding a topic in a debate round, and you can't gain the support necessary to make this change by demanding that the other side lose and critiquing them on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so... many... words...

 

you continually argue that they're arguing that what the other team is doing is bad (and then later say they aren't), but they're not. you're being chilidish. convincing people that choice is good is not rejection, no matter how you cut it. THEY ARE NOT SAYING THAT THE CURRENT RESOLUTION IS BAD, but that debaters should have choice as to what the resolution is. they aren't refusing a style or a resolution or any debate related thing, they're questioning the process by which the resolution is chosen. they are not critical of the affirmative for their compliance with the folks over at the nfl or anysuch thing, they are arguing that they should have a choice as to what resolution is chosen. if they wanted national service, that's fine, but that they should have a choice in the process. to use your slavery example, they aren't arguing that slavery is bad, they are arguing that it shouldn't be forced - that the slaves themselves should have the option of whether or not to be slaves. they are trying to provoke the "opposing" debaters to ask a question - should you debate what you're told to debate or should you debate what you want to debate?

 

listen - if you're so childish that you can't take criticism as a reason to question what you're doing in a debate round, then not only will the argument lose, but you probably shouldn't be debating.

 

hypothetical - bunch of slaves told that they have the option of freedom and that slavery sucks. in your world, all of these slaves would say fuck you, you have no right to judge what i do on a daily basis, shut up so i can get back to my whippings and cotton picking.

 

the res null folk aren't saying that slavery is bad (at least in terms of this metaphor), or that slavery is good, simply that it should be a choice whether or not to enter into slavery.

 

they are only debating you if you choose to disagree with them. from there their plan is to convince you that you should be part of the process. if not, then to convince the judge that you should. assuming they're successful, either they convince a bunch of debaters that they should be involved in the process of choosing the resolution or they convince a bunch of judges that they should. either way, if they're winning, broad support either happens or doesn't matter and change is achieved.

 

edit: deleted the sentence that was here and added this:

starting a movement outside of debate is pretty useless in changing debate. organizations are not going to respond to popular demands, but they might respond to an argument that wins rounds and makes the educational value of debate null.
debate one o one - the only arguments that have any implication are the ones that win rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem with res null and our discussion yusef has been that there is no clear arguments that I can make a point against and that u can adequately defend, so i decided to read some of their forums to see what their ideas are, here are some:

 

"With a ballot, the judge makes an ideological statement as to what s/he endorses, which ideas are embraced and which are symbolically killed and banished."

 

This argument seems to ask the judge to see their ballot as a ideological endorsement of who's idea should die and whose idea should live, so in this contect if i read a mandatory draft aff i would have to affirm the current system of exclusion of debater's voice against their claims of empowering the debate community, and they would ask for the judge to use their ballot as means to decide which one of these ideals should be rejected or in "nicer" terms die and which one should live. This does not seem the way to properly convince someone, think when about the conversation we are having now Yusef, if i were to say to you your ideals are not good and they should die, would i convince you to come to my side? no. So this method would not work to get the goal of student support that they want so bad.

 

here is another option they gave:

 

"You could propose this as an alternative to the plan that is competetivie under the view of rejecting a hegemonic understanding of topic selection...Your individualist ideal of controlling discourse by giving it to the community is a coutnerframework to the 1AC of national identity and unity."

 

So in this example they critique two things that the affirmative team does, 1. being that by running an aff under this topic we are perpetuating a hegemonic system of selection, 2. that the topic itself is hegemonic in that we are taking away people's individual's styles of thoughts by trying to create a mandatory national program. Not only is this contrary to what u said yusef in that they don't disagree with the topic (that latter end of this critique would critique the resolution itself in context of the rez null) but also they are literally critiquing me and my advocacy and telling me that I am hegemonic, so they want to give me the power of being an individual, yet are critiquing me and telling me that my individual choice to affirm the resolution is wrong? There are some serious contradictions to this argument.

 

Here is an option on the aff:

"This works both directions! On the negative, this can be presented as a critical or procedural argument. On the affirmative, a team can actually RUN a case that affirms the Africa topic after presenting a shortened nullification argument about the national service topic."

 

Yeah, this shows that they are in direct contention with the resolution. I understand this a part of their performance, but this is still destroying my ability to debate because why should I be expected to make a file against not only the national service affs but also the africa affs? On the negative they are making outright claims that i should be rejected, and I am sure they would critique me if i made arguments against them with stuff on the national service topic. In the context of the aff, they are silencing my voice to speak because i was only prepared to talk abotu the resolution that i know about. This also opens up doors to literally run whatever you want, and this is highly abusive but they would still claim offense against this point.

 

As u can see, all of these seem to ask for me to be rejected, at least on the neg. And the aff is taking away my ability to debate what i want, it is hindering my personal choice to debate the resolution all in the name of giving me a personal choice.

 

These are most of the options they gave, none of which look like they would gain any support from debaters that wanted to debate the resolution before that round. As a matter of fact, though i would not be mad, and though i would agree as I have always agreed, i would go home and i would make a file against this and still run my aff on the national service topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is truly stupid is that you argued for so many pages before visiting our website. It seems like it could have cleared up quite a few questions, although there are still many questions that remain unanswered by anybody.

 

\/\/\/I was speaking about the "king of krunk" fellow, not you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

uh, deja vu. pretty pathetic, but it's true.

 

re: king of crunk

 

yeah all of those ideas suck. i was just arguing a resolution nullification idea in a way that i feel is most strategic.

 

re: robert bork

i had, i just didn't find it particularly useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ummm... for one, i wish people would refrain from name calling or ridicule, it would go a long way to preventing cursing contests and general hostility that plagues this website.

 

For two, i visited your website and i read your opinion, but what was not apparent was your position as an advocacy for a debate round. So before you go judging me how about u ask a question to see if ur facts are straight, I actually have read your web page with much interest and have even quoted it in former posts before today, but the general behavior/rhetoric of you and others have really turned me off. If calling someone stupid what u call discussion, this movement will get no where. U said on your website that ridicule was your opponents fear and was not to interfere and was generally bad, but u do the same thing that u say is bad, good job Bork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are serious about this you should probobally have a list of resources on your site. That is have a forum for evidence, or maybe just a link leading to the actual null file. Then you, as the sites administrators, can add the evidence people put in posts, or submit by email. That would be a truely united cause. When we are all debating the same arg, and always making the file stronger, then we can have a feeling of unity.

 

Also, I think resnull.org needs a charter. The charter basically would need to say: "We, the DDCD (my idea: Debaters for Democratic Change in Debate) will fight the resolution until we have the right to actually decide upon it. After this is accomplished we will disban. We wish only to have a voice in the deciding of the resolution, as this forms the structure of the year."

 

I don't know, maybe it's more of a mission statement.

 

I have to agree with a lot of entries in this thread, this is informal, but it is not just whining and bitching. I respect you guys (and gals if there are any).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you are serious about this you should probobally have a list of resources on your site. That is have a forum for evidence, or maybe just a link leading to the actual null file. Then you, as the sites administrators, can add the evidence people put in posts, or submit by email. That would be a truely united cause. When we are all debating the same arg, and always making the file stronger, then we can have a feeling of unity.

 

Also, I think resnull.org needs a charter. The charter basically would need to say: "We, the DDCD (my idea: Debaters for Democratic Change in Debate) will fight the resolution until we have the right to actually decide upon it. After this is accomplished we will disban. We wish only to have a voice in the deciding of the resolution, as this forms the structure of the year."

 

I don't know, maybe it's more of a mission statement.

 

I have to agree with a lot of entries in this thread, this is informal, but it is not just whining and bitching. I respect you guys (and gals if there are any).

 

We've held off on any major planning/activity until the final resolution was clear. Some kind of clearinghouse for evidence will certainly exist sooner or later.

 

I think that the long statement on the front page serves as a sufficient declaration of intent. There's no need to dumb everything down, nor is there a need for everybody to endorse exactly the same idea. However, I don't decide everything, so it would be wonderful if you would join the site and offer your own thoughts about what direction this nascent movement should take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems really infintely regressive...

I'm going to form an organization called "debaters for debating debate" that debates about debate.

Or why not argue that the judge should vote for you because the resolution was republican and republicans suck? Net benefit is that if the educational value of debate is infringed it'll bring attention to how stupid the republican party is.

Or why not just run Schlag and argue that the existance of the topic is the suck.

Actually if i were aff that's what i would do if i got null ran against me. Shlag says that resolutions are bad. I run my aff because it's fun to talk about.

Finally, why wouldn't you lose on theory every round because the aff could never be prepared to defend the resolution against any possible alternative?

 

Finally, what about the permutation? Why can't you vote for the plan because it's a good idea and reject the resolution? The plan becomes the focus of the debate after the 1ac, not the resolution.

Also, if you ran this you would have to run it every round or it would kill your credibility and make it obvious that it was just an attempt to win. and then when people hit you they would run an africa topic aff. and you would lose. (it's like if KCC spread against some other UDL team.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This seems really infintely regressive...

I'm going to form an organization called "debaters for debating debate" that debates about debate.

 

Your interpretation also makes any discussion of theory infinitely regressive which is going to be terribly hard for you to defend. Also, resnull arguments are sure to include reasons as to why discussions of why we discuss what we do is an important thing to engage in.

 

Or why not argue that the judge should vote for you because the resolution was republican and republicans suck? Net benefit is that if the educational value of debate is infringed it'll bring attention to how stupid the republican party is.

 

There is no such thing as a "republican" resolution. Even if you mean resolutions that endorse more conservative ideals, any reason as to why those ideas are bad would be a reason to reject the topic. I guess I don't see this point.

 

Or why not just run Schlag and argue that the existance of the topic is the suck. Actually if i were aff that's what i would do if i got null ran against me. Shlag says that resolutions are bad. I run my aff because it's fun to talk about.

At the point where you use the resolution as a basis of discussion, you would contradict your Schlag claims in the 2AC and the round would pretty much be over.

 

Finally, why wouldn't you lose on theory every round because the aff could never be prepared to defend the resolution against any possible alternative?

 

It's not a matter of being able to defend the resolution against all other alternatives but rather being able to defend the method by which resolutions are chosen against alternatives. Smart ResNull arguments are sure to include reasons why using the resolution chosen by some High School Activities Comittee, not the voting representatives of debate, or (as the ResNull movement would have it) the debaters themselves, is a bad thing.

 

Finally, what about the permutation? Why can't you vote for the plan because it's a good idea and reject the resolution? The plan becomes the focus of the debate after the 1ac, not the resolution.

 

There are a lot of good reasons for forcing affirmatives to endorse the resolution. Generally, every reason that topicality might be a voter will prove why the affirmative should be forced to endorse the resolution and that the plan is married to the resolution. Also, a quick 3 seconds of cross-x could pretty easily clear this up. You ask "Is the 1AC an endorsement of the resolution?" If they say yes, their permutation would be severence. If they say no, you've got a new 1NC strategy to start working on: 8 minutes of Topicality.

 

Also, if you ran this you would have to run it every round or it would kill your credibility and make it obvious that it was just an attempt to win. and then when people hit you they would run an africa topic aff. and you would lose. (it's like if KCC spread against some other UDL team.)

 

Dragging out-of-round advocacies into the round can be bad for many reasons the least of which isn't that it encourages lying and dishonesty about what you did in X round or how you spend your weekdays or what sort of things you actually do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Here is an option on the aff:

"This works both directions! On the negative, this can be presented as a critical or procedural argument. On the affirmative, a team can actually RUN a case that affirms the Africa topic after presenting a shortened nullification argument about the national service topic.""

 

Not another argument like this...please please dont let this turn into the project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your interpretation also makes any discussion of theory infinitely regressive which is going to be terribly hard for you to defend. Also, resnull arguments are sure to include reasons as to why discussions of why we discuss what we do is an important thing to engage in.

No, because most theory arguments are about justifying what you do in the round, rather than something over which you have no control. Also, the gist of the thread here is not that we should nullify the resolution because of the way it's chosen, but because we don't like it. Some people are proposing the other way, true; however, i would have different answers to that.

 

There is no such thing as a "republican" resolution. Even if you mean resolutions that endorse more conservative ideals, any reason as to why those ideas are bad would be a reason to reject the topic. I guess I don't see this point.

I'm talking about the claim that there is a net benefit to the Africa resolution over the N.S. one because of racism or relevance or whatever. My argument is that there's an infinite number of better resolutions and that the aff can't be expected to defend the current resolution against all of them, and therefore any of them. The conservatism is an example of another random reason a neg team could claim to nullify the resolution.

At the point where you use the resolution as a basis of discussion, you would contradict your Schlag claims in the 2AC and the round would pretty much be over.

My argument here is that there's no reason i have to use the resolution as a basis of discussion. I only have to defend the plan. I don't have to defend a discussion of the resolution against a discussion of other resolutions; i only have to defend the discussion of the plan. The fact that i have a topical plan doesn't mean i support the resolution as a basis for discussion. it only means i have a plan. Therefore there's no reason i can't read arguments that say a normative basis for certain required discussions is bad. (i know schlag contradicts the idea of plans as well, it's just an example of a "resolutions bad" arg.)

It's not a matter of being able to defend the resolution against all other alternatives but rather being able to defend the method by which resolutions are chosen against alternatives. Smart ResNull arguments are sure to include reasons why using the resolution chosen by some High School Activities Comittee, not the voting representatives of debate, or (as the ResNull movement would have it) the debaters themselves, is a bad thing.

As i said above, this isn't what i'm answering. However, i think that the only way a negative could claim this argument rather than claiming that the res is bad and that the aff supports the res, is if the neg team claimed that they were somehow going to change the way the resolutions are chosen. Otherwise there's no reason to reject this resolution specifically, or the aff. If a negative team is claiming that they will change the way the topic is chosen through "nullifying the educational value of debate and forcing the debate topic selection committee powers that be to pay attention to debaters," then they link into my other arguments, about how they have to null the rez every round to get solvency.

 

There are a lot of good reasons for forcing affirmatives to endorse the resolution. Generally, every reason that topicality might be a voter will prove why the affirmative should be forced to endorse the resolution and that the plan is married to the resolution. Also, a quick 3 seconds of cross-x could pretty easily clear this up. You ask "Is the 1AC an endorsement of the resolution?" If they say yes, their permutation would be severence. If they say no, you've got a new 1NC strategy to start working on: 8 minutes of Topicality.

The reasons why topicality is a voter are that the topic provides a normative basis for determining preparations and research burdens outside the round. Things like limits and ground are not a reson that a resolution itself is good or bad, just that an affirmative falling under the resolution is good or bad. The affirmative has to meet the resolution, not endorse the resolution. There's no reason you should be able to read "gitmo good" against a drug testing aff; however, if the aff was forced to endorse the rez you could.

Dragging out-of-round advocacies into the round can be bad for many reasons the least of which isn't that it encourages lying and dishonesty about what you did in X round or how you spend your weekdays or what sort of things you actually do.

see above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...