Jump to content
BigSkyDebate

The New Proposed Wording

Recommended Posts

well to answer the disad claims--every debate won't be about links, its going to be about uniqueness. For example, te aff runs a AmeriCorps aff, the neg attacks with a spending DA, the 2AC says something like "non-unique: AmeriCorps has been around for ever, their budget is large--there is no reason why our plan causes the economy to crash" and the neg either have the greatest brink cards ever, or they be hosed. i don't think anyone seems to realize just about every DA, cept ptx and perception based DA's, are essentially non-uniqued or empirically denied, unless neg counterplans uniqueness, i don't see how rounds will have disads that actually are unique

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well to answer the disad claims--every debate won't be about links, its going to be about uniqueness. For example, te aff runs a AmeriCorps aff, the neg attacks with a spending DA, the 2AC says something like "non-unique: AmeriCorps has been around for ever, their budget is large--there is no reason why our plan causes the economy to crash" and the neg either have the greatest brink cards ever, or they be hosed. i don't think anyone seems to realize just about every DA, cept ptx and perception based DA's, are essentially non-uniqued or empirically denied, unless neg counterplans uniqueness, i don't see how rounds will have disads that actually are unique

 

If that's the case, the aff will not be able to generate any offense against the status quo, and risk of a politics disad will easily outweigh. (And I think there's always a unique brink on politics).

 

That said, most affs will claim to be a substantial enough change from the status quo that their inherency (program numbers low now) is uniqueness. And that's just defense anyway. There will have to be a debate on the link level regardless. This just means the aff has more strategic options since they CAN link turn these disads with a reasonable uniqueness claim to make them a straight turn... but, more likely, they'll be able to impact turn them the way people did on the UN topic.

 

Negative's can also counterplan for uniqueness, but it'd probably be better to just cut a brink and prove the plan increases the bad program's effectiveness enough to reach a unique impact. A counterplan to ban the program might be incredibly wide open to affirmative offense.

 

PICs will also check, since the aff can say they solve case while avoiding the disad which, while not very unique, might have enough risk of outweighing the solvency deficit to warrant a ballot.

 

I really don't think this argument is enough to justify the old wording which has plenty of unique disad ground, but hardly any affirmative options (that don't suck) to answer them.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't see why you couldn't run every affirmative you can run on this topic on the former topic. absent mandatory, obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so, would it be artifically or extra (i always forget which one is Da not intrinsic to plan) competitive to run a CP on lets say armed force, that did the aff plan, but changed certain military policies?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so, would it be artifically or extra (i always forget which one is Da not intrinsic to plan) competitive to run a CP on lets say armed force, that did the aff plan, but changed certain military policies?
It doesn't sound like that would be competitve. Depends on what "certain military policies" you are talking about, but if you are doing the entirity of the aff plan it is by defintion plan-plus. And I think it's called artificial competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i don't see why you couldn't run every affirmative you can run on this topic on the former topic. absent mandatory, obviously.

 

Ummmm... mandatory is the EXACT REASON why the old topic was bad. All the good aff ground on this topic is obsoleter under the old resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sure thing buddy

 

I don't really get your point. You are like "You can run all of this resolutions affs on the old topic, except the good ones, obviously."

 

You are right. It is topical on this resolution to run the draft, or force everyone to join Americorps. It is also possible on the other resolution. But all the affs that stand a chance of actually winning a debate are only possible on this resolution. For example:

 

Ban DADT.

Give health care benefits to join any one of those programs.

Give monetary incentives.

 

etc

 

Under the old resolution, these all become counterplan ground because the aff is forced to defend mandatory. Watch as the beautiful aff ground slowly slides into neg ground.

 

This is how the old resolution goes down.

 

Aff: Draft.

Neg: Ban DADT. This would increase participation solves overstretch. Draft kills heg (which is true).

 

Aff: Force everyone to do some Americorps.

Neg: Give them all healthcare benefits to do it. The net benefit is that people who are forced to work are less enthusiastic and would make the program less effective (also true). And politics. Did I mention that the links are literally one sided?

 

Honestly, there has never been a more negative biased topic in history than the old wording of this resolution. At least give the aff a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aff: Hedge good what?

 

 

Neg: Biopower K huh?

 

 

Rez Null: Female Genital Mutilation or Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty who?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I'll keep this simple.

Nobody's addressed the fact that all the programs the new resolution allows affs to support WILL BE RUN AS AFFIRMATIVES ON THE OLD TOPIC. I think it's uniformally accepted that supporting these programs IS topical under both resolutions, and including them in the topic would be a good thing. If the old resolution wins, we will waste time in debates discussing whether or not these affs should be included in the topic instead of debating their merits which will be boring to debate and judge (a point I made in my original post).

 

Imagine big rounds coming down to dumb arguments like "You have to do only the draft / military or else you're not topical." It seems like if the negative wins a competing interpretations framework for evaluating topicality, the aff is left with little offense against this interpretation and it will unfortunately win a lot of debates.

 

While I don't think this T issue alone is a reason to reject the resolution, I think that it deserves some consideration because it begs the question of why the community will think this T argument is so good. Because virtually all of the contextual literature discusses the draft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i like the new topic. it doesn't really matter that much that they listed specific programs, because you can still run some pretty creative things. it just helps predictability and doesn't limit it to the draft.

 

the word mandatory just sucks majorly for the aff, and you can still make mandatory ones on the new resolution if you wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If that's the case, the aff will not be able to generate any offense against the status quo, and risk of a politics disad will easily outweigh. (And I think there's always a unique brink on politics).

 

That said, most affs will claim to be a substantial enough change from the status quo that their inherency (program numbers low now) is uniqueness. And that's just defense anyway. There will have to be a debate on the link level regardless. This just means the aff has more strategic options since they CAN link turn these disads with a reasonable uniqueness claim to make them a straight turn... but, more likely, they'll be able to impact turn them the way people did on the UN topic.

 

Negative's can also counterplan for uniqueness, but it'd probably be better to just cut a brink and prove the plan increases the bad program's effectiveness enough to reach a unique impact. A counterplan to ban the program might be incredibly wide open to affirmative offense.

 

PICs will also check, since the aff can say they solve case while avoiding the disad which, while not very unique, might have enough risk of outweighing the solvency deficit to warrant a ballot.

 

I really don't think this argument is enough to justify the old wording which has plenty of unique disad ground, but hardly any affirmative options (that don't suck) to answer them.

 

 

 

don't get me wrong, im not saying the new topic is bad, im all for te new topic--however, im just saying most DA's will be non-unique to some degree, or there will be no brink to most DA's. I don't think inherency will be uniqueness evidence for the neg. i'll concede the counterplan argument, though i think more couterplans will be for uniqueness (i.e. ban PeaceCorps) and that'll chheck those cliams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rez. went from bad to worse. I think they are narrowing it down to something that neg can just write a couple generic args. such as dastroyxs what the country stands for his will be an ugly upcoming year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The rez. went from bad to worse. I think they are narrowing it down to something that neg can just write a couple generic args. such as dastroyxs what the country stands for his will be an ugly upcoming year.

 

 

<insery every post by baumz, fhqwhgads, The Spork, and mbaredog>

 

i think in almost every post, they seem to be making similiar conclusions, one of them being the fact that there will be AFF CREATIVITY. i don't see how "generic args" by the neg will "win" every round, that just seems kind of naive and doesn't make sense at all compared to all the arguments these guys have been making

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't really get your point. You are like "You can run all of this resolutions affs on the old topic, except the good ones, obviously."

 

You are right. It is topical on this resolution to run the draft, or force everyone to join Americorps. It is also possible on the other resolution. But all the affs that stand a chance of actually winning a debate are only possible on this resolution. For example:

 

Ban DADT.

Give health care benefits to join any one of those programs.

Give monetary incentives.

 

etc

 

Under the old resolution, these all become counterplan ground because the aff is forced to defend mandatory. Watch as the beautiful aff ground slowly slides into neg ground.

 

This is how the old resolution goes down.

 

Aff: Draft.

Neg: Ban DADT. This would increase participation solves overstretch. Draft kills heg (which is true).

 

Aff: Force everyone to do some Americorps.

Neg: Give them all healthcare benefits to do it. The net benefit is that people who are forced to work are less enthusiastic and would make the program less effective (also true). And politics. Did I mention that the links are literally one sided?

 

Honestly, there has never been a more negative biased topic in history than the old wording of this resolution. At least give the aff a chance.

do long redundant posts and misquoting me make you feel good?

 

reinvigoration of citizenship is a billion times more interesting than volunteerism good. as said before, any whine about ground is simply a product of either laziness or stupidity.

 

anyway - sure thing, buddy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what do you call the long detailed posts zbaum, stephen, jamie, warsh, and I have all made in defense of this new wording? obviously we can't "all agree", and its actually somewhat insulting that a person who goes for substantially is without material qualifications every negative round is attacking the credibility of our arguments.

 

Perhaps I overstated my point. Looking at the responses to the thread, I concluded that the consensus was trending away from the two resolutions. If I have misread the public opinion, I apologize. This isn't particularly relevant. The "we can all agree" applied mostly to the problems w/ the original resolution (or was intended to - I wouldn't be surpized if I messed it up).

 

Secondly, can we stop the personal attacks? There is nothing the "Hell wrong with me" and I'll continue going for T subs as long as it keeps winning rounds. I have a hard time understanding why other people don't run such an easy T violation to win on. I am under no delusions as to its real world merits -it's possibly the worst T violation ever- but it's easy to win on. Besides, I don't go for this argument every round. Actually, I don't go for it most rounds.

 

obviously there's a limit to how many steps an affirmative can take; the topic only mandates a step between the policy and the increased participation, and that step has to be direct. The distinction is that the policy established has to increase participation, rather than a consequence of the policy established increasing participation. Offering incentives for enlistment would be topical, but striking Iran, which would cause the government to offer more incentives for enlistment, would not.

 

and jamie and stephen already went over how this is critical to affirmative flexibility, while still providing ample ground for the negative because the end result is an increase in participation and the advantages are similar

 

The obvious limit isn't so obvious to me. I guess that's what the hell is wrong with me. This resolution clearly mandates FX b/c you can't fiat increased participation. Nothing in the resolution says it has to be a direct consequence - just that the policy has to be intended to increase participation. First striking Iran would be topical if you could read evidence saying people would enlist if we did it. More probably, faking a terrorist attack on the US would increase enlistment (ev that says this is abundant) and the intent of the policy would be increasing participation. There is no difference between that and an aff that runs an ad campaign - both try to persuade ppl to join the military/service institution.

 

On a side note, I reread the posts I think you're referencing, which was somewhat difficult b/c you use the author's real name. Unless I'm missing something, your answer to the FX argument is the first one. That's why I said the consensus was against both topics - FX is pretty damning.

 

you need to read zach's post, 1 page back, his limits arguments are phenomenal. and, the scenario you present would be great, because the affirmative has the specificity of their case on their side; i love when people read a bunch of generic disads because they're shittily constructed throwaway arguments and they'll have no answers to specific link turns, and if you straight turn 12 disads the neg is screwed. also, this argument isn't unique to this topic, because people can read generic rights disads on this topic, or generic UN disads last year, or they can just read these generic disads under your proposed wording. the more likely scenario is that big schools will have carefully constructed pics and case specific disads and we'll have good debate rounds.

 

I did read the post and answered it. The aff specificity is moot if the negative is gaurenteed specific links by the topic. Sweet, you do X specific proposal. If you read a single card of link offense, you're not T. How can you have specific link turns to increasing participation in X agency bad? Your offense is either "we externally solve" or "specific" mpx turns. Neither is a great strat.

 

The UN and privacy examples are also answered in my post. On this topic, a lot of people don't link to rights bad arguments. Next year, if you don't link, you're not T. Under any proposed wording changes, the link isn't mandatory, so you could have a creative aff that links out. The PIC's and case specific disads would be unaffected and the aff flex would be largely the same.

 

Finally, it is true that the probability of a new wording is low. That kinda misses the point. Did the people who argued about T subs online seriously expect the argument to go away if they made it look stupid online?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
do long redundant posts and misquoting me make you feel good?

 

reinvigoration of citizenship is a billion times more interesting than volunteerism good. as said before, any whine about ground is simply a product of either laziness or stupidity.

 

anyway - sure thing, buddy.

 

I guess I'll just stop making long posts until you make an argument.

 

You can still run a mandatory aff on the new resolution, if you so please. You can go re-invigorate citizenship while the rest of us will worry about actually winning debates.

 

A whine about ground isnt a product of laziness. It's more a product of the old wording being the most negatively biased topic in the history of high school debate. You could call me lazy, but I know that I'm not. I'll also vouch for Zbaum, Berk, Warsh, and Josh. You could try making an argument why its laziness, but I'm pretty sure Zbaum covered that in his post. Have you actually gone and tried to search the literature for the old wording? I'll let you in on a secret, there is almost none. The topic paper doesn't prove your point, because it wasn't written in the context of the resolution with mandatory in it.

 

Anyways - sure thing... buddy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
do long redundant posts and misquoting me make you feel good?

 

reinvigoration of citizenship is a billion times more interesting than volunteerism good. as said before, any whine about ground is simply a product of either laziness or stupidity.

 

anyway - sure thing, buddy.

 

 

lol, i guess laziness wins TOC's. solid call!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just when I thought my senior year debate topic couldn't suck more. Sigh. With the old wording you could do grammatical definitions and not phrase-based definitions and explode the topic. But this, oh God! Why you stupid states trying to swith us all to Public Forum? Curse you, may a cat eat you and the devil eat the cat!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know how to do that quote thing without taking like 50 minutes to do it for more than one post, so I'll just respond to arguments.

 

AT Aff creativity:

Now that's silly - in the old wording, the draft was literally the only topical case. The only definitions that exist for "mandatory national service," which can easily be construed as a term of art, have to do with the military, even if there are a couple definitions of "national service" that are otherwise. The draft aff would, obviously, suck - must impact turn kritiks, incredibly susceptible to PICs, on the wrong side of a one-sided hege debate (which also makes the impact turns on K's harder), almost no solvency advocate, etc. Even if somehow that violation was avoided, defining "national service" as military is the only limiting factor on the topic - otherwise, the aff could literally do pretty much anything, effecting anyone (ie convicted felons born on July 27 1967 must clean up graffiti). Then it would likely come down to a comprehensive debate, which is entirely subjective and simply uneducational. On the other hand, the new resolution offers quite a bit of aff creativity - it virtually mandates effects topicality, which in this instance I think is a good thing. There are not a million things an aff could do, but there are a certain amount of things that hinder participation in the status quo, whether it be exclusionary policies in the military, specific missions that turn people away from the Peace Corps (ie threat of danger), underfunded educational assistance programs, etc. Any one of these policies that turns people away could be repealed, and money or some other form of assistance could be contributed to some programs to ensure their effectiveness.

 

AT Aff doesn’t get to create new functions/own program better:

Boo hoo - those "new functions" would either A. Be new manifestations of status quo programs that are simply ineffective (as all the literature centers around this) or B. Be so squirelly as to provide no negative chance at response (refer to prisoner graffiti paint-out example above). There is no unique advantage ground that you are losing by not being able to create some new national service program - the reason there are 6 (I think) included in the resolution is so you have a vast array of options and specific programs you could choose to help. Plus, I will reiterate that this argument is largely applicable to both resolutions, as in the first debaters will almost certainly be constrained to military cases (see above).

 

AT Grammatical error:

I'm fairly certain that there isn't a grammatical error. What do you think it is

 

AT Shady links because no perception to current policies:

This is largely contradictory with your previous points - if the topic is bad because there is no perception off of "small" current policies, the topic would be TERRIBLE if the aff could just create an entirely new one (since there would be ZERO literature about perception). Not to mention that this assertion is just patently false - I can envision a bunch of potentially controversial areas that affs can tackle. Politics links would likely come off heavy spending of money, shifting of focus, flip flops, etc. The budget disad will also be big, and does not require current perception of the policy. The neg will get along just fine - there hasn't been an aff bias topic in years.

 

AT Senior corps stupid:

That's why there are five other topic areas. Not to mention, I actually think this will be one of the tougher areas for negatives to tackle. I'm not really sure what is "bad," per se, about bringing more senior citizens into contact with kids that they could help mentor. Who cares if it's a small impact - sounds like a pretty good idea to me; no reason it's worse than the status quo.

 

AT Can just increase numbers, not amend problems:

As explained above, there are numerous ways in which numbers can be increased. Compulsory service, incentives, removing poor policies, etc. All of these things are inextricably linked, anyway, to solving problems -the literature base certainly has that participation is a pretty key factor (I'm not sure what else would be). And as far as neg ground goes, it seems like pretty basic that the neg should get to defend that a particular organization is ineffective, not be forced to somehow respond to a virtually flawless, fiatted-through new program. And again, your argument is not unique to the new resolution (for the reasons explained above, as well as the fact that it would be non-topical under the old resolution to change any NGO's problems, so I'm not quite sure where you're going with that one.

 

That's all for now.

 

I completly agree. Everyone who's complaining about the new wording, refer to this post before posting any inane complaints.

 

I still dislike the topic, but the affirmative can actually have a debate now, which is vastly superior to always losing the limits debate on T or losing to a K every round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The obvious limit isn't so obvious to me. I guess that's what the hell is wrong with me. This resolution clearly mandates FX b/c you can't fiat increased participation. Nothing in the resolution says it has to be a direct consequence - just that the policy has to be intended to increase participation. First striking Iran would be topical if you could read evidence saying people would enlist if we did it. More probably, faking a terrorist attack on the US would increase enlistment (ev that says this is abundant) and the intent of the policy would be increasing participation. There is no difference between that and an aff that runs an ad campaign - both try to persuade ppl to join the military/service institution.

 

On a side note, I reread the posts I think you're referencing, which was somewhat difficult b/c you use the author's real name. Unless I'm missing something, your answer to the FX argument is the first one. That's why I said the consensus was against both topics - FX is pretty damning.

 

 

I think that while I have never before been a fan of the "solvency advocate" procedural issue, negative teams will be able to limit this topic by arguing that the aff must have a solvency card saying "the USFG should increase participation in x program through y". Surely no one says we should attack Iran for the purpose of increasing participation. And if they do, the negative should be prepared to debate it. Without doing the research myself, I would bet that this standard would limit the aff to a reasonable number of plans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe it is like the time this guy said "we're not giving rights to people, we're giving rights to immigrants" (he meant citizens, not people) Somehow maybe it is some sort of 'citizens aren't humans' kind of a deal.

I think it's the opposite. Ie, the concept of citizenship itself creates a heirarchy of people. Some people are "citizens" and therefore worth more; others are "immigrants" and therefore foreign and inferior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess I'll just stop making long posts until you make an argument.

 

You can still run a mandatory aff on the new resolution, if you so please. You can go re-invigorate citizenship while the rest of us will worry about actually winning debates.

 

A whine about ground isnt a product of laziness. It's more a product of the old wording being the most negatively biased topic in the history of high school debate. You could call me lazy, but I know that I'm not. I'll also vouch for Zbaum, Berk, Warsh, and Josh. You could try making an argument why its laziness, but I'm pretty sure Zbaum covered that in his post. Have you actually gone and tried to search the literature for the old wording? I'll let you in on a secret, there is almost none. The topic paper doesn't prove your point, because it wasn't written in the context of the resolution with mandatory in it.

 

Anyways - sure thing... buddy.

you can't reinvograte citizenship - you're bound to one of a few organizations. you want a link to a kritik? it's not in the word mandatory, it's in the organization used. to quote one nick krebs (omg he's a successful college debater and won a lot of toc bids!), "the state is everywhere, moron." as i've said elsewhere, the alternative debate is probably an easy win for the negative, but at least they didn't have a (very good) guaranteed link out of the one ac. there isn't even an alternative debate to be had with this wording - the implications of the kritik will almost always outweigh any advantage the case presents (if not outright turn them).

 

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1210430&postcount=49

 

construing topic literature as only the literature available on google that contains some number of words in the resolution is laziness (period). seriously, when was the last time you ran into an aff that argued it was topical because they have a card in the one ac that says "plan is national service" and then won the debate there? to quote terrance shuman (omg he's a successful coach and a prominent judge and such!), who actually debated the topic many years ago,

Contextual usage solves your whole complaint. When you stop bitching and actually start looking at some of the literature, you'll discover that there are plenty of sources who define it more broadly than just military servitude. And, frankly, if you can't win a "contextual usage better than dictionaries" throwdown, perhaps you ought to slink away and do Public Forum...
really - any complaint about a lack of literature is due to laziness or creativity. take, for example, the wmd topic. to quote shuman again,
Color me odd (to say the least), but since when did the presence or absence of a dictionary definition matter all that much? On the WMD topic, for instance, the only dictionary definitions included things like "Weapons that can produce devastating results when delivered in a single strike" (New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy) and "Weapons of mass destruction are weapons capable of inflicting massive destruction to property and/or population, using chemical, biological or radioactive material" (Army Technology Glossary). Did that stop anyone from running cases on landmines, handguns, etc.? It did not...

 

If you are saying my case isn't topical because the Oxford English Dictionary doesn't include my definition, and I'm saying I am topical because the USFG (i.e., the agent of action I am required to use) has, in fact, used my definition in proposed legislation, I feel confident in saying that I'll win that particular throwdown quite easily...

anyway, i'm not going to argue with you.

that and the bandwagons - if someone with certain prestige expresses their opinion (let's say a coach or a debater with a few toc bids) six people will be sure to agree with them without any reason.
you might have noticed that i've made very little argumentation in this post. it's pretty clear that when four or five high school debaters get together they have a complete knowledge of everything and there's no use in disagreeing because they have the toc bids needed to be right. so, sure thing, buddy.

 

 

edit:

lol, i guess laziness wins TOC's. solid call!!
actually, yes. i've seen it happen thirty or forty times. they were running and making shitty arguments, too. high school debate really isn't that hard. i'm not saying you're all stupid, just that you're full of yourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...