Abusive, enormous topicality

[RedOysterCult12 8]

Right, so at prelims one team pulls out this mondo topicality file that was 4 different definitions in one file - establish, peacekeeping, support, and increase (i think). Does it make sense to put together a file saying huge, multi vio topicality is abusive to aff.

 

Another thought on T: if the aff clearly meets neg counterdef (as in clarified before 1nc in cross-x that we meet) could you put together an abuse story on that. Like, it's a crap topicality and the neg knows it's bad and that the judge can completely disregard? Just a thought.

 

thx

[jackelope 6]

I would say no to the first remark, and arguing abuse gets pretty old.......i would recomend just saying we meet, and if they keep arguing the same points, bring up the fact that repitition is not refutation and that you met.

[Fat Man 98]

Yep, just say we meet, takes out the Violation, and therefore is no reason to vote. Say T is only a voter which there is none.

[Ankur 2917]

there is no such thing as abuse. even me taking my tub lid and beating you over the head during your 1ac isnt abuse.

[LauraLee 4]

Right, so at prelims one team pulls out this mondo topicality file that was 4 different definitions in one file - establish, peacekeeping, support, and increase (i think). Does it make sense to put together a file saying huge, multi vio topicality is abusive to aff.

Was it Stevenson? They pulled like some giant T on us that was essentially PK v. PE. But they just defined more words.

[RedOysterCult12 8]

Was it Stevenson? They pulled like some giant T on us that was essentially PK v. PE. But they just defined more words.

No it was EK.. it was dumb too. However, we managed to drop that round....

 

On the content of this thread: I guess the general consensus is no abuse, then? Merci.

[Incoherency 97]

Actually, Ankur, thats physical assault, a form of abuse for which you can likely be prosecuted.

 

but on the argumentative level of debate, you're right, there's no abuse, abuse is lame.

I disagree. That justifies me duck taping my opponents mouth shut and then affixing them to the chair and winning by default each round. Physical abuse warrants a loss.

[Lockesdonkey 421]

This is a rule: given the right team any argument can be abusive.

 

TOTALLY IRRELEVANT NOTE:

All debaters who are in the MODEL UNITED NATIONS:

I WILL be at the UMMUN conference this year and hopefully be the India or Pakistan delegate to SPECPOL. I will be basing my resolution on Kashmir on the plan text from my IndoPak 1AC. Thanks.

[slcathena 629]

Not to be a brat, but I think that taking a phrase in the resolution, and defining it in a certain way that compliments the resolution is a much better strategy than running 4 separate blip shells on the 4 different words. Not only is it not abusive it shows that the negative is making a thoughtful argument, as opposed to engaging in a time suck on T (takes out your that's abusive they won't go for it argument later). Additionally, it gives them leeway to make a "phrases are more important than words--which could be defined an infinite number of ways" argument as to why they meet limits standards better.

 

 

As for the second question. I concur with everyone else. A we meet is not grounds for abuse. Whether abuse can EVER occur in a round or not, I'm not prepared to make a blanket statement on that...but even in the most ridiculous of circumstances I've seen (7 T violations--each about 10 to 20 seconds long, 4 DAs that were 2 cards long, a K that was 1 card and a couple of blips on case) I think that the more effective strategy is looking for double turns--because in that instance they almost certainly exist--using a lot of cross applying, and maybe (if you have time) tacking a 20 second breadth destroys education in the debate round with an RVI type thing, just to make them answer everything. In other words, offense beats abuse every day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[Ankur 2917]

This is a rule: given the right team any argument can be abusive.

 

TOTALLY IRRELEVANT NOTE:

All debaters who are in the MODEL UNITED NATIONS:

I WILL be at the UMMUN conference this year and hopefully be the India or Pakistan delegate to SPECPOL. I will be basing my resolution on Kashmir on the plan text from my IndoPak 1AC. Thanks.

 

uhh, warrants?

there is no such thing as abuse. abuse exists as an argument only, but is not real. abuse is fictional.

[Undefeated 13]

uhh, warrants?

there is no such thing as abuse. abuse exists as an argument only, but is not real. abuse is fictional.

 

1AC - Plantext: THE USFG SHOULD SEND ALL NECESSARY SUPPORT TO THE UN PKO IN THE GOLAN HEIGHTS.

1NC - Reads a short vagueness shell (concerning the words "all necessary means") and PICs out of providing troops to the Golan.

2AC - We don't send troops to the Golan. Abuse is fictional.

2NC - Um. We just got screwed over. The aff spiked out of our PIC because they had a vague plantext. I lost some critical ground. Aff conditionality is bad.

1AR - Abuse is fictional.

2NR - You just spiked a portion of your 1AC to get out of our CP. Aff conditionality is bad. Severence is bad.

2AR - Abuse is fictional.

[slcathena 629]

1AC - Plantext: THE USFG SHOULD SEND ALL NECESSARY SUPPORT TO THE UN PKO IN THE GOLAN HEIGHTS.

1NC - Reads a short vagueness shell (concerning the words "all necessary means") and PICs out of providing troops to the Golan.

2AC - We don't send troops to the Golan. Abuse is fictional.

2NC - Um. We just got screwed over. The aff spiked out of our PIC because they had a vague plantext. I lost some critical ground. Aff conditionality is bad.

1AR - Abuse is fictional.

2NR - You just spiked a portion of your 1AC to get out of our CP. Aff conditionality is bad. Severence is bad.

2AR - Abuse is fictional.

ROFLMAO...I'd consider voting Aff if the abuse story wasn't compelling. I've heard way too many bad ones in my day.

[Twist_of_Fate 84]

That's why there's a Cross Examination period AFTER the 1AC. As a Negative, especially in that round example, you sure as hell better use all that cross x and "miss" that question, or you're going to get killed with it.

 

If you had more pressing questions, that's better than having a minute of cx time left...then again, either way it is dumb, seeing as how you can ask questions during prep, but they aren't obligated to answer.

[Kernelreefer 71]

I think a more abusive plantext is just the resolution+ (The USFG SHOULD SUPPORT UNPKO'S IN THE BEST POSSIBLE MANNER) with the caveat that you are neither hypo-testing, nor whole res.

 

Or Spratlys.

[netz1 10]

Few questions based on what has been said here

 

1) what is hypotesting? can someone fully explain it to me? I've heard it used many times before

 

2) do some people actually run the resolution as their plan text? if so, are these people good or is this a stupid thing to do?

 

thanks

[WCUDebate 422]

Few questions based on what has been said here

 

1) what is hypotesting? can someone fully explain it to me? I've heard it used many times before

It depends. It's SUPPOSED to mean hypothesis testing, or testing the truth value of the resolution. However, some people run convoluted arguments that tweak the true meaning of hypotesting

 

2) do some people actually run the resolution as their plan text? if so, are these people good or is this a stupid thing to do?

 

thanks

I've never heard of it. I've heard of whole-rez cases, but they don't have text.

 

It's a stupid thing to do. Bad policymaking and bad debate. But some people like a challenge.

[Ankur 2917]

whole rez anti rez and hypotesting.

none are stupid to do.

they can often times be very unstrategic. but they are not bad arguments.

[BroRice La-boom 47]

there is no such thing as abuse. even me taking my tub lid and beating you over the head during your 1ac isnt abuse.

 

I actually have a little different theory about debate than you do. You obviously would argue that there is no rulebook in debate, I disagree.

 

In every debate their is a rulebook, but for a good judge, its blank, the debaters write the rules in the round.

 

Example: if the negative runs a dispositional counterplan we can debate if dispositional counterplans should be against the rules. If the affirmative wins they should not be allowed, that goes in the rulebook.

 

Then the affirmative and negative need to write a rule for what happens if there is a violation of one of the rules. Droping a team may be too harsh for some violations, so the negative can argue that even if the affirmative wins their interpertation is best for debate, they shouldnt lose the round, but only the counterplan, since its fair for both.

 

When you think all this is happening while, at the same time, having a very in depth discussion about the topic it is really quite amazing.

[WGLF 516]

ALL TOPICALITY IS ABUSIVE TO INDIGENOUS PEOPLES AND BLACK FOLK.

[Ankur 2917]

bro-rice,

 

i know where you are coming from, but i am not speaking as i am judging. as a judge, even my paradigm is at the whim of the debaters.

 

but look at it this way... the supposed abuse, doesnt actually exist. as the true rules to debate never support any sort of abuse violation (unless it deals with speech times), the abuse is created in the instance when the abusee runs the abuse argument because until such a point, the rules favor the contrary (i.e. the said abuser). all of which is kind of ironic.

 

ex:

neg - runs dispo

aff - dispo violates the no dispo rule

the no dispo rule didnt exist until after the neg ran dispo. the aff is actually creating the abuse by drawing up rules post violation.

 

similar funny example:

me - driving ont he highway at 55 mph

cop - changes the speed limit of the road to 35 after i pass him. pulls me over and says i got you doing 55 in a 35.

would you stand for that? who is being abused? me or the cop?

 

furthermore, since abuse is fictional, and not real (as in the real sense of beating you with a tub lid), much like how one can contend that the neg doesnt actually advocate their criticism as they are only running it as an argument within the round, abuse exists only as an argument within the round and is not real.

 

anything which is not against a firm rule of debate, is interp. violating interp is not abusive... its just violating an interp and if you present your interp as being a good interp and the other teams arguments as a bad interp then your interp wins. but the other team violating your interp is not abuse. abuse can only stem from a rule which predates the commencement of the round. like timelimits. or the judge paradigm.

[Lockesdonkey 421]

This is a rule: given the right team any argument can be abusive.

Sorry.

When I said that, I was a bit unclear. I meant that any argument could be construed as abuse. Thus you say when the other side cries abuse (regardless of whether they are aff or neg), "since any argument can be construed as being abusive, why are you debating? Either you stop crying abuse and debate, or you don't open your mouth and not debate at all. Now on T..."

[WCUDebate 422]

whole rez anti rez and hypotesting.

none are stupid to do.

they can often times be very unstrategic. but they are not bad arguments.

Semantics.

 

We agree.

[Kernelreefer 71]

Hmm. I normally thought that the criterion for what constitutes a bad argument is whether or not the argument is strategically sound.

[Ankur 2917]

no. the quality of the argument is not dependent on the strategic use of it in the round. inherency is still a good argument.

[Kernelreefer 71]

Correction: Inherency is an AWESOME argument!