Jump to content
melissa_newton

topicality a voting issue?

Recommended Posts

SPEC is used to justify PICS. There are arguments and theory discussion to be had there. Agent CPs good / bad etc.

 

and instead of saying RVI I would advocate perf con bad or plain old double bind args. Argue that is bad and reason to vote, just don't slap the RVI label on it. An RVI is implied offense. Instead of making the arguments for why this is bad for debate and should result in a loss for the other team, debaters take the short cut and say "its a RVI". It sounds like you see RVIs as a substitute for justifucation of theory as a voter or a way to impact theory. At that point it is just semantics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are stating that your view of things, but you arent stating why my view is a) bad or B) your view is better.

 

why should the aff (or neg) not be permitted to argue an RVI on an attempted double bind? the double bind as a strategic tool is used to unfairly lock the opposing team into a lose-lose position. So why cant the recipient team fire back with an argument that the other team should lose for trying to force a situation where every aff (or neg) loses? Why is this illegitimate?

 

I am not saying that this is the typical way in which an RVI is run, but my point is simply that to dismiss all RVI's are being inherently bad and unworthy of a ballot is bad. Why shouldnt a team be allowed to make the above argument? Why shouldnt that argument be permitted airtime in debate. Even if you end up disagreeing with the team running the RVI, and side with the double bind, (or whatever else), why do you think that it is better to block the team from making the argument in the first place than to allow them to try and persuade you of their position?

 

 

 

and PS - spec isnt just for PICs. in order for it to be with PICs the neg would need to argue that failure to spec is bad and then run the argument evaded by nonspecification anyways and claim any ducking out of the link on the argument is a materialized abuse verified by spec. in other words, spec is a voter on the shell of the argument. spec can be used to find disad ground, counterplan ground, theory ground, etc. its not limited to pics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
why do you think that it is better to block the team from making the argument in the first place than to allow them to try and persuade you of their position?

 

My arg is that calling it an RVI is a misnomer. I would rather them articulate why the issue is a voter rather than label it as a RVI. RVI assumes the argument is a voter for the other team. A contradiction should be argued as such not labeled a RVI. Wouldn't it just be a plain VI? Again I am saying that this seems to be semantical difference (which means neither of us are good, bad or otherwise) in terms of RVIs being used against double binds and whatnot. If you like the idea of labeling it as a RVI, more power to you. I will not ignore this type of claimed RVI, but I will in my critque tell them why it is a plain VI not an RVI.

 

and PS - spec isnt just for PICs. in order for it to be with PICs the neg would need to argue that failure to spec is bad and then run the argument evaded by nonspecification anyways and claim any ducking out of the link on the argument is a materialized abuse verified by spec. in other words, spec is a voter on the shell of the argument. spec can be used to find disad ground, counterplan ground, theory ground, etc. its not limited to pics.

 

If I defend the USFG why would you not get all your links? Maybe you can't run a court DA, but that is not a very good reason for SPEC good. If you are talking about ASPEC and don't see it being explicitly linked to PICs then maybe that is a regional prefrence as well. If I run ASPEC w/o an agent CP it is not as effective [in my mind], but it can still be argued. (irreperable startegic damage and what not). Again I see these debates as a discussion concerning ground, and I find it dramatically less persuasive to argue USFG gets out of DA links. PICS are CPs. And what the hell is theory ground?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My arg is that calling it an RVI is a misnomer. I would rather them articulate why the issue is a voter rather than label it as a RVI. RVI assumes the argument is a voter for the other team. A contradiction should be argued as such not labeled a RVI. Wouldn't it just be a plain VI? Again I am saying that this seems to be semantical difference (which means neither of us are good, bad or otherwise) in terms of RVIs being used against double binds and whatnot. If you like the idea of labeling it as a RVI, more power to you. I will not ignore this type of claimed RVI, but I will in my critque tell them why it is a plain VI not an RVI.

 

If the 2NR goes for the flow with the RVI on it, then obviously winning the RVI wins them the debate.

 

Also, you ignore Ankur's posts previously. Why can't an argument be a voter for the other team? If some team runs a T against me with a competing interps framework (if they win their interp is better, they win the entire debate, even if I pwn them on the policy flow), and the affirmative wins the competing interps debate, the framework the negative advocated indicates that the aff wins the round, unless they added negation theory analysis before.

 

Also, why dismiss RVI's entirely? I think this is an issue where judge intervention remains rampant because they assume certain arguments to be "bad arguments" - leave the debating to the debaters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why can't an argument be a voter for the other team? If some team runs a T against me with a competing interps framework (if they win their interp is better, they win the entire debate, even if I pwn them on the policy flow), and the affirmative wins the competing interps debate, the framework the negative advocated indicates that the aff wins the round, unless they added negation theory analysis before.QUOTE]

 

 

B/c competing interpretations say you coose the best interp to determine topicality, not the round. If i win competing interps good and prove one interp better than the other then that is the interp used to evaluate T. I don't know why being topical means you win regardless of how you justify your interpretation. If I beat your solvency or inherency args, that does not mean I win AUTOMATICALLY. It is called having a prima facie case. If you are not topical, then the "policy flow" is irrelevant assuming T is argued as a gateway issue.

 

If the T violation is morally repugnant, then make that argument. If the T arg oppresses you then make that arg. If you thik the T violation is an abusive time sku, then make that arg. If you want offense on the flow, justify it with warrants and impact it to the round. All I am saying, is slaping the label "RVI" on something does not make it a voter. I would prefer reasons / warrants / justifications for it being a voter rather than the claim that it is a RVI.

 

I just think there are superior ways to make these arguments instead of relying on "Its a RVI".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, my argument is that the Xspec vio is going to claim abuse - the abuse being that the failure to specify in some way eliminates potential valuable negative argument ground (be it counterplan, disad, whatever). but specification means blatant extra-topicality. so why cant the affirmative throw the abuse story on the spec violation works against the neg because of the double bind the argument creates? that IS a reverse voter.

 

 

thus neg: loss of valuable ground = abuse

aff: neg argument = loss of aff ground = abuse in reciprocal kind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just think there are superior ways to make these arguments instead of relying on "Its a RVI".

 

Ankur certainly isn't saying that. There are justifications for having reverse voters. Granted, they're not usually very good, and are mostly reasons why you don't look at the abuse - I don't think the point of an RVI is to win the round, so much as it is to at least get the judge to reject the argument, especially if it's something like a specification argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B/c competing interpretations say you coose the best interp to determine topicality, not the round. If i win competing interps good and prove one interp better than the other then that is the interp used to evaluate T. I don't know why being topical means you win regardless of how you justify your interpretation. If I beat your solvency or inherency args, that does not mean I win AUTOMATICALLY. It is called having a prima facie case. If you are not topical, then the "policy flow" is irrelevant assuming T is argued as a gateway issue.

 

If the T violation is morally repugnant, then make that argument. If the T arg oppresses you then make that arg. If you thik the T violation is an abusive time sku, then make that arg. If you want offense on the flow, justify it with warrants and impact it to the round. All I am saying, is slaping the label "RVI" on something does not make it a voter. I would prefer reasons / warrants / justifications for it being a voter rather than the claim that it is a RVI.

 

I just think there are superior ways to make these arguments instead of relying on "Its a RVI".

 

Why not run "RVI's"? They're the same as any other argument, i.e. it involves a claim and a warrant. I'm merely stating that if a team warrants why T is an RVI, it functions like any other de facto procedural argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not run "RVI's"? They're the same as any other argument, i.e. it involves a claim and a warrant. I'm merely stating that if a team warrants why T is an RVI, it functions like any other de facto procedural argument.

 

RVI is the worst argument ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, that's the second worst. To funding specification.

 

I'm glad to see another infidel has joined the Revolucion. All hail thee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we are digressing completely here.

 

my point is NOT whether RVI's are good. i dont think they are generally a good idea. i think under most situations, i am likely to vote for the team not running the RVI, because typically that side has better arguments.

 

but the REAL ISSUE here is whether judges should be declaring arguments non grata. even if your dislike of RVIs is legitimately warranted, so is the dislike of critiques by many folk.

 

there is ZERO difference between a judge who says "i wont vote on RVIs" and a judge who says "i wont vote on critiques" or "i wont vote on stocks" or "you need to turn a disad in order to win it." in any of those situations, judges can justify why the disliked argument is bad for debate. but those are judge's opinions - not fact.

 

if any of those types of judges piss you off, then ALL of those judges must piss you off. if not, then you arent really acting for the benefit of debate as a whole - you are acting for the benefit of yourself or your team. if thats the case then you arent worthy of BEING a judge let alone a coach because you are doing debaters across the country a huge disservice by preventing debaters from arguing what they choose to argue and allowing them to learn from their arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is ZERO difference between a judge who says "i wont vote on RVIs" and a judge who says "i wont vote on critiques" or "i wont vote on stocks" or "you need to turn a disad in order to win it." in any of those situations, judges can justify why the disliked argument is bad for debate. but those are judge's opinions - not fact.

 

I can think of some differences (like I would rather hang out with the first judge than the others, and the general debate public would find them far more appealing. Facts be damned.)

 

if any of those types of judges piss you off, then ALL of those judges must piss you off.

 

I appreciate you telling what I must or must not be pissed about, but I reserve the right to diferentiate.

 

if not, then you arent really acting for the benefit of debate as a whole - you are acting for the benefit of yourself or your team. if thats the case then you arent worthy of BEING a judge let alone a coach because you are doing debaters across the country a huge disservice by preventing debaters from arguing what they choose to argue and allowing them to learn from their arguments.

 

In the last 3 years I have probablly heard RVI in 6 rounds at most (including summer workshop rounds) out of a hundred plus rounds I have judged and in the rounds I watch durring scouting and leisure time. I have never seen one in an elimination round. The disservice would be if we as debate coaches and judges did NOT discouraging bad arguments. Teaching kind of implies that.

 

I know you are using "RVIs" as an example to discourage interventionsm in debate rounds. The thought that a truely great judge is one who is intervention free and has no preconcieved notions about anything is fine and good. They were called Tab back when I was debating, and they were more often than not more random than a judge who would share a clear paradigm.

 

On a more personal note, you have ZERO business deciding who is and who is not worthy of being a coach. Although I respect your 9K plus post count, I don't think that quite puts you in a place to determine who is and who is not good for the activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can think of some differences (like I would rather hang out with the first judge than the others, and the general debate public would find them far more appealing. Facts be damned.) I appreciate you telling what I must or must not be pissed about, but I reserve the right to diferentiate.

and the general public in 1860 wanted to go "lynch a buncha niggas." clearly, popular sentiment is the BEST option. and yet, despite that popular sentiment, somehow, common sense prevailed for the better good of ALL people.

the key here is acting in what is good for the whole of the activity and not for the specific benefit of some groups over others. thats how you get a corrupt system of inbreeding which results in absolute entropy (like the US tax code).

 

 

 

In the last 3 years I have probablly heard RVI in 6 rounds at most (including summer workshop rounds) out of a hundred plus rounds I have judged and in the rounds I watch durring scouting and leisure time. I have never seen one in an elimination round. The disservice would be if we as debate coaches and judges did NOT discouraging bad arguments. Teaching kind of implies that.

 

i NEVER said that judges shouldnt discourage bad arguments. but that should come AFTER the round. you still havent justified a) why saying it PRE-round is more valuable and B) why statements like that pre-round do not justify the other judges. until you complete theses two things, your arguments hold ZERO value.

 

would YOU want your kids to hit a "i dont vote on anything but inherency" judge? i will go out on a limb and say no, you dont. why? it cant be because that judge limits what your kids can run and limits debate to something outside your kids are accostomed to arguing, is it?

 

 

 

I know you are using "RVIs" as an example to discourage interventionsm in debate rounds. The thought that a truely great judge is one who is intervention free and has no preconcieved notions about anything is fine and good. They were called Tab back when I was debating, and they were more often than not more random than a judge who would share a clear paradigm.

 

do you believe my paradigm is unclear? i never once said i am tab. i just have no rules on what i vote on. like most judges, i still need to be persuaded of the arguments. but i dont need a turn in order to vote aff on a disad. if the aff does a good job of destroying the disad link using analysis and non-uniqueness arguments (a better job than neg's defense of it), i see no reason why i shouldnt vote aff. but some judges have adamantly said that if there isnt a turn, they wont vote on it. why is this GOOD for debate?

 

 

 

On a more personal note, you have ZERO business deciding who is and who is not worthy of being a coach. Although I respect your 9K plus post count, I don't think that quite puts you in a place to determine who is and who is not good for the activity.

 

a coach's responsibilities are to educate their students through immersion in the topic literature/concepts, argument construction techniques and strategy formulation - all with the intentions of securing victory in competition. you wont hear me say that debate is not about winning. but a GOOD coach does not help their team by making life harder for other teams. in all other activities, coaches do not officiate competition. due to personnel numbers, we dont have that luxury. but it doesnt mean you have the right to place your debater's competition at a disadvantage! does andy reid get the right to break T.O.'s leg the week before the Philly-Dallas game?

 

what you openly advocate doing justifies a judge telling my kids "you are not allowed to run the spratlys case in front of me. i dont like it and wont vote on it." well, its the case my kids run. what do you want my kids to do? come up with a new case on the fly? sure, thats a more extremely ridiculous example, but the logic behind it is IDENTICAL to yours. the judge doesnt like a specific type of argument and bans teams from running it. once you open the door to judges choosing the arguments for the debaters, then you open the door to corruption like this. and i KNOW of judges who openly refuse to vote on specific strategies in front of specific teams. why is this GOOD for debate? please, for the love of god, tell me why this is in any way shape or form beneficial for the activity to justify having renegade judges who are actively trying to eliminate the competition for their students? whether you are conciously benefitting some teams or not, you are selectively giving some an advantage over others simply because you dont like what some teams have to say. you dont have to like what they have to say. the ballots dont say "who do you like better?" they say "who did the best job debating?" and thats a serious question to be answered here!

 

no, i am more than worthy of being able to offer that determination. it doesnt take a genious to be able to determine what is good for the activity. plus, i am uniquely benefitted by my experience. while my coaching activities are limited in depth, being that i do not coach a single team, it is made up for in breadth. i do not coach one school - i assist debaters in all walks of life from all regions of the country. be benefit of detachment from traditional coaching duties means that i get the opportunity to assist debaters with EVERY type of argument be it old fashioned stocks or modern critiques. as such, i am not tunnel visioned on a particular mode of argumentation and i am comfortable with none. every team, every strategy, every argument requires a different attack and defense - and each combination is a unique challenge.

 

i do not want a judge who erratically or arbitrarily decides what they will and will not listen to in ANY round because they are collectively bad for the activity as a whole. if you are not persuaded by a debater's arguments, so be it. but give their arguments an HONEST evaluation. not stating your dislike of RVI's and then secretly refusing to vote on them isnt worthwhile either. in that case, i'd rather have you mention it pre-round. but i will expect students to ask you after round what they would have needed to do to win the round. if your answer is "you shouldnt run an RVI" then your answer is absolutely meaningless in debate and offers ZERO education to my debaters other than the knowledge that you do not like RVIs. you should be telling them in an oral critique how to run an RVI better, more persuasively and what they needed to do to get your ballot on the argument they had elected to go for. if the teams are going for a bad argument, then explain to them why its a bad argument after the round and encourage them to speak with you privately after the round with their coach so the kids have an opportunity to reflect on their decisions in the round with their coach and they can try and come up with something better. dont handicap teams from the beginning!

 

 

 

if you think i have no right telling you who is and isnt qualified to be a judge/coach, then you have no right telling a competitor what they can and cannot run. they arent YOUR debaters. they are some OTHER coach's kids. if you dont want your kids to run an RVI, so be it. forbid your kids from running it. but you have no right to forbid my kids, or shuman's kids, or alderete's kids from running an RVI. remember that.

 

 

i have offered many reasons why my position is preferable because its GOOD for debate. you have offered ZERO reasons why your position is good for debate as a whole. to put it in debate vernacular - you have no offense to your arguments. you lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This week is busier since we are preping for St. Marks, so I am not going to elaborate too much.

 

You say

 

"I NEVER said that judges shouldnt discourage bad arguments. but that should come AFTER the round. you still havent justified a) why saying it PRE-round is more valuable and B) why statements like that pre-round do not justify the other judges. until you complete theses two things, your arguments hold ZERO value."

 

1. If my RVI bias is only shared after the round, the teams won't know to not spend valuable rebuttal time on the subject. Just like I mention that they should slow down on standards and theory debates so I can get more of their warrants. Pedilogically speaking, I am providing a rubric for the discussion.

 

2. Having a predisposition against bad theroy arguments is not tantamount to only voting on inherency. I am not persuaded by "aff must specifiy how the get funding" because of theroetical objections rooted in topicality. The same is true for an RVI. Like I have tried to convey repeatedly, RVIs are tied exclusively to Topicality. Objections made about other arguments (such as contradictions) should be framed as such and not attached to the concept of Reverse Voters.

 

3. We would love the inherency judge when we were aff, since our case is inherent. This obvious bias to the affirmative would be the reason I object to this judge.

 

4. Capitalizing ZERO does not make it true. Analogy: Those debaters that like to extend all of thier conceeded evidence the other team actually answered.

 

Group the rest:

 

Some judges are better than other judges. Some team's prefer certain judges more than other teams. Some judges are not GOOD for debate.

 

Now with the GOOD thing real quick.

 

I think it is GOOD to eliminate bad arguments from debate because they are bad. There are tons of checks in the SQ ... they are called judges. GOOD debate is better than bad debate, and RVIs or inhernecy only is bad debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even still, its nice that you like to cut sentences out of paragraphs without understanding the entirety. it seems to be a trait unique to many debaters who like to change the meanings of sentences by not underlining words like not, however, if and only if.........

 

You say: 1. If my RVI bias is only shared after the round, the teams won't know to not spend valuable rebuttal time on the subject. Just like I mention that they should slow down on standards and theory debates so I can get more of their warrants. Pedilogically speaking, I am providing a rubric for the discussion.

 

to which i previously already said: "not stating your dislike of RVI's and then secretly refusing to vote on them isnt worthwhile either. in that case, i'd rather have you mention it pre-round." but please do take that sentence into context as well...

 

 

 

 

but it doesnt matter anyways. you dont know how to answer questions when asked and you havent actually responded to several examples, nor have you established one reason why it is good for the whole of debate to allow judges to selectively choose arguments they want to hear in the round.

 

its clear now that you have no ability to defend your position other than to say "but its a bad argument and judges should stop bad arguments." i have never disagreed with that goal, only the means by which you go about accomplishing that goal. so either you do not comprehend the substance of this conversation or you care not to respond to the substance of it - both of which are not the makings of a good debater let alone a coach.

 

 

im done here. dont bother responding because it wont get this conversation any further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...