Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
TheScuSpeaks

Justification

Recommended Posts

This argument is so old-school I never really debated it. So for those of you have been around, what are common answers to justification arguments?

 

Love

TheScuIsCurious

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scu, i don't know specifically what justification arguments you are talking about but against state j, and ngo j, its easy just to read counterplan answers to them respectively. Considering that the evidence that people read with them is usually just counterplan solvency (at least thats how people do it here). I don't know if this helped or not but those are just the common justification arguments around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since it was written in 1994, there is a little discussion of justification arguments in the Snowball article I sometimes send people to:

http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/theory_and_practice_in_academic_.htm

 

The only relevant quotes I could find:

 

Similarly, a justification argument (the negative challenge that the affirmative must show why, for example, their plan must be adopted at the federal level) is largely irrelevant to a policy-making judge since the question does not define a negative policy system, yet could well be a voting issue for a hypothesis tester who requires the affirmative to justify acceptance of the entire resolution.

 

and slightly more useful:

 

As mentioned in the sections on judging paradigms and on the resolution, justification arguments flow from the notion that the affirmative is testing the truth of the resolution; as such, the resolution is true only if a team is able to justify the inclusion of each significant term (e.g., if an affirmative could prove only that an action was necessary but not that the actor specified by the resolution should be responsible for the action, then the resolution would not be justified). If this assumption is accepted, then the negative can press the affirmative to justify key terms with the same impact that a policy-making negative would have in running a counterplan; for example, the burdens in answering a federal-level justification argument are largely identical to the burdens of answering a state counterplan.

Affirmatives tend to object to justification arguments by: 1) claiming that the resolution is not the center of debate; 2) that justification arguments are unfair since they require virtually no effort on the negative's part to blurt out a series of challenges; and, 3) it is impossible to justify all words ("the") or to decide which terms require justification.

 

There is probably also some useful info buried in the discussion of hypo-testing paradigms, but I'm not exactly sure what to look for.

 

That's the extent of my knowledge. Hope it helps. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This argument is so old-school I never really debated it. So for those of you have been around, what are common answers to justification arguments?

 

1. Plan focus, not resolution focus

 

2. Unreasonable burden: the neg has no argumentative responsibility, and there are always limitless alternatives

 

3. Structurally disdvantages the aff: could potentially read dozens of one card justification "objections," dropping them as soon as they are answered by the aff, and it's trickier to answer back objections than it is to raise them

 

This was still a fairly common argument when I first started debating (although, even then, it was pretty old school). People would run it to kill time, to be annoying, or to hope the aff would mishandle it in some way-- much the same way people run spec arguments today, and judges hated the argument (they would often state as much in pre-round paradigms), much the same way that judges tend to hate spec arguments today (HINT: if you are still running them, please stop). Hardly anyone ever went for it unless there was a major screw-up.

 

Since we're talking about late 80s/early 90s, I doubt most people running these arguments really understood they were leftovers from the whole rez movement of the late 70s/early 80s although I'd occassionally run into someone (at the time) still running counterwarrants or claiming to be a hypo-tester.

 

I'm hoping these sorts of arguments are not experiencing a resurgence since they are the definition of shallow, irritating debate...

 

Matt

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...