Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just out of curiosity, what dictionary does this definition come from? I've looked at AHD, OED, Cambridge, and Webster's 2nd without finding it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Minus the fact its from W&P, anyone got a blocks for it?
Arguments to defeat it, you mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you want a negative block to run against the affirmative, or an affirmative answer to the negative team running this topicality violation? Or both?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blah, nevermind. Nothing to see here.
Then what the heck are YOU doing here? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neg responses to aff answers... Thanks

 

Neg responses to affirmative answers? It's a topicality arguement. Not a DA or counterplan. It is difficult to predict what the affirmative is going to run, and even harded to predict when we don't know what your 1NC standards/voters are. It seems like such a sketchy/bad position, that I wouldn't worry about writing/trading A2 AFF responses. Just make up your own, or, better yet, don't run topicality unless it is warranted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A. Counter-interpetation:

 

'In' means "within the limits, bounds, or area of".

 

American Heritage Dictionary, 2003

 

B. We meet: We increase the number of persons serving withink <insert your agency>.

 

C. Our interpretation is superior: Our interpretation allows us to talk more in depth about the agencies that are within the limits and bounds of <insert your agency>. This provides more in-depth, educational discussion and provides them with more ground for disads against our specific agency. Their interpretation only allows for a general discussion about the topic.

 

D. Counterstandards:

 

1. Reasonability: Our case and definition reasonably limit the debate to a fair amount of ground. Any reasonable definition is fair and thus should be enough to prove us topical.

2. Leeway: Since topicality is an all or nothing 100% issue for the affirmative but not the negative, if any part of the case is topical or there is any doubt in your mind you should give us leeway and err on the side of the affirmative.

3. Literature Checks Abuse: Our case and its specific solvency mechanisms are supported in the topic literature to which the negative has equal access. Since our case is supported in the literature there is ample opportunity for evidence against the case to exist which gives the negative case specific ground.

E. Topicality is not a voter:

1. The only reason you would ever vote on topicality is ground. All other issues come back to ground in one way or another. The negative has a fair amount of ground in the round therefore the topic has served its function and topicality is irrelevant.

2. The purpose of debate is to discuss substantial issues not procedurals. The importance of the issues in our case warrants discussion regardless of the topicality violation making topicality a non-voter.

 

Just write answers to this and you should be set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, point out that their interpretation does not match their definition; the court ruling the definition refers to says something like "in means that the justices have authority throughout the county." This means, in this context, that no matter where you are in the county, you have authority, so in actually means the opposite of what they are saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Neg responses to affirmative answers? It's a topicality arguement. Not a DA or counterplan. It is difficult to predict what the affirmative is going to run, and even harded to predict when we don't know what your 1NC standards/voters are. It seems like such a sketchy/bad position, that I wouldn't worry about writing/trading A2 AFF responses. Just make up your own, or, better yet, don't run topicality unless it is warranted.

 

Not true. You can have a generic 2NC T file with responses to all the old lit and other stuff checks, reasonability, and all the generic aff defensive answers.

 

Then for each violation you can predict all the offensive answers youre going to get, youll usually hear the same stadards and counter interps and can predict them coming. It'll make you a lot better on the T debate if you do have everything blocked out on a violation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

u need answers to:

 

overlimits

pics

a generic C/I interp

other dumb counter interps

then the usual- competing interps good, etc etc.

 

I happen to like this T argument for some reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not true. You can have a generic 2NC T file with responses to all the old lit and other stuff checks, reasonability, and all the generic aff defensive answers.

 

Then for each violation you can predict all the offensive answers youre going to get, youll usually hear the same stadards and counter interps and can predict them coming. It'll make you a lot better on the T debate if you do have everything blocked out on a violation.

 

I understand what you mean. I had a whole expando dedicated to topicality my freshman/sophmore year, with all of the Answers to Standards/Counterstandards in there and all of the Answer to Voters. I've since complied it into 1 file since topicality isn't worth wasting an expando on.

I guess if you were going to run a generic "In means throughout" topicality violation every round, then it would be advantageous to block out specific answers to things that you heard every round. But since it is such a generic arguement that probably wouldn't win you a round unless the affirmative really screws things up, it isn't necessaraly worth wasting the time on it when you can spend just 1 minute on it in the block and then let the 1AR stumble all over his or herself for 30 seconds to a minute. At that juncture, it has served its purpose and all you have to say in the 2NR is "They've got no offense on the T flow. We're dropping it." Why spend 2-3 minutes reading blocks on a generic T-violation that you probably won't win/go for? Just seems like time illspent.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I understand what you mean. I had a whole expando dedicated to topicality my freshman/sophmore year, with all of the Answers to Standards/Counterstandards in there and all of the Answer to Voters. I've since complied it into 1 file since topicality isn't worth wasting an expando on.

I guess if you were going to run a generic "In means throughout" topicality violation every round, then it would be advantageous to block out specific answers to things that you heard every round. But since it is such a generic arguement that probably wouldn't win you a round unless the affirmative really screws things up, it isn't necessaraly worth wasting the time on it when you can spend just 1 minute on it in the block and then let the 1AR stumble all over his or herself for 30 seconds to a minute. At that juncture, it has served its purpose and all you have to say in the 2NR is "They've got no offense on the T flow. We're dropping it." Why spend 2-3 minutes reading blocks on a generic T-violation that you probably won't win/go for? Just seems like time illspent.

 

Ah I disagree. I think this argument is probably easy to win if you control the lens in which to view topicality- if you win limits are the most important, and ground is inevetable, but predicticble ground is key- you control the internal link into everything.

 

Also, the limits question can be answered by reading evidence about the possible minute agencies the aff can defend - there are quite a bit. If you win competiting interpretations is the framework for viewing topicality, I'd imagine quite a good story in the 2nr.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've gone for the subsets argument in 23 2NRs so far this year. 22 of those we've won. It's an extremely winnable argument if you care to go for it. If you like it, then there's nothing wrong with giving it an expando or two.

Obviously, that's a personal choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Proving once again that really good debaters can win with even really bad arguments.

 

Ouch.

 

My comment earlier that I erased upon second thought, for the record, were merely me stating that T-shells/extensions of all things are things that should be done by one's self, you'll know the arg that much better, and if you hit an answer you don't know? Then block it...but you will certainly know the arg better for trying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then what the heck are YOU doing here? ;)

 

I was giving advice (but it wasn't very nice, so I withdrew it) that I've now reposted when I wasn't so tired/sick feeling. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ouch.

 

Ouch? I'm just saying that Chase is really good. I don't recall, but I'm probably one of the 22 who voted for him.

 

But the argument is, in my opinion, a bad argument, at least on this topic. The only definition of in meaning throughout I've seen is the one referenced above. It makes sense in the context of jurisdiction (which is incorporeal). It doesn't make sense in the context of persons serving. But maybe it's just me.

 

For the record, I think winning on bad arguments is a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ouch? I'm just saying that Chase is really good. I don't recall, but I'm probably one of the 22 who voted for him.

 

But the argument is, in my opinion, a bad argument, at least on this topic. The only definition of in meaning throughout I've seen is the one referenced above. It makes sense in the context of jurisdiction (which is incorporeal). It doesn't make sense in the context of persons serving. But maybe it's just me.

 

For the record, I think winning on bad arguments is a good thing.

 

 

Awww, it's all good.

 

You likely are one of the 22 (Chase/Cy could tell you for sure)...My "ouch" was more satirical because it was you, you know how it goes. ;)

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...