Jump to content
Little Miss Sunshine

Inherency/Harms on Aff

Recommended Posts

technically you dont even need to read a plan this year. The resolution never says to "establish a policy", It merely asks "should". I would just read inherency and harms and say "we agree, we should help the Africans"

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
technically you dont even need to read a plan this year. The resolution never says to "establish a policy", It merely asks "should". I would just read inherency and harms and say "we agree, we should help the Africans"

You would lose.

 

What would the judge vote on? That you agree with the resolution?

 

&Be prepared to defend hypotesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You would lose.

 

The winner of most rounds in high school debate is the team that's better at debate. Teams have won on time cube, racism good, patriarchy key to heg, etc. Just because it is a non conventional argument doesn't mean it is unwinnable. However, I do agree that it would put the team running it at a disadvantage assuming the other team was on the same level.

 

 

 

Also, I'd like to point out that teams have and do run affirmatives without plans (usually more kritikally based affirmatives) and win on them.

 

 

But I do agree that the idea of strait up agreeing with the resolution probably does mean you want to debate in a hypotester paradigm. This can be good or bad for the aff depending on how good they are and how they frame the way in which hypotesting should be evaluated (does the aff have to win a risk of any instance of the res being true or do they have to win all instances?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
technically you dont even need to read a plan this year. The resolution never says to "establish a policy", It merely asks "should". I would just read inherency and harms and say "we agree, we should help the Africans"

 

This makes no sense. This year's resolution says "...should establish a policy...", you could, under your interpretation of the resolution, do the same thing this year by saying "we agree, we should establish a policy".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that this will fly in the face of what is being taught at some of the Big Brand Name camps, but the presence or absence of the phrase "establish a policy" is really irrelevant. The logic that says its absence means Aff can merely passively support something applies in just the same way if the phrase is present (i.e., Aff could passively support passing a policy without actually advocating one).

 

Even a marginally adept novice team shouldn't have much trouble with planless Affs, regardless of the phrasing of the resolution (unless, of course, we veer completely into LD-world)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how do you expect to solve for your harms? If they are traditional harms and inherency, I mean? If you say US isn't doing anything to help Africa, they how would you want to? Agreeing that we need to help Africa? So Agreeing = solvency? I don't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
technically you dont even need to read a plan this year. The resolution never says to "establish a policy", It merely asks "should". I would just read inherency and harms and say "we agree, we should help the Africans"

 

The use of the words “establish a policy” in the topic has NOTHING to do with whether it is a policy topic or not - if the noun and verb of the resolution require a policy action, then it is "just as policy" to do that as it is to "establish a policy" requiring a policy action. "Increasing public health assistance" IS a policy action - it is better to Require that action in the resolution than it is to imply it by making it all part of a participial (adjectival) phrase.

 

Removing "establish a policy" from the topic VASTLY improves the topic. It makes topicality debates clearer and narrows the range of cases possible. The problem with "establish a policy" is that it makes topicality both ambiguous and overly broad. That is because it makes the Only direct topical requirement the creation of a policy. The rest of the resolution becomes simply a description of that policy. The verb and the object of the sentence become so broad - "establish a policy" that it is virtually impossible to be non-topical. In the real world, the description of that policy would be enough to make the discussion reasonable. But in formal debate, a substantial amount of precision is necessary to narrow the debate. This can become clearer through a series of examples of alternatives:

 

The Federal Gov't should establish a policy to increase public health assistance....

 

The Federal Gov't should establish a policy increasing public health assistance...

 

The Federal Gov't should increase public health assistance....

 

The first example uses the infinitive "to increase" - the infinitive requires a determination of intent. The Aff therefore only has to establish a policy with the Intent of increasing public health assistance- a nebulous and difficult issue to determine. The only Objective, Direct action required in plan is "establishing a policy" which just means they need to have a plan.

 

The second example uses the adjectival verbal "increasing" - this requires a determination of effect. The Aff therefor only has to establish a policy that has the Effect of increasing public health assistance - an ambiguous and unlimited requirement. The only Objective, Direct action required in plan is "establishing a policy", and then they have to read evidence that the effect of that plan is to increase public health assistance.

 

The third is simpler, more elegant, and more direct. The verb in the resolution has changed. "Increase public health assistance" becomes a Direct requirement of plan, rather than a description of a Policy. It is substantially clearer what the plan has to do to be topical - it has to increase public health assistance, rather than just establishing a policy that has the intent or effect of increasing public health assistance. And it is much narrower - the plan has to increase public health assistance, rather than just "establish a policy" - which every plan that takes action arguably meets.

 

All of this also answer the argument that this isn't a policy topic. Are you really saying that because the word "policy" isn't in the resolution that the plan doesn't deal with policies? That is a Grossly simplistic mistake; grammatically, practically and logically. The resolution requires that the Federal Gov't take action - it must increase public health assistance. It doesn't allow the affirmative to avoid having a plan - it just does a better job of defining what that plan is. The affirmative is required to have the Federal Gov't take the Action of increasing assistance, that is a plan, and that is policy debate. There will be people who do not defend plans, but that has Zero to do with whether the words "establish a policy" is in plan or not. There is a subject (Fed Gov't), a verb (increase) and an object (public health assistance), just like in previous resolutions - Subject (Fed Gov't), verb (establish), object (a policy) - it is just a much less ambiguous and unlimited verb and object.

 

What you are thinking of is a passive voice resolution - "Public health assistance to Africa should be increased.". Here, policy or plan action is not defined, or required. One could not say that the Federal Gov't must do something, only that an outcome should be achieved. Several college coaches advocate having passive voice resolutions on occasion - as it gives variety and because it opens debate for kritical teams. If you look at the history of debate resolutions at http://www.wdca.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=53&Itemid=25, there are a substantial number of passive voice resolutions. the most recent one was in 1976 - Resolved: That the development and allocation of scarce world resources should be controlled by an international organization. As some of you don't appear to like kritiks or LD, you should oppose a passive voice resolution. But don't confuse it with ours, which is clearly a policy resolution which requires plan action as much as any "establish a policy" resolutions.

 

Lots of people will argue kritical advantages on the aff, but that is true whether or not "establish a policy" is in the resolution, and you can argue, under either resolution, that it still has to be a reason to adopt a topical plan. Either way, making the type of action required in plan more clear and narrow doesn't change that some people will run kritikal affirmatives.

 

I know that this will fly in the face of what is being taught at some of the Big Brand Name camps, but the presence or absence of the phrase "establish a policy" is really irrelevant.

 

Contrary to what Mr Shuman says, most “Brand Name Debate Camps” say the Exact Opposite of what he accuses them of. I work at a big camp, and I know most of the people who work at most of the biggest camps. I have never heard one say or teach that the lack of “establish a policy” means you can be passive voice. Everyone who I have ever talked to about it thinks that including “establish a policy” is irrelevant. The Only people who I have Ever seen make this (absurd) claim are people on CX.com, many of whom would benefit from going to a brand name debate camp to disabuse them of that false notion...

 

Honestly - never vote for resolutions that have the words "establish a policy" in them - it does more damage to debate than any other word, phrase or choice we make about topics.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...