Jump to content
NickRobillard

Topic Analysis

Recommended Posts

can asking for an ID constitute searching?

It could if you refuse and then someone forcibly takes the ID from you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it even legal to deny your information to a police officer? I'm pretty sure that giving wrong information is, so wouldn't it kinda be the same concept?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i agree with ziippyy. this is very much like an LD topic and i think that its quite stupid. it doesnt have all the case choices like the 2004-2005 topic, so it will get pretty boring. but i also like the case idea of the no plan. thats one i havent thought of yet. thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes it can. it is still searching. when the officer asks for a your liscense and registration he takes it back to his car and searches your police record

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i agree with ziippyy. this is very much like an LD topic and i think that its quite stupid. it doesnt have all the case choices like the 2004-2005 topic, so it will get pretty boring. but i also like the case idea of the no plan. thats one i havent thought of yet. thanks

 

What lack of case choices do you see? What is your quantitative analysis of the two topics? How did you determine that last year had more cases? And for that matter, what do you think the brightline between CX and LD is?

 

I think the topic sucks too (for entirely different reasons)...stop bitching about it and do some research and you'll likely find that it (like most every debate topic) has some very interesting case areas and as much depth or diversity as you are willing to explore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i agree with ziippyy. this is very much like an LD topic and i think that its quite stupid. it doesnt have all the case choices like the 2004-2005 topic, so it will get pretty boring. but i also like the case idea of the no plan. thats one i havent thought of yet. thanks

UMM... EVEN WITH THE WORD POLICY, YOU DIDNT HAVE TO HAVE A PLAN.

 

I AGREE WITH GLOVER, HE GETS PROPS.

 

I THINK THE TOPIC IS INTERESTING IF YOU LOOK INTO IT, MAYBE NOT A GREAT DEBATE TOPIC, BUT IT IS DEFINITLEY INTERESTING.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok i'm going to say something to all the people that don't like this topic-

seriously people if you actually look into it this topic is extremely broad, in fact it has two entirely different routes the affirmative can take, and down each of these routes is a plethera of awesome ideas you just have to get creative and use that brain of yours assuming you have one).just becuase the resolution doesn't say the word policy in it doesn't mean you can have a plan w.o a policy (which you can, you always have been able to) this is still POLICY debate, it was designed with the intention that we would create plans that deal with altering the way the world would operate when they are implemented. The intent of POLICY debate is to simulate real world events and see how certain scenarios would play out on the world stage, thus the reason fiat exists. Just becuase this rez does not deal with genocide or nuclear war does not mean that it is going to be boring, we have done it in years past just last year was a global pollicy so the impacts operated on a global stage as opposed to the domestic stage. so stop complaining about the rez being tiny and boring and be willing to do a little bit of work to find that plan that works just right. :BB

 

To the Mod- can you please delete all the useless posts in this thread, its starting to get cluttered, thnx ;)

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its going to be pretty hard to link anything to nuke war on the aff. we are going to hear a lot of affs linking to civil war as the impact.

 

Which can then give you a link to nuclear war :) , a loosely connected one but nuclear war nonetheless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, Come on Richard, does "Policy" in the Res. mean that i run one anyways?

 

Have you ever won a round against a TOC team? no.

 

And also, for the teams who are currently thinking of using incredibly sketch definitions of words to their advantage because they will be able to make "crafty" and "squirly" cases no one will have any evidence on, you will lose because the definition you used for your interpretation isn't one bit predictable, thus, the limits you "set" are meaningless at the point where the debate is centered in the framework of competing interpretations, which it should be - i.e. for the people who don't know what that means, which interpretation sets the most predictable limit on the topic.

 

For example,

 

 

According to my handy Websters, it has three definitions:

 

1. to keep back or from; to withold

 

2. to keep or restrain from proceeding; to delay

 

3. in law, to hold in custody; to confine

 

And charge has 16 deifinitions as a noun and 14 as a verb. These range from indictments to jury instructions to military commands to electricity and principles of physics.

 

and

 

The USFG should sustantially decrease its authority to either detain without charge...

 

detain- to hold or keep in custody or possession

without- lacking

charge- quantity of explosive to be set off at one time

 

just don't put things like that up there because people will actually think that is a good idea, for example:

 

vamsi-that is the coolest idea i have heard for the topic yet.

 

And I don't really care if he/she was serious, because I know some people may think he/she is and will do that for their plan. If you get mad at me for trying to help then you're an asshole.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many people have mistakenly said here that the lack of "establish a policy" means that a plan isn't required, that isn't Policy debate, or that it is LD.

 

Removing "establish a policy" from the topic VASTLY improves the topic. It makes topicality debates clearer and narrows the range of cases possible. It had Nothing to do with the critical or philosophical orientation of the topic. I have long argued to Glass that we should remove that phrase, and doing so has made this one of the best worded topics in years.

 

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 decrease its authority....

 

The Federal Gov't should establish a policy decreasing its authority...

 

The Federal Gov't should decrease its authority....

 

The first example uses the infinitive "to decrease" - the infinitive requires a determination of intent. The Aff therefore only has to establish a policy with the Intent of decreasing authority - 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 "decreasing" - this requires a determination of effect. The Aff therefor only has to establish a policy that has the Effect of decreasing authority - 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 decrease authority.

 

The third is simpler, more elegant, and more direct. The verb in the resolution has changed. "Decrease authority" 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 decrease authority, rather than just establishing a policy that has the intent or effect of decreasing authority. And it is much narrower - the plan has to decrease authority, 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. The resolution requires that the Federal Gov't act - it must decrease authority. 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 decreasing its authority, 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 (decrease) and an object (its authority), 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 - "The authority of the federal gov't to either search without probable cause or detain without charge should be decreased". 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. 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 "establish a policy" resolutions.

 

Some of the posters seem to think that this is an LD resolution because many of the advantages won't be a nuke war. That having advantages that end with constitutional rights, racism or tyranny aren't policy because LD and Kritiks also discuss rights and discrimination. If you think policy debates can ONLY end in nuclear war, then I really don't know what to tell you. You disagree with every single real world policy maker, every single anti-kritik/pragmatic author, the majority of the national circuit policy world and every single local policy debater, judge and coach. "You should adopt this policy because it protects rights" or "You should adopt this policy because it reduces racism" is CORE policy making ground. I even believe that it is easy to prove that discrimination, genocide, or racism outweigh nuclear war, but I recognize that I am in the minority there.

 

Lots of people will argue kritical advantages on the aff like biopower, 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.

 

The reason why this topic is friendly to the affirmative on kritiks isn't because it uniquely allows the aff to not run a plan, it is because the action required in plan is to "decrease authority" and not to "increase rights". It allows the gov't to dismantle some of the tools used to violate rights, rather than increase more state protections of rights. An alternatively worded topic would be "The Federal Gov't should increase the protection of the right to be free from searches without probable cause or detention without charge". Good kritik ground comes from "increase protection", which "decrease authority" doesn't require. They both require policy action in plan, but one of those policy actions is to decrease authority, the other increases protection. Decrease authority is substantially easier to defend in a K debate b/c the "state must dismantle itself" argument is much easier to make when you don't have to endorse a system of protection.

 

(This might be slightly different for Court affirmatives, because the court is required to endorse constitutional protections when they give the grounds for their decisions. While Congressional or Executive action can decrease authority without giving their reasons for it, or rather, without giving reasons that endorse state protection of rights. Debateable)

 

Honestly, this is the best worded resolution since "comprehensive health insurance". You might not like the subject area, but the resolution is extremely well worded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I've thought more about the topic, I think it's wording is fine. My concern is that in practice it will lead to a disproportionate number of affirmative wins. Perhaps the camps will produce some negative positions that will surprise me, but it looks to me like there are some affirmative cases that will be very difficult to beat, assuming debaters of relatively equal skill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need help with understanding the resolution. All of your posts are great. But I need a little more on the resolution and I need to understand the whole case of what is happening and also where I should start researching! Can you please help me out.. What is it sayying first of all and secondly and what am i Supposed to do...? If it has been really noted somewhere can you please direct me. I am new to cross X so i need to know how it works.

 

Please help me!

 

mscmoulidebate@yahoo.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is policy debate, the word policy dosent need to be in the rez, ITS POLICY DEBATE, not LD or anything else, you will have a plan, thats what policy is..........dont be a DA, and i dont mean dis-ad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Merkin

No. Because of the nature of policy debate you can get away with not having a plan. Because the word Policy is in its name should all kritiks be illegit now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how would i create a aff case

there was a post on a CP to not detain in other countries

would that be an acceptable case

it would avoid a lot of disads

ya...

help

thnx -.-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...