Jump to content
Brian The Hobo

T=Redudent arguement

Recommended Posts

I would say that it shouldn't apply because debate is about learning and having fun, not trying to simply get a win because the other team was late.
Okay. So we show up 30 minutes late AND refuse to debate the side we are assigned by the tournament schedule, saying "We learn more and have more fun debating Affirmative, so that's what we're going to do this round." How much fun are you having now? ;)

 

Seriously, if you're the judge, do you let us get away with this? If not, why do side assignments matter more than the posted starting time for the round and the forfeit rule? If so, isn't your refusal to enforce the side assignments for the round penalizing the other team?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the difference is that topicality is actually a part of the debate, being there late is what is stopping the debate from happening, and if someone went aff when they were supposed to be neg then you can run theory saying that flip side debat is good, and that they are being ABUSIVE while giving warrants to your claim, which is what you should do in a good T debate anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who out there bescides me is sick of "T". To me its a novices way of getting a free win. Anyone who has a dictonary can block it. To me its just a time suck that needs to be abolished, people just run it because you cant turn it unless you read theroy. (I have won 3 rounds off that alone)

 

PS: Sorry for all and any typos I tend to make ALOT of em.

 

The solution is really pretty simple: Run T exclusively (i.e., with no other arguments), or don't run it at all. When my students introduce the argument, it is because they intend to win the round on it. Obviously, they aren't going to do that unless they're damn sure they can win the violation. On cases that are reasonably topical, we don't bring up T. The result is, judges take our Topicality arguments much more seriously. We don't always win, but if we run T we win about 85% of the time. If Negs would drop the silly notion that T should be introduced in every debate, they'd have an easier time winning on it when they NEED to win on it (i.e., an Aff that actually does jack their ground)...

 

You disgust me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay. So we show up 30 minutes late AND refuse to debate the side we are assigned by the tournament schedule, saying "We learn more and have more fun debating Affirmative, so that's what we're going to do this round." How much fun are you having now? ;)

 

Seriously, if you're the judge, do you let us get away with this? If not, why do side assignments matter more than the posted starting time for the round and the forfeit rule? If so, isn't your refusal to enforce the side assignments for the round penalizing the other team?

 

I guess you assume that if you make your hypothetical situations more ludicrous that will somehow make you right. If your team ever debates me, I'll let you pick sides and I'll still win. Moreover, you seem to simply ignore the fact that no tournament requires that teams "be topical" and thus all these hypothetical situations you continue to spin about tournament rules are not offense for your original position. Additionally, if picking sides is what you want, have your teams make it to outrounds. There, teams generally flip a coin to pick sides. I tell you this because I'm sure you are unfamiliar with how out rounds function, as I surmise that your teams never make it there.

 

But I digress.

 

You can make all the hypothetical situations you want, but you still haven't been able to provide a defense of your original position. I would just like a warrant as to why T is a vote (for the reasons you have given, such as it being "a rule of the game")

 

 

And now I'll make up my own rediculous hypothetical. Suppose I, or better yet the judge, had never heard of topicality. Would the judge then be persuaded by the fact that its a "rule of the game?"

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just curious, what does the block division looknlike when yod teams read only topicality?

HAHHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let it be known that i created a CX account with the sole intention of replying to this thread. cool life, i know. but, when my dear friend and partner copied and pasted this link to me, i was both shocked and outraged.

T. IS. MY. CHILD.

it's no different from any other arguement, although it requires less ev. that just means you have to think on your feet, which, all told, is better for critical education. it should be the aff's burden to prove they're topical. if they're reasonably topical and they can't, all the more reason to vote them down: they clearly aren't on top of their shit. if they prove they're topical, then they're winning T, and we....i mean the 2n...won't go for it.

(i run a blatantly untopical aff and have never lost on T. it's doable. just be on top of the T debate.)

kisses and hugs to all.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T. IS. MY. CHILD.

it's no different from any other arguement, although it requires less ev. that just means you have to think on your feet, which, all told, is better for critical education. it should be the aff's burden to prove they're topical. if they're reasonably topical and they can't, all the more reason to vote them down: they clearly aren't on top of their shit. if they prove they're topical, then they're winning T, and we....i mean the 2n...won't go

kisses and hugs to all.

 

this is like word for word the neg t-theory that's read every round.

 

some originality please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All i can speak from is experience. And in my experience on both the austin circuit and the national circuit, its rare that a team who reads only topicality wins many debates. However, it seems that we are approaching this discussion from different perspectives. I am approaching it as a debater who reacts to trends in the debate community that create good discussions and organic dialogue about the debate community. because of this, i think it is quite silly to read evidence from textbooks about debate as if it were an activity whose future is predetermined.

 

I think Shuman has a flawed view of the nature of evidence and warrants and the way they interact in debate rounds. Evidence is not the end all be all of debate. If a team were to read a piece of evidence on any issue, such as US hegemony, and a debater were to make warranted claims that proved the claims of said evidence untrue, the analytical arguments would obviously win, and topicality is no exception.

 

The issue of evidence in regards to voting issues is unique though, in the sense that as a senior in high school, my arguments against a warranted card about economic cycles would put me in an uphill battle. However, when it comes to arguments that shape the way my debate community is structured, i feel that we as debaters are just as qualified to comment on the topic and the activity as some ass-backwards debate coaches writing in text books.

 

You have also failed to deal with a point brought up earlier in this thread that emphasizes this point. Debate rule-books once stated that there be separate debate divisions for boys and girls, and mandated things like closed CX, restricted verbal prompting, and limited the flexibility of debaters in terms of argumentation and rate of speaking.

 

If we were to depend on what individuals who are entirely out of touch with the ever-changing nature of the debate community to shape our discussions in debate rounds, debate would still be the ideal vision of indignant hicks who thrive on closed CX, exclude the kritik, speak slower than conversational speed and think "that's un-american" is a debate argument.

 

dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess you assume that if you make your hypothetical situations more ludicrous that will somehow make you right.
You are missing the point entirely. There are rules to these competitions we engage in, many of them stipulated in the tournament invitation itself. If you say we can ignore one of those rules, don't you have to say that we can ignore others as well? If a team doesn't have to debate the resolution stipulated in the tournament invitation, why should they have to show up on time for rounds or debate the side they are assigned?
Moreover, you seem to simply ignore the fact that no tournament requires that teams "be topical"
Then please explain the purpose of including a verbatim copy of the resolution sentence in their invitation. Is it your suggestion that the inclusion of this information is meaningless? Warrant, please?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All i can speak from is experience. And in my experience on both the austin circuit and the national circuit, its rare that a team who reads only topicality wins many debates.
Maybe they just aren't doing it right... ;)
because of this, i think it is quite silly to read evidence from textbooks about debate as if it were an activity whose future is predetermined.
Translation: I think it is quite silly to read evidence from textbooks about debate if they disagree with my own personal feelings about how debates should be conducted.

 

For someone who spends so much of your time clucking about warrants, you certainly seem content to omit them from your own arguments, to wit:

Evidence is not the end all be all of debate.
Am I claiming that it is? Of course not. Am I suggesting that the presence of evidence on one side of a disputed claim gives that side an edge? You bet. And that is as it should be. Your position seems to be evidence only matters when we want it to matter. I'd like to read your explanation for that philosophy...
If a team were to read a piece of evidence on any issue, such as US hegemony, and a debater were to make warranted claims that proved the claims of said evidence untrue, the analytical arguments would obviously win, and topicality is no exception.
You're being either disingenuous or willfully dense. If the dispute over hege in a debate round consisted of one side reading 5, 10, 15 cites all drawing the same conclusion, I seriously doubt that a debater's undocumented analytics would "obviously" win. Here's the CX question: If you're right and I'm wrong, why can I cite so many sources who are in agreement with me, while you have none who agree with you? If the judges in your area or on the national circuit are ignoring evidence in this way, shame on them...
when it comes to arguments that shape the way my debate community is structured, i feel that we as debaters are just as qualified to comment on the topic and the activity as some ass-backwards debate coaches writing in text books.
I'm sure you do. If you could provide a warrant for the claim, that would be nice. Until you do, you just sound like a typically arrogant high schooler, with a dash of anti-intellectualism thrown in for good measure. Do you even know the names of these coaches and scholars you refer to as "ass-backwards"? Yeah, that's what I thought... :rolleyes:
You have also failed to deal with a point brought up earlier in this thread that emphasizes this point. Debate rule-books once stated that there be separate debate divisions for boys and girls, and mandated things like closed CX, restricted verbal prompting, and limited the flexibility of debaters in terms of argumentation and rate of speaking.
I didn't deal with it because it seemed self-evidently ridiculous. If a modern textbook made such a claim, we'd laugh the author out of the activity. You ignore the fact that textbooks DO change with the evolution of the activity. If you'd ever read any, you might know that their treatment of counterplans as a negative strategy has gone from non-existent to comprehensive. Ditto with division of labor, and many other issues...
If we were to depend on what individuals who are entirely out of touch with the ever-changing nature of the debate community
Since you don't know who these people are, how do you know they are "out of touch"? Answer: You don't.
debate would still be the ideal vision of indignant hicks who thrive on closed CX, exclude the kritik, speak slower than conversational speed and think "that's un-american" is a debate argument.
Someone who would make such a statement is not someone to whom anyone ought to be looking for insights on how debate "should" be. You've shown your colors, and this will be the last time I bother replying to your drivel. Feel free to crow about that, and to have your friends neg rep me. At the end of the day, though, only one of us has made an arrogant ass of himself in public, and it ain't me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it should be the aff's burden to prove they're topical.
Contemporary practice (with which I am in agreement) is to give Affirmative presumption on the issue. That is, as a judge I will presume a team's Aff is topical until I am persuaded otherwise. But just as Negative presumption goes away after the 1AC (Neg must now make answers or lose), so too does Affirmative presumption on T if Neg makes a strong, warranted argument. Aff doesn't just get to wave away the issue by saying it isn't a voter. They need to make answers and engage the Neg's argument...
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All i can speak from is experience. And in my experience on both the austin circuit and the national circuit, its rare that a team who reads only topicality wins many debates. However, it seems that we are approaching this discussion from different perspectives. I am approaching it as a debater who reacts to trends in the debate community that create good discussions and organic dialogue about the debate community. because of this, i think it is quite silly to read evidence from textbooks about debate as if it were an activity whose future is predetermined.

Indeed, it is very unstrategic to read topicality as the only argument in any circumstance :S You go for T if they mess it up or if you think they're just not T. Its silly to say its an all or nothing argument, that you only use it if they're blatantly outside the resolution. Since its the same as any other argument, it really makes no sense to not run it or have it be the only one you run, since obviously that would be a terrible model if someone only ran a disad or counterplan or what not.

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...