Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Zar_B

T + Resolutional Debate Good?

Recommended Posts

Hey everybody!

 

I'm new to the site and all, and this is obviously my first post.

 

Anyways, just some background, I'm a novice this year, but I really love debate and plan on going a lot farther with it.

 

So to my question...

 

Is it possible to win a round just with T + Resolutional Debate Good (framework sort of)? I was planning to win a T violation, and say that in resolutional debate, you cannot affirm the resolution if you aren't topical (for instance, providing non-public health assistance would mean that the judge would have to negate because they aren't affirming the resolution). This would be used in conjunction with some sort of resolutional debate good. So would this work out?

 

Also, what sort of things should I put into a RDG FRMWK? I have some general ideas (key to fairness and education), but does anyone have some great explanations and other ideas? Furthermore, what sort of arguments am I likely to hear in response (so I can prepare ahead)?

 

As for T, I plan to set up a Competing Interpretations Framework, beat the crap out of people on standards, and beat down reasonability (if it shows up).

 

So, will this do it? (And can I get some advice/help?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck yes that'll do it.

 

However, a number of key points to keep in mind:

 

-Do not run T as your only argument in the round.

You should run a well-developed shell, 30-45 seconds long, and the rest should be other arguments. This is important in order to divide the 2AC between your different positions so the block has less to answer: would you rather the 2AC have 1:30 to answer T (about the average) or 8:00?

 

-Impact limits in the 1NC

Generally you want to argue that your interpretation is the only way to limit the topic down to a fair amount of cases. This is good, because it allows researched, evidenced clash on these cases, which is the only way for the negative to win and the only way to get education. Limits come before any case-specific education because education is only good when you can prepare a strategy for an aff and debate it out; hearing the 1AC and then losing because there were 100 affs and you didn't research it is not the education debate was made for, it's more like going to a library lecture. You will win T debates every god damn time when you can explain why limits outweighs predictibility, ground, and education.

 

-Pick an interp the aff has no chance of meeting.

You don't want it to be hard. The aff has to be black letter not topical under your interp card. That way, you can focus on the standards debate. If you are having trouble finding cards like this, PM me.

 

-Be ready for the reasonability debate

Some arguments are that reasonability is just a buzzword and doesn't give a substantive way to evaluate T, which means it means nothing for the judge to win it. An even smarter arg, that 1ARs always drop, is that they aren't reasonably topical because they make the topic 1000 cases. This makes the reasonability debate null for the 2AR if you are loud about it in your 2NR.

 

 

If you want any more help, PM me, I'd love to give you some ev. and shit. I gotta roll for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fuck yes that'll do it.

 

However, a number of key points to keep in mind:

 

-Do not run T as your only argument in the round.

You should run a well-developed shell, 30-45 seconds long, and the rest should be other arguments. This is important in order to divide the 2AC between your different positions so the block has less to answer: would you rather the 2AC have 1:30 to answer T (about the average) or 8:00?

 

-Impact limits in the 1NC

Generally you want to argue that your interpretation is the only way to limit the topic down to a fair amount of cases. This is good, because it allows researched, evidenced clash on these cases, which is the only way for the negative to win and the only way to get education. Limits come before any case-specific education because education is only good when you can prepare a strategy for an aff and debate it out; hearing the 1AC and then losing because there were 100 affs and you didn't research it is not the education debate was made for, it's more like going to a library lecture. You will win T debates every god damn time when you can explain why limits outweighs predictibility, ground, and education.

 

-Pick an interp the aff has no chance of meeting.

You don't want it to be hard. The aff has to be black letter not topical under your interp card. That way, you can focus on the standards debate. If you are having trouble finding cards like this, PM me.

 

-Be ready for the reasonability debate

Some arguments are that reasonability is just a buzzword and doesn't give a substantive way to evaluate T, which means it means nothing for the judge to win it. An even smarter arg, that 1ARs always drop, is that they aren't reasonably topical because they make the topic 1000 cases. This makes the reasonability debate null for the 2AR if you are loud about it in your 2NR.

 

 

If you want any more help, PM me, I'd love to give you some ev. and shit. I gotta roll for now.

 

We'll probably running 2 Ts, a DA, and a K

 

I'll definitely make sure to impact predictability, and I'll use it as an I/L to other standards (predictability, clash, education).

 

Here's the block I've made on reasonability, I hope it's sufficient.

 

A. Reasonability is not objective, what is reasonable is entirely subjective.

B. A competing interpretations framework is much more objective, which leads to a better decision.

C. Reasonability is bad:

1. It forces judge intervention in the round because the judge must decide what classifies as a reasonable interpretation.

2. It kills clash, rather than looking for the best interpretation, we simply accept whatever is reasonable.

3. It makes standards null & destroys T as a voter which allows for colossal abuse against the NEG.

4. You cannot prove an interpretation reasonable or unreasonable without standards and competing interpretations.

D. You should prefer competing interpretations:

1. It increases clash.

2. It allows abuse to be portrayed more objectively.

3. It is a more objective way of deciding what is topical and for choosing an interpretation for the round.

Thanks for the advice though!

 

*edit*

And by the way, do you have at least an rough sketch (I should be able to figure it out from there) for a Resolutional Debate Good Framework, that's the biggest missing plank in the strat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying "Subjectivity is bad because objectivity is good" is pretty circular. If an aff team was going to go for reasonability (it's been done), they'd beat that argument into the ground. You need to explain up front why objectivity leads to a better decision than providing leeway and room for debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saying "Subjectivity is bad because objectivity is good" is pretty circular. If an aff team was going to go for reasonability (it's been done), they'd beat that argument into the ground. You need to explain up front why objectivity leads to a better decision than providing leeway and room for debate.

 

That's true, I guess it would be an unproven assumption. Is there a better way to phrase the "there's no good way to determine what's reasonable argument"? I think the argument with competing interpretations that I'm trying to make is that it leads to a clearer decision.

 

I'll also try and come up with some objectivity good arguments and post them later.

 

As well, do you know of some good arguments against reasonability that I'm completely missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saying "Subjectivity is bad because objectivity is good" is pretty circular. If an aff team was going to go for reasonability (it's been done), they'd beat that argument into the ground. You need to explain up front why objectivity leads to a better decision than providing leeway and room for debate.

 

 

So is this any better?

 

A. There reasonability arguments don't provide a real way to determine what is reasonable.

 

B. Competing Interpretations provides a clear and definite way of choosing a definition for the round, the interpretation with the best argued standards should be taken.

 

C. Reasonability is bad:

1. It forces judge intervention in the round because the judge must decide what classifies as a reasonable interpretation.

2. It kills clash, rather than looking for the best interpretation, we simply accept whatever is reasonable.

3. It makes standards null & destroys T as a voter which allows for colossal abuse against the NEG.

4. You cannot prove an interpretation reasonable or unreasonable without standards and competing interpretations. If you grant them their framework, it must be considered within ours.

 

D. You should prefer competing interpretations:

1. It creates greater in-round clash with the standards debate.

2. It allows abuse to be portrayed more accurately, there's no good way to evaluate an abuse story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like you're on the right track in general, but a few things:

 

1. I wouldn't spend so much time or bank so much on resolutional focus. A lot of judges disagree and think the plan is the focus. The idea that voting aff means affirming the resolution vis-a-vis the plan has sort of fallen away. T is still a voting issue in a plan focus world, because you need predictable limits on the plan so that the neg has some ground. Basically, the only way that debate can function is if each sides have some pool of arguments they know they can make on each side, and then they go research those. By doing something outside the predictable area of aff plans based on the rez, they make it impossible for you to debate them on an equal playing field.

 

As for the arguments in your last post:

 

REASONABILITY

Your response is often true, but you should also prepare answers to common interpretations of reasonability. Here are a few:

-Reasonability means you must prove in-round abuse. Our aff in particular has to be bad, not just other similar affs that we "justify." T doesn't spill over to other rounds, don't punish us for what we don't do, they have ground in THIS debate, etc.

-Reasonability means good is good enough. We don't have to prove that our interpretation is BETTER, only that it's not BAD. We get to meet any decent interp of the rez.

-Reasonability means any literature-supported interpretation. There will always be multiple interps of any particular term; there are a limited number that are defended by good literature, so the Neg should just research answers to each commonly defended variant. This is especially popular when there are 2 or 3 distinct interpretations of a given term in the literature (e.g., constructive engagement as conditional or unconditional).

 

All of these seem at least largely responsive/ non-linking to your reasonability answers. Most teams just say reasonability good and don't define it, but you should prep for the good teams, not most teams ;)

 

COMPETING INTERPS

You should explain your clash standard more. Why is this clash important/good? Also, you should say the only way to evaluate T is to define the words in the rez and then see if the aff does what you've defined it as, competing interps is the only way to do that without relying on judge intervention to define the terms in the rez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if everyone has an equal chance of researching the literature base beforehand, then we can have the most in-depth discussions and formulate the most productive methods of social change. For example, it’s easy enough to run a non-topical animal case and claim the negative’s T definition is anthropocentiric and win “anthro bad” since the other team can’t be expected to have researched “anthro good.” This race to non-topical advocacies encourages dogmatism since the whole point of this is to prevent the other side from having anything in their tubs to respond with. Dogmatism destroys the value of coming to tournaments and facing opposing points of view

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...