Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bobthebuilder

'only our case is topical

Recommended Posts

wat does that mean? sum1 read this against us when we ran a t-ssa = all violation

 

edti: o also, wat does it meann wen they say 'we control uniquness on this argument?'

edit2: o sorry, i didnt realize there wuz alrady a thread for this. mod can delete dis thread

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

neg say predictable limits are good

 

aff says fine, how about we're the only topical case.

 

its a dumb argumnent, but takes about 1.5 seconds to make, so its strategic in that it could be a trump on T if the block misses it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's read as a counter-interpretation and it is the WORST counter-interpretation. Here is how you answer it: Counter-interp solves nothing, round started so it still screws our prep time and we don't even know if we will hit them again this tournament. Also (and I really like this one), this is how you make them wish they didn't read it, if they have arguments on another part of the T flow that say that your definition overlimits, you can ALWAYS say that their counter-interpretation overlimits more (to one motherfucking case) and that your definition NOW solves limits the best and that is a reason to vote for your definition. If your behind on the limits flow on T, this is a pretty sweet cross application that puts them in a corner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fizelly27
Also (and I really like this one), this is how you make them wish they didn't read it, if they have arguments on another part of the T flow that say that your definition overlimits, you can ALWAYS say that their counter-interpretation overlimits more (to one motherfucking case) and that your definition NOW solves limits the best and that is a reason to vote for your definition. If your behind on the limits flow on T, this is a pretty sweet cross application that puts them in a corner.

Although this strategy is a good reason why their interp is bad, generally teams will have another counter interpretation on T proving why their case is topical. This means that you dont magically get ahead on the limits debate but rather the aff is going to have to kick the c/i that they are the only topical case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This argument is a clever way of mooting out the neg's limits standard. Often, the neg will argue that their interpretation of the resolution is "best" because it restricts the number of cases to a small number. If the aff claims that the 1AC is in fact the only topical affirmative under the aff's interpretation, then the neg is forced to make a more sophisticated argument than "smaller interpretations are always better." Much of the time, the ONLY reason the neg's interpretation is desirable is that it puts a strict limit on the resolution, so this is a strong argument indeed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I'll agree it is a stupid argument and in all reality it isn't "better", but in a debate round where we are arguing what the best interpretation of debate is... it is hard to really win back that argument, especially when "we disclosed an hour before the round" and "our case is on the casebook" are pretty compelling arguments.

 

But then, the whole "what he hell" factor comes into play and most judges won't vote on it. But as Tomak said, it's a very strategic way to take out most of the negative standards because in reality, if there was only one affirmative case, the negative would have a perfect division of ground, education, etc. Except for the fact that now the negative has creative liberty and the affirmative doesn't, theoretically the neg would always win and this isn't best for competitive equity, but whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although I'll agree it is a stupid argument and in all reality it isn't "better", but in a debate round where we are arguing what the best interpretation of debate is... it is hard to really win back that argument, especially when "we disclosed an hour before the round" and "our case is on the casebook" are pretty compelling arguments.

 

But then, the whole "what he hell" factor comes into play and most judges won't vote on it. But as Tomak said, it's a very strategic way to take out most of the negative standards because in reality, if there was only one affirmative case, the negative would have a perfect division of ground, education, etc. Except for the fact that now the negative has creative liberty and the affirmative doesn't, theoretically the neg would always win and this isn't best for competitive equity, but whatever.

 

Well the NEG just has to argue that overlimiting is bad right? I mean, these arguments can be pre-empted with good T writing can't they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well the NEG just has to argue that overlimiting is bad right? I mean, these arguments can be pre-empted with good T writing can't they?

 

true, but the neg would have to define pretty clearly what over and underlimiting are and explain why the a potential c/i would be overlimiting, which would take too long for a normal T shell in the 1NC. strategically, all the aff has to do is not say c/i our plan is the only topical aff, and the aff would be (slightly) ahead on time.

 

c/i- our plan is the only topical aff is just supposed to be a blippy cheap shot at the end of most 2ac T answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well the NEG just has to argue that overlimiting is bad right? I mean, these arguments can be pre-empted with good T writing can't they?

 

Often the negative in their shell has some sort of standard of limits or education, which the CI solves for best. The only way to affectively pre-empt it would be for your interpretation to be more broad than the aff and claim that this is good... but then the usual standards of depth vs. breadth etc. seem very compelling. I guess I am not understanding the strategic merit here because once you make these arguments, the CI wouldn't be an affective response, rather they will engage you on the standards debate or a counter interpretation which is less limiting than yours (eg. everything is topical or something ridiculous).

 

The only reason why the argument is compelling (the only ours is topical) is because it takes everything to the extreme. If you claim limits are good, depth vs. breadth... then why not extend it all the way down so only we're topical. The argument is bidirectional, as if you claim limits are bad and breadth is better than depth... then why not have anything be topical? The negative just has to argue that their interpretation of limits is best, because in a realm where there is only 1 affirmative case the negative with their creative liberty should always triumph and in a world where there is an infinite amount of affirmative cases their creative liberty would triumph the negative (although I believe this has a little less warrant).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like to think of it more as a psuedo-double bind. Either they accept that the interpretation that limits most is best, and you win the entirety of the T flow. OR, they concede that underlimiting is better and they're forced actually engage in a deeper standards debate, (which hopefully they'll lose).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Although this strategy is a good reason why their interp is bad, generally teams will have another counter interpretation on T proving why their case is topical. This means that you dont magically get ahead on the limits debate but rather the aff is going to have to kick the c/i that they are the only topical case

 

Lol, yeah but there's always a limits argument to make against an aff counter-interp, this is one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I like to think of it more as a psuedo-double bind. Either they accept that the interpretation that limits most is best, and you win the entirety of the T flow. OR, they concede that underlimiting is better and they're forced actually engage in a deeper standards debate, (which hopefully they'll lose).

 

Not a double-bind, man. Neg doesn't have to win overlimiting good, they just have to win that their definition limits THE BEST, to a REASONABLE amount of cases. You can win that you solve depth and breadth because you allow a reasonable amount of both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not a double-bind, man. Neg doesn't have to win overlimiting good, they just have to win that their definition limits THE BEST, to a REASONABLE amount of cases. You can win that you solve depth and breadth because you allow a reasonable amount of both.

 

At the point where the NEGATIVE is uttering reasonability on the topicality flow, as a judge, I would facepalming. So far, in terms of limits, I can't think of a better limit to debate than a single case. This allows that case: any advantage ground it wants and some wiggle room for solvency mechanisms/advocates. This allows negative: well...complete predictability, etc.

 

I think a negative (especially if the team is only decent at arguing T) is going to be tripping all over themselves trying to explain how limiting to a single case isn't better than their interpretation that limits to x>1 number of cases.

 

This C/I really is a big threat to a poorly explained limits standard, and it WILL become a time tradeoff against a negative that doesn't know how to handle it well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At the point where the NEGATIVE is uttering reasonability on the topicality flow, as a judge, I would facepalming. So far, in terms of limits, I can't think of a better limit to debate than a single case. This allows that case: any advantage ground it wants and some wiggle room for solvency mechanisms/advocates. This allows negative: well...complete predictability, etc.

 

I think a negative (especially if the team is only decent at arguing T) is going to be tripping all over themselves trying to explain how limiting to a single case isn't better than their interpretation that limits to x>1 number of cases.

 

This C/I really is a big threat to a poorly explained limits standard, and it WILL become a time tradeoff against a negative that doesn't know how to handle it well.

 

Is it unthinkable that a NEG could run and win T reasonably?

 

I mean, you can always argue that a limited number of cases is better than just one, breadth and depth. Reading ten books is more educational than ten.

 

You can also gain clash, having one topical AFF kills the areas in which clash could occur. Predictability, neglible loss, a few topical cases would still be predictable. Fairness- unfair for other AFF teams and bad for debate.

 

But, if the AFF read two interps, the broader one and the we're only topical, they could C/A the NEG answers to their broader interpretation (unless it's a lot more broad) and then drop the "only we're topical", no?

 

I suppose there is a different ideal answer to it (from the NEG), but I can't really think what it should be.

 

By the way, where does someone find a sourced interpretation that makes one's case the only topical case?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We make this argument in every 2AC on T, not because its an actual counterinterpretation of what debates should be about on this topic, but because it serves two important functions in tipping the T flow to the aff. First, it allows you to wax poetic about how arbitrary competing interpretations is as a standard for evaluating topicality because there are an infinite number of arbitrary interpretations one can make to exclude any affirmative.

 

It also puts the neg in a double bind that i think is more effective than the other "double-binds" mentioned above, and that's when it comes to the role of the ballot on topicality--either the ballot sets a precedent to shape the size of the topic (which is what some negative teams will say you should do with the ballot, to punish the neg or create a trend against running nonT affs) which means after the round, your interp solves limits the best because everyone will listen to the precedent set by the ballot and run your aff only, or the ballot doesn't actually shape the way people chose to run affirmatives, so there's no reason to vote on T as long as you're reasonably topical...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is assuming that the neg is arguing that more limits is always best. All they have to do is argue they provide the best limits.

 

Yeah, his analysis as to WHY this counter interp is good is dependent on the neg running "limits good" normally if they don't YOU DON'T FUCKING MAKE THIS ARGUMENT. That's like randomly making a link turn to a disad they didn't run and your response being "yeah but they could impact turn it"

well thanks captain dumbshit.

 

And considering that there's no brightline to "the best limits" it's an uphill battle for the neg to just say "some limits are good limits" it would be completely arbitrary to be like "no, that counter interp is bad, our interp allows for 5 cases which is the best limit"

 

For the proponents of this as an actual counter interp please tell me what your resolutional basis for this argument is? Why should your aff be the only topical one, because it limits best? What if I make the counter counter interp that only increasing the number of people in the peace corps should be the only topical case, oh yeah we're talking about Afrika right now, not the Peace Corps.

 

The only way to work this as an argument is exactly how Dan explained it.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its basically an argument to respond to "we have the fewest cases so cases under our interp are more predictable" The best way to answer, imo, is that the c/i is arbitrary. No one is going to predict that your case is the only topical case, because it has no resolutional basis...

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its basically an argument to respond to "we have the fewest cases so cases under our interp are more predictable" The best way to answer, imo, is that the c/i is arbitrary. No one is going to predict that your case is the only topical case, because it has no resolutional basis...

 

Way to say the same thing as me, just without an explanation I think that helps a lot more in the "novice center" using buzzwords without defining them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At the point where the NEGATIVE is uttering reasonability on the topicality flow, as a judge, I would facepalming. So far, in terms of limits, I can't think of a better limit to debate than a single case. This allows that case: any advantage ground it wants and some wiggle room for solvency mechanisms/advocates. This allows negative: well...complete predictability, etc.

 

I think a negative (especially if the team is only decent at arguing T) is going to be tripping all over themselves trying to explain how limiting to a single case isn't better than their interpretation that limits to x>1 number of cases.

 

This C/I really is a big threat to a poorly explained limits standard, and it WILL become a time tradeoff against a negative that doesn't know how to handle it well.

 

Um, then you wouldn't be that good of a judge. The negative DOESN'T want to read a definition that limits to one case. If I win that my definition limits to a REASONABLE amount of cases (somewhere between the shitty counterinterp that the aff is the only topical case and the other standard counter-interp that the aff reads) then I win limits. Limits isn't about who can limit the most, that's a misconception. It's about who can limit the best. When you limit to one case, you destroy education. If the affirmative does this, the neg can win on limits (which is the internal link to ground) and education, which are basically the two arguments you need to win on T.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Um, then you wouldn't be that good of a judge. The negative DOESN'T want to read a definition that limits to one case. If I win that my definition limits to a REASONABLE amount of cases (somewhere between the shitty counterinterp that the aff is the only topical case and the other standard counter-interp that the aff reads) then I win limits. Limits isn't about who can limit the most, that's a misconception. It's about who can limit the best. When you limit to one case, you destroy education. If the affirmative does this, the neg can win on limits (which is the internal link to ground) and education, which are basically the two arguments you need to win on T.

 

The problem here is (if you read my post, you would realize this) you're arguing limits the CORRECT way.

 

What's your brightline for a reasonable amount of cases? That's why reasonability is a problem. On top of that, even if you say "10 is reasonable," you have to have an interp that can actually produce that number for it to hold in the round. What, in your definition, does education mean? I realize that breadth and depth are both factors going into education, but I would hardly say a single affirmative kills education.

 

My problem with reasonability or saying what is and isn't reasonable is that more often than not, that distinction is left up to me and NOT the debaters. That's intervention on my part and that's bad.

 

Like I said, good T debates make this a non-issue. IF and only if you say "Our interpretation limits to a reasonable amount of cases because of x, y, and z and that reasonable limits is the best for debate" or something similar should any judge pull a trigger on reasonability.

 

If you asked most judges how they've experienced reasonability in the past, they would tell you that it is MOST often argued as "Well, our interpretation is reasonable," which lacks warrants and puts the judge as the decider in that debate, not the debaters.

 

EDIT:

Is it unthinkable that a NEG could run and win T reasonably?

 

I mean, you can always argue that a limited number of cases is better than just one, breadth and depth. Reading ten books is more educational than ten.

 

You can also gain clash, having one topical AFF kills the areas in which clash could occur. Predictability, neglible loss, a few topical cases would still be predictable. Fairness- unfair for other AFF teams and bad for debate.

 

But, if the AFF read two interps, the broader one and the we're only topical, they could C/A the NEG answers to their broader interpretation (unless it's a lot more broad) and then drop the "only we're topical", no?

 

I suppose there is a different ideal answer to it (from the NEG), but I can't really think what it should be.

 

By the way, where does someone find a sourced interpretation that makes one's case the only topical case?

 

I'm not saying they can't win it or shouldn't run it. But if the negative is going to mention reasonability, they need to warrant it. Otherwise, judges are forced to determine what is and isn't reasonable.

 

Off of your second point, this is almost true, but a bit flawed. At what number of cases does this magical distinction exist? Furthermore, what are the EXACT interpretations of the resolution that would limit to ONLY that number? If the affirmative can points out how another case fits in (increasing the number), does that argument go away? Furthermore, I don't think book reading is good for an analogy here. Even if you limited your book reading to a very specific topic, it doesn't assume an intellectual competition where you have to debate what you're reading.

 

I don't necessarily buy the clash/fairness arguments. One case area doesn't mean everyone's running the exact same 1AC. Even if you were strict and limited it to the EXACT SAME PLAN TEXT, the same 1AC would not be read in every round. You have plenty of different avenues for solvency advocates, not to mention advantage/harms ground. This would increase ON-CASE clash which is important from a policy perspective. On top of that, in a hypothetical world where there's only 1 affirmative case, the theory arguments against things like PICs would be a LOT stronger.

 

I've said it in my posts, others have said it, and I will say it again: If the negative team hasn't properly constructed their limits/predictability standards in the 1AC, this blippy little answer can be a BIG problem for them, especially if they aren't that good on the T flow. If they are competent at topicality and haven't set themselves up to have this argument read, then the negative will have no problem dealing with it.

 

Dan, above, pointed out a good way to structure this argument.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...

EDIT:

 

I'm not saying they can't win it or shouldn't run it. But if the negative is going to mention reasonability, they need to warrant it. Otherwise, judges are forced to determine what is and isn't reasonable.

 

Off of your second point, this is almost true, but a bit flawed. At what number of cases does this magical distinction exist? Furthermore, what are the EXACT interpretations of the resolution that would limit to ONLY that number? If the affirmative can points out how another case fits in (increasing the number), does that argument go away? Furthermore, I don't think book reading is good for an analogy here. Even if you limited your book reading to a very specific topic, it doesn't assume an intellectual competition where you have to debate what you're reading.

 

I don't necessarily buy the clash/fairness arguments. One case area doesn't mean everyone's running the exact same 1AC. Even if you were strict and limited it to the EXACT SAME PLAN TEXT, the same 1AC would not be read in every round. You have plenty of different avenues for solvency advocates, not to mention advantage/harms ground. This would increase ON-CASE clash which is important from a policy perspective. On top of that, in a hypothetical world where there's only 1 affirmative case, the theory arguments against things like PICs would be a LOT stronger.

 

I've said it in my posts, others have said it, and I will say it again: If the negative team hasn't properly constructed their limits/predictability standards in the 1AC, this blippy little answer can be a BIG problem for them, especially if they aren't that good on the T flow. If they are competent at topicality and haven't set themselves up to have this argument read, then the negative will have no problem dealing with it.

 

Dan, above, pointed out a good way to structure this argument.

 

I totally agree, that's generally an argument I make against reasonability claims.

 

There is no magic number, however, if there's only one topical case, and we have an entire year of debate, it will be getting repetitive very quickly. And really, there's absolutely no reason why we can't learn about 5 cases well in a year (which is a pretty long time) rather than just one (not really advocating 5, but using as an example).

 

Right, but if I have one case, you've got a decent idea of what I'm going to do. The AFF needs some unpredictability to counter the block, otherwise the NEG can just rapid-fire their pre-prepared arguments out in the block and just wreck the AFF (they'll only have 5 minutes to respond). Sure, the AFF isn't 100% predictable, but it's too limiting to have 1 case. Clash perhaps isn't phrased the best as an argument right now, but I'll think about it.

 

I hope my arguments are coherent and somewhat decent...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i hate it when people say that overlimiting is good b/c that stops good debate and you waste time on procedural instead of actually learning more about the topic, which is the point of debate

  • Downvote 1

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...