Jump to content
Kritikphile

Retro Theory

Recommended Posts

What are some 'retro theory' arguments? I was watching some lectures and came across one that mentioned them. Where could i get a retro theory file?

 

(don't tell me not to run it, that's not what I asked)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JUSTIFICATION

 

NO NEGATIVE FlAT

 

HASTY GENERALIZATION

 

COUNTERWARRANTS

 

HYPOTESTING

 

PLAN PLAN

 

NO TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS

 

CONDITIONALITY BAD

 

PLAN-MEET-NEED (PMN)

 

SOLVENCY PRESSES

 

DEBATE IS FUNNY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetical Counterplans

 

Multiple conditional CPs

 

Alternative Justification (Affirmative case style designed for hypo testing)

 

btw - Hasty G isn't really a theory argument so much as a logical fallacy. I do still teach my kids to spot and expose the big ones - Hasty G, Strawman, Ad hom etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

JUSTIFICATION

 

NO NEGATIVE FlAT

 

HASTY GENERALIZATION

COUNTERWARRANTS

 

HYPOTESTING

 

PLAN PLAN

 

NO TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS

 

CONDITIONALITY BAD

 

PLAN-MEET-NEED (PMN)

 

SOLVENCY PRESSES

 

DEBATE IS FUNNY

 

wow. i feel old now. we use these at my school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's another old school thing I haven't seen in a while:

 

Logical fallacies.

 

If your opponent, either on their own or within their evidence, tries to support a claim with spurious reasoning, the claim should be rejected. It is as true today as it was in my day. I haven't seen much of it lately, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's another old school thing I haven't seen in a while:

 

Logical fallacies.

 

If your opponent, either on their own or within their evidence, tries to support a claim with spurious reasoning, the claim should be rejected. It is as true today as it was in my day. I haven't seen much of it lately, though.

 

I think that that might be because it isn't incredibly time efficient to explain why a claim that might not have a good enough backing should be rejected rather than just answer with, "it has no warrants" instead of the more correct logical fallacy. It would be better your way, to be sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is "Plan Meet Need"
Plan Meets Need is a solvency attack.

 

PMN format is like this:

 

The plan must do X to solve for harms (or advantages - in which case it was usually called plan meets advantage) (The need)

The solvency doesn't specify the need or the solution for X. (The plan's failure to meet the need)

Without X, solvency cannot exist. (impact)

 

PMN and PMA were referred to as "off case solvency" in my day, because they attacked solvency from a perspective not on the affirmative flow.

Edited by brorlob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that that might be because it isn't incredibly time efficient to explain why a claim that might not have a good enough backing should be rejected rather than just answer with, "it has no warrants" instead of the more correct logical fallacy. It would be better your way, to be sure.

I don't think this is true. The problem with engaging a fallacious argument on its own terms, that is without exposing the fallacy, is giving the impression that the argument has some kind of validity. If a key warrant is flawed, there is no reason to give such an impression. To do so is to not only allow the fallacious reasoning to go unpunished, but to voluntarily engage a red herring to boot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JUSTIFICATION

 

I saw this run by GBS I believe at NFL Nationals instead of a counterplan. (I don't remember what piece of evidence they ran with it--ie perhaps states solve better--it was a USFG Justification) I think running it as a counterplan in drag makes so much strategic sense by throwing the other team off guard.

 

I think this **may** allow you to avoid the conditionality/dispositionality arg. most of the time. And perhaps even the perm--its a prima facia issue of justification--and unless you do its game over.

 

Also, old schoolers will likely eat it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember that, if we're thinking of the same round. Wichita Nationals GBN vs. SMW(correct me if I'm wrong) The story was that increasing debate would solve for the case harms.

 

I didn't think it was a very good argument, or justification in general. Giving a puppy to everyone might solve for the case, but that doesn't mean it's preferable. The theory doesn't seem any stronger either, because you're not really advocating the justification as a policy, just a hypothetical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is "Debate is funny" a theory argument?

 

i knew someone would ask this. i wasn't saying it was a theory argument. i was saying debate is funny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JUSTIFICATION

 

I saw this run by GBS I believe at NFL Nationals instead of a counterplan. (I don't remember what piece of evidence they ran with it--ie perhaps states solve better--it was a USFG Justification) I think running it as a counterplan in drag makes so much strategic sense by throwing the other team off guard.

 

I think this **may** allow you to avoid the conditionality/dispositionality arg. most of the time. And perhaps even the perm--its a prima facia issue of justification--and unless you do its game over.

 

Also, old schoolers will likely eat it up.

 

very true, at UIL State in Octos last year me and my partner read an Africa CP and Reps K in disguise by labeling it a Justification argument

 

good stuff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh and also inherency presses

 

we were showing our novices a cx video (its from 2004, so not necessarily retro, but it was noticeably more old school than i was used to) and they made an inherency argument and the affirmative talked about inherency types

 

"attitudal" and "structural" inherency, so yeah, something to ponder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
oh and also inherency presses

 

we were showing our novices a cx video (its from 2004, so not necessarily retro, but it was noticeably more old school than i was used to) and they made an inherency argument and the affirmative talked about inherency types

 

"attitudal" and "structural" inherency, so yeah, something to ponder

I still teach the difference between attitudinal and structural barriers. It's not a bad thing to know if you have any old-school stock issues judges in your area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Synergistic Consistency: Two (or more) topicality arguments have to produce a consistent vision of the resolution

 

litmus test: provide arbitrary number of affs that meet both

 

failure to provide means aff's can never be topical and the neg should lose to settle the score.

 

Even if you don't called it "synergistic consistency", most smart debaters should make arguments about "negative competing interpretations".

 

example: Neg defines incentives to mean "disincentives" and increase to mean "make larger". It might be impossible to do both, or if its possible it over limits the topic and makes it bi-directional. Voting issue- competitive equity OR reject the argument.

 

its a handy trick for fence-riding affs and people who like to hide voting issues in their theory blocks. I have won debates because of this, but i think it died out in the early 90's (pre-merger, at least. it was an old CEDA strategy.)

Edited by math_u_matics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plan Meets Need is a solvency attack.

 

PMN format is like this:

 

The plan must do X to solve for harms (or advantages - in which case it was usually called plan meets advantage) (The need)

The solvency doesn't specify the need or the solution for X. (The plan's failure to meet the need)

Without X, solvency cannot exist. (impact)

 

PMN and PMA were referred to as "off case solvency" in my day, because they attacked solvency from a perspective not on the affirmative flow.

PMNs still exist, just not labeled as such because debate calculus has changed.

 

A PMN says you can't solve X harm without addressing A issue. Most of the time, we just call this an alternative causality. Sometimes, we say the case doesn't solve the root cause of the harm (which sounds like a kritik, but I'm too young to know if they are related strands). Also, PMNs include long-term views at solvency, like you might make a short term improvement but can't solve the harm in the long-run. And some turns are technically PMNs.

 

In a stock issues world, a PMN is devastating. In a policymaking, cost-benefit analysis world, they have much less impact. And when was the last time someone went straight up presumption on the neg?

 

I'm from PA so we have more "old school" stuff than I would like to admit. Even there, you can go retro and win - I made semis of states with whole rez because people didn't know what to do with it, and we just didn't spread and talked persuasively.

 

As a coach who has used minor repair to take down circuit teams who were unprepared for it, "old school" theory isn't dead, it just hides in strange places.

 

 

Also, to one of the first posts: if "conditionality bad" is a retro argument, why do I hear it every round? I think "exclusive counterplans" is a more retro concept, since competition through net benefits is all the rage these days.

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...