Jump to content
Dr. Fox On Socks

LD: FAQ / Help Me / Novice Center

Recommended Posts

It's arbitrary, constraining, and confusing. Logic alone should be sufficient to establish a connection between a debater's arguments and the resolution, so there's no reason that the V/C format should be necessary. I'll concede that it serves as a useful tool for novices or idiot judges, but I think it hurts higher level debates substantially. For a more detailed criticism see: https://www.nflonline.org/Rostrum/Ld1204Baldwin (just the beginning, I don't defend his alternative).

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think that a better structure would be simply justifying an ethical theory or interpretation and linking into a burden rather than a one sentence simplification of the given moral theory.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think that a better structure would be simply justifying an ethical theory or interpretation and linking into a burden rather than a one sentence simplification of the given moral theory.

That's probably true. I think the reason we're locked into one-sentence simplifications on the national circuit is theory: people tend to construe full descriptions like that is multiple NIBs and run theory. The thing to do is obvious: start doing it and win theory debates - I think the educational advantages are compelling enough.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NIBs bad theory is often ridiculous. Its intent is fine, but if applied consistently its own logic would mandate that all arguments with more than one premise be rejected. There are far too many good arguments precluded by disallowing any moral theory with more than one requirement. This is all especially problematic when you consider that divisions between argument premises are functionally infinite in number, as illustrated by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Tortoise_Said_to_Achilles, meaning that multiple NIBs are in some sense inevitable.

Even on a less abstract level, I still think multiple NIBs bad theory has been detrimental overall. Although no one actually exploits the above flaws in order to win every round through theory, what does happen is that a fear of NIBs theory causes people to write their cases in ways which are more confused and more constrained. In addition, unfamiliar arguments are much more likely to be perceived as multiple NIBs than those familiar arguments which the judge has already perceived as legitimate.

I want a way to prevent abusive strategies as much as anyone, but I feel as though NIBs bad theory is the wrong remedy. I wish I could think of a good alternative.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the qualifications for something to be a voter in a theory shell? Like what does it have to be consistent with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

can someone help me find cards for these ideas that I have? :(  (LD TOPIC Jan/feb) based on Ecuador

-why talking about a single country instead of a lot will help on an educational debate
-Developing countries don’t have to agree with the western model of development, identity permits them to have their own model
-a card that says that the purpose of humanity is to live in continuity
-Nature and indigenous culture on Ecuador believe they are one.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't run a specific country, even if you do run it with parametricizing theory at the beginning of the 1AC.  I've hit several cases where they only use one country, and have won on T every time.  The resolution says developing countries, which is plural, so only running one country isn't topical.  That kind of sounds like bs, but every judge has picked me up on it.  When the aff only advocates one country, it also makes it really easy for the neg to take out the solvency, especially when the aff is advocating to solve for climate change or environmental harms.  The judge can't know whether it will work in developing nations as a whole, as you're only showing how it would work for one particular country.  Solving for some harms in Ecuador isn't going to stop climate change.

You can still run the point about indigenous cultures without having it specific to Ecuador, just talk about indigenous cultures as a whole instead of those of a specific country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

can someone help me find cards for these ideas that I have? :(  (LD TOPIC Jan/feb) based on Ecuador

-why talking about a single country instead of a lot will help on an educational debate
-Developing countries don’t have to agree with the western model of development, identity permits them to have their own model
-a card that says that the purpose of humanity is to live in continuity
-Nature and indigenous culture on Ecuador believe they are one.

 

Running "Ecuador" is extremely abusive.

If you for some odd reason choose to run this you better prep T like crazy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone write a detailed explanation between the differences of a Kritik, Counterplan, Plan, Theory shells, and etc?

Kritik: is when the negative attacks an underlying assumption the Affirmative makes. It is structured as:

Links: The way the affirmative connects to your argument.  For example, the Affirmative supports the American Criminal Justice System which is a racist institution.

Impact: the Big problem the AFF Present.  For example, Racism's dehumanization will cause societal collapse.'

Alternative: How you solve the problem.  In LD, it is usually Vote for the Negative team, or Reject the Affirmative Discourse.

 

Plan Text: only AFFs can run this.  BTW MAKE SURE YOU RUN A CONSEQUENTIALIST FW and be specific.

  • Theoretical Justification for running a plan in the round, and the plan has to be specific in terms of the agent, and what the plan does with justified from the author advocate (Inherency)
  • Text
  • Advantages/Harms – essentially the contentions, so the bad things that you either solve or avoid via the plan
  • Solvency – How you fix the plan harms/advantages 

Theory shells: I've attached a T Lecture for you

 

Disad: Similar to a Kritik (No Alternative). It's great to run in rounds.  MUST BE RUN IN THE !NR.  If its short you can try to run it in the 1AR too.

Link: Just like the K.

Uniqueness: Generally says why what ever the AFF (or sometimes NEG) does pushes it over the edge.  This ev needs to have a VERY RECENT Cite.  This is very important

Internal Link: More or less its the evidence that gets you from your link o your impact

Impact: Just like the K

Here's a CP Lecture from some website:

Counterplans are advocacies that offer alternate courses of actions besides the one implied by the resolution and besides doing nothing. Coming over from policy debate, counterplans have seen a dramatic rise in popularity over the last few years and are in general used by negative debaters in expressing advocacies that conflict with the resolution. Understanding what counterplans are and what their necessary components are is a key aspect to knowing how to best respond to them.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Purpose
In reality, there are always more than two options in any given situation. Accordingly, the counterplan represents the diversity of real life choices and can be used to your advantage. If you can think of an alternative not specified by the resolution, then that would be a great time to make use of a counterplan. Further, counterplans are strategic in that you can use them to co-opt many of the benefits specified in your opponent's position without having to deal with any of the downsides (if you position your advocacy well).
 
The counterplan has four elements to it: the textcompetitionsolvency, and net benefits. Each of these sections is crucial in order to establish its legitimacy as a position and further is necessary to demonstrate the feasibility of your advocacy.
 
Text
The text is the section where you explicitly state your advocacy. Because counterplans very often imply evaluating an action not directly implied by the resolution, it is important to be extra specific in explaining what it is you are evaluating.
 
Competition
In order for a counterplan to be valid, it must be competitive. A good way to understand this is to think of competition in terms of opportunity cost. If there is an opportunity cost to taking the action specified by the resolution, your counterplan should be that opportunity cost. As long as the opportunity cost is less than the cost of the action, then you should do the counterplan instead of the plan. There are two ways to establish a basis for competition.
 
Further, one of the important reasons to have competition is that because the counterplan is not an advocacy directly implied by the resolution, there's no reason why the other debater can't say you should take both the course of action specified in the resolution and do the counterplan. If that is a viable option, then your counterplan is invalid.
Mutual Exclusivity
The first way to establish competition is through mutual exclusivity. What is implied by mutual exclusivity is that it is impossible to do both the counterplan and the normal course of action expressed by the resolution. This functions as a valid form of competition, as if you physically cannot do both, you are forced to choose between them.
Net Benefits
The second way to establish competition is through net benefits. The idea behind net benefits is that, regardless of your ability to do both the course of action in the resolution and the counterplan, if doing just the counterplan is strictly better doing the resolution or doing both, then the counterplan is competitive as an independent option.
 
As a form of competition, net benefits can be run in conjunction with mutual exclusivity but is in general the weaker form of competition.
 
Solvency
In order for your position to be a valid one, you need to show how you solve all of the problems that taking the normal action in the resolution solves. If your position does not in fact solve for all or at least most of the same issues, then you in general shouldn't be running this counterplan.
 
Note: Finding evidence on this issue is highly recommended, as this is the section that is considered most important. If you don't have strong solvency, then the other debater can treat it like any normal case and remove any strategic advantage you had.
 
Net Benefits
In the previous sections, you established your advocacy, showed why its competitive, and showed how you solve for most of the problems specified in your opponent's case. The net benefits section is where you take the final step and show why your position is in fact preferable to your opponents.
 
In general, a lot of what goes in here is very similar to the kind of information that goes in the contention section for a lot of cases, so it's important to follow the same argument style that you have been using. If you want to try framing these as disadvantages to the affirmative position, as they are formally done in policy debate, look ahead to see how best to do so.

Theory Lecture 2013.doc

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so i know NIB stands for necessary but insufficient burden, but can someone please explain exactly what that means? Also ive seen the theory spike that the neg must uphold the converse of the resolution, can someone please explain the warrant behind that claim? Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theory arguments about NIBs claim that the NC isn't allowed to make multiple independent arguments about why the resolution is false. The idea is that NIBs allow the negative to make a bunch of arguments that the affirmative won't have enough time to answer, so NIBs have to be disallowed or the negative would win too much. It's popular, but in my opinion it's too restrictive. You might want to read some of the conversation that took place earlier in this thread.

I've never seen a good warrant for the idea that the negative has to uphold the converse of the resolution rather than simply disproving the resolution. Mostly a bunch of empty rhetoric and appeal to tradition, I think. There's clearly a logical distinction between proving the opposite of something and disproving something. But the idea is popular on some circuits anyway, because most judges aren't very logical people.

Edit: Snarf, stop the constant negative rep. I'm starting to lose my patience with you.

Edited by Potatoes
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am currently researching on the NCFL topic that i'm going to debate in may, and was wondering if anyone could help. (The topic is resolved: when in conflict, national security ought to be valued over personal privacy)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the potential NFL/NSDA topics is national security vs. digital privacy, and a number of summer camps used it as the camp topic.

 

On the affirmative, communitarianism was a common moral framework. Look into Amitai Etzioni. He's a staple communitarianism author, and he also writes about privacy. By far the most common type of case was a utilitarian AC stressing the impacts of terrorism.

 

On the negative, beyond generic deontological arguments and libertarian limited government positions, there's plenty of utilitarian literature about how digital privacy violations hurt our relations abroad and also negatively impact e-commerce.

 

Your topic might play out differently since its not specific to digital privacy rights, although those are the most pressing privacy issue in the news right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the potential NFL/NSDA topics is national security vs. digital privacy, and a number of summer camps used it as the camp topic.

 

On the affirmative, communitarianism was a common moral framework. Look into Amitai Etzioni. He's a staple communitarianism author, and he also writes about privacy. By far the most common type of case was a utilitarian AC stressing the impacts of terrorism.

 

On the negative, beyond generic deontological arguments and libertarian limited government positions, there's plenty of utilitarian literature about how digital privacy violations hurt our relations abroad and also negatively impact e-commerce.

 

Your topic might play out differently since its not specific to digital privacy rights, although those are the most pressing privacy issue in the news right now.

. Thanks for the pointers. I do think since personal privacy is a different sector of privacy that it might play out differently, but at the same time I can also see affs using terrorism impacts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. Thanks for the pointers. I do think since personal privacy is a different sector of privacy that it might play out differently, but at the same time I can also see affs using terrorism impacts.

 

Of course, the right response to terrorism impacts is that there is zero evidence NSA's massive invasion of privacy was necessary to prevent even a single instance of terrorism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, the right response to terrorism impacts is that there is zero evidence NSA's massive invasion of privacy was necessary to prevent even a single instance of terrorism.

yeah I have like 7 different answers to terrorism already for this topic, the big help I need is with evidence on both sides & help with off case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does a person run T in LD debate? I am a policy debater transferring to mostly LD!

 

Also do DA get run in LD?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does a person run T in LD debate? I am a policy debater transferring to mostly LD!

 

Also do DA get run in LD?

It depends on your circuit.

 

I'm in a really progressive circuit, so there's always some DA's, and yeah there are T args too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Y'all,

I have done Policy for a bit and am trying LD for the first time. 

I have a few questions:

Aff:

Are the burdens the same? (i.e S-H-I-T)

How do I use Value/Value Criterion?

Do I prove that my case is better than SQ, or my case is better than neg case?

Should I spend more time on line by line arguments or running D/A and K's against the opponents case?

 

Neg:

Are the burdens the same? Do I need to be topical?

Can I be unconditional?

Is my job to prove the aff case is worse than SQ or to prove my own case is better?

Should I spend more time on line by line or D/A's and K's?

Is running a D/A the same? Uniq- Link- Impact

Is running a K the same? Link-Impact- Alt

What should I go for in the last speeches? 

What are some things I should win for a to make it easy for the judge to vote me up? (i.e Topicality.. ect)

 

Anything else a brand new LD debater should know?

 

Thanks all,

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Y'all,

I have done Policy for a bit and am trying LD for the first time. 

I have a few questions:

Aff:

Are the burdens the same? (i.e S-H-I-T)

No, there are no stock issues. One can argue that there is a hint of solvency, but that is not intrinsic to LD cases. What I mean by this is that you aren't trying to solve for issues that are presented in the topic, but take a stance on them. You can say things like "Only through my criterion can we achieve/solve for justice"

How do I use Value/Value Criterion?

Using like you use framework in policy. You are trying to win framing, so you should present a criterion that can achieve what you think is the best value for that specific topic. It's good to read some lit to be able to find non-generic criterions that are able to explain things in theory but also apply them in real life.

Do I prove that my case is better than SQ, or my case is better than neg case?

There is not a status quo in LD, so you just have to win that you should negate or affirm the resolution

Should I spend more time on line by line arguments or running D/A and K's against the opponents case?

Depends on the circuit that you are debating in. I'm from a traditional district, so line by line was less of an issue. You should ideally focus on the key issues in the round as they have been presented.

 

Neg:

Are the burdens the same? Do I need to be topical?

Well yes, but no. You have to actually argue things related to the topic, but the aff won't stand up and be like "the NC is untopical vote aff"

Can I be unconditional?

Yes

Is my job to prove the aff case is worse than SQ or to prove my own case is better?

Prove that the aff case is bad and that the resolution should be negated

Should I spend more time on line by line or D/A's and K's?

See answer to this on the aff

Is running a D/A the same? Uniq- Link- Impact

Pretty much, but most of the time you can even get out one carded disads

Is running a K the same? Link-Impact- Alt

Yes, again very dependent upon circuit

What should I go for in the last speeches?

Go for the best impacts you have, usually like 2-3 reasons you win on both sides

What are some things I should win for a to make it easy for the judge to vote me up? (i.e Topicality.. ect)

Framework above all else, and then contention level impacts

 

Anything else a brand new LD debater should know?

Don't treat it like policy 2.0, try to figure out new stuff and be on top of the game. You can transition your knowledge of debating and the flow in general, but try to ease into LD and just learn as you go along. Good luck.

 

Thanks all,

J

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Y'all,

I have done Policy for a bit and am trying LD for the first time. 

I have a few questions:

Aff:

Are the burdens the same? (i.e S-H-I-T)

How do I use Value/Value Criterion?

Do I prove that my case is better than SQ, or my case is better than neg case?

Should I spend more time on line by line arguments or running D/A and K's against the opponents case?

 

Neg:

Are the burdens the same? Do I need to be topical?

Can I be unconditional?

Is my job to prove the aff case is worse than SQ or to prove my own case is better?

Should I spend more time on line by line or D/A's and K's?

Is running a D/A the same? Uniq- Link- Impact

Is running a K the same? Link-Impact- Alt

What should I go for in the last speeches? 

What are some things I should win for a to make it easy for the judge to vote me up? (i.e Topicality.. ect)

 

Anything else a brand new LD debater should know?

 

Thanks all,

J

Aff basically has the burden to uphold the exact wording of the resolution. Anything else and its a neg side. However, the resolution can be interpreted very broadly.

A value is the core of your case. Your value criterion is how we measure your value. E.G. your value could be utilitarianism and your value criterion is who maximizing well-being.

You have to prove that your case is superior to the negative while upholding the resolution. 

Don't run K's or DA's on your AFF. in your AC just run a framework (Rawls, Util, Contract) and contentions under that. Only in your 1AR should you bring up DA's or K's. Even then I wouldn't recommend it.\

 

The Neg simply has to disprove the exact wording of the resolution. The neg is simply disproving. You don't have to run a CP in your neg case. Just simply run some kind of framework.

IDK what you mean by unconditional

You need to either prove that the sqo is fine or that you solve better than the AFF for any problems in the sqo

Like I said DA's and K's aren't super common as opposed to policy. When using them to attack the Aff line by line isn't super important. Because there are a lot of opposing values you need to show why your DA or K precedes, absorbs or weighs better than the aff.

DA's are the same. K's are the same but you need a moral framework to accompany it.

Last speeches you need to weigh values, impacts. Give an overview and voters. E.G. if they have a libertarian FW you need to show why you win on FW (util) and then do impact calc.

Win A priori's>Theory>Topicality>Framework>Contentions

 

I'm in my 2nd year so this might be a little brief.

 

Sincerely,

LDBen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not highly familiar with circuit theory, but I can take a look at whatever you PM me. I might not respond until Wednesday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×