Jump to content
Y?

2009-2010 College Debate Topic

Recommended Posts

Sorry, I don't feel like going back and reading through all of these posts to find the answer. Can someone just give me a run-down of what this taboo topic is?

 

You have to decrease regulations on something that is currently considered a "taboo", or legislated social norms.

 

Some versions have the topic being bidirectional, able to "change" social norms in any way they see fit, i.e. legalizing or illegalizing all same-sex marriage. Some topics are only pertinent to sexual mores, i.e. prostitution, statutory rape, etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You seem to miss the thrust of my post. I agree that K teams will always be able to generate some type of link and the win column for Oklahoma and Towson won't change much. I am simply responding to Karlin's claims that more right-leaning topics are uniquely better for K teams because it ensures links. My claim is that a left-leaning topic is just as good for K teams as a right leaning topic if not better because it offers a new wealth of literature. By Karlin's standards every topic would have the US take an action to help quell some international crisis (read: solve a nuclear war, etc) so the neg can ensure they get their security K links. But I'm pretty sure the neg can and will have links for their security K always and limiting the scope of argumentation like that is probably bad for debate. Reading some new cards in your security shell probably isn't quite as uniquely educational of an opportunity as reading a K about the regulation of individual bodies (to use this years possible example).

 

I think Antonucci makes the argument I am trying to make better and in a more concise fashion.

 

The point I am trying to make is that K's are game on every topic. Making the topic critical limits out ground for everybody. Even if the topic is more right you still get great links to your args (arguably better links). Whether or not you privilege the biopower K over the Security K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Antonucci makes the argument I am trying to make better and in a more concise fashion.

 

The point I am trying to make is that K's are game on every topic. Making the topic critical limits out ground for everybody. Even if the topic is more right you still get great links to your args (arguably better links). Whether or not you privilege the biopower K over the Security K.

Actually both you and Antonucci miss my point, although Antonucci would like to think otherwise based upon his last point. I am in complete agreement that K teams will always have ground, I don't really think anyone would contest that point. However, constantly debating right-leaning topics limits the potential scope of education because the potential ground is limited. In other words, if we always debated right-leaning topics the only thing that would ever change would be the internal links to nuclear wars in policy affs while the links and possible K's that people could read would remain the same because there isn't a wide base of K lit for engaging Russia on some particular issue. You could say that repetitively debating right-leaning topics non-uniques the possible education. This shouldn't be understood as me claiming that right-leaning topics necessarily stifle innovation because that could never be the case. However, always debating right-leaning topics does limit the potential innovation and basis of literature (and therefore education) that would be attendant with a more left-leaning topic. This also doesn't mean that we should always have left-leaning topics.

 

You also have no warrant as to why making the topic more left-leaning or "critical" limits out ground. I would contend otherwise and in fact that is my entire claim above. If you actually read the taboo topic paper (using that example because it is timely but this could apply to any left-leaning topic) you would see that policy teams still get access to all of the usual impacts and scenarios but the benefit of this topic is that it opens up a previously (largely) undiscussed body of work for discussion.

 

I also don't privilege a particular type or style of K. My argument is, rather, that reading the security K every single year with a few new cards every year is less educational than being able to read a variety of different K's in different years. You wouldn't vote for a non-unique disad so why vote for a topic with non-unique education? Potential=good in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have to decrease regulations on something that is currently considered a "taboo", or legislated social norms.

 

Some versions have the topic being bidirectional, able to "change" social norms in any way they see fit, i.e. legalizing or illegalizing all same-sex marriage. Some topics are only pertinent to sexual mores, i.e. prostitution, statutory rape, etc

 

Mmm... this actually sounds really interesting. Thanks. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who are you? Did you even debate this year?

 

There wasn't enough variety of cases for my liking. There were only a few topic areas that really got fleshed out, cotton serves as a pretty good example. Others got tossed to the wayside for most of the yea.

 

Why does who I am matter?

I don't know who you are and don't really care, its a discussion of topic areas for the coming year

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why does who I am matter?

 

Well, as a co-writer of the topic, I just like to know who talks shit so I can vote them down and give them 20 speaker points when I judge them.

 

 

 

 

 

p.s. I'm kidding, if you couldn't tell. Just bustin' yo balls a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

props to you for writing it

 

I wanted to see more of the lit base used, if you read into some of it there's lots of ground on areas like soy or rice that wasn't debated. The upside to people not diversifying advantages as much as they could have - case debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The taboo topic is laughably bad. There is 0 unique policy ground. I don't know how the USfg would be seriously expected to formulate some type of domestic policy regarding changing a social taboo that has a solvency advocate anywhere because its a social issue not an issue regarding government policy. The few legal precedents mentioned in the topic paper are also for affs that I cant even imagine the advantage to (can anyone tell me what the 1AC for a Euthanasia aff looks like beyond a shitty malthus internal?).

 

As for the negative the only arguments even mentioned for policy teams are econ disads (lol), politics (every topic), and Agent PICs (every topic). K debates would also probably become stale really fast so the inevitable progression of the year would be K aff gets read K strat gets read in 1NC and then as the block progresses both sides realize they haven't really contested each others argument because there's no real point of conflict the 2AR goes for the perm and the debate is over. By the end of the year it would just be K affs v the impact turn and while I know Stone and the other dudes from Kansas would be ecstatic for a topic like that I doubt the rest of the community would.

 

Last but not least, a little birdy told me Scott Elliott suggested it earlier in the year as a joke and then for some reason someone picked it up and decided to take the joke seriously.

Edited by Felix Hoenikker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wait, there's no evidence on the government supporting or banning gay marriage? awkward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The taboo topic is laughably bad. There is 0 unique policy ground. I don't know how the USfg would be seriously expected to formulate some type of domestic policy regarding changing a social taboo that has a solvency advocate anywhere because its a social issue not an issue regarding government policy. The few legal precedents mentioned in the topic paper are also for affs that I cant even imagine the advantage to (can anyone tell me what the 1AC for a Euthanasia aff looks like beyond a shitty malthus internal?).

 

As for the negative the only arguments even mentioned for policy teams are econ disads (lol), politics (every topic), and Agent PICs (every topic). K debates would also probably become stale really fast so the inevitable progression of the year would be K aff gets read K strat gets read in 1NC and then as the block progresses both sides realize they haven't really contested each others argument because there's no real point of conflict the 2AR goes for the perm and the debate is over. By the end of the year it would just be K affs v the impact turn and while I know Stone and the other dudes from Kansas would be ecstatic for a topic like that I doubt the rest of the community would.

 

Last but not least, a little birdy told me Scott Elliott suggested it earlier in the year as a joke and then for some reason someone picked it up and decided to take the joke seriously.

 

Enter Toni Nielson..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Taboo looks amazing.

 

 

And has a whole series of interesting movies about it. (I only know this because, as an Officer of the Court, I am obliged to stay abreast of developments in First Amendment law.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wait, there's no evidence on the government supporting or banning gay marriage? awkward.

 

My point is that there isn't an advantage to that aff that isn't critical in nature. The reason things are taboo ultimately boils down to a question of morality not consequentialist policy making. Do tell what are the advantages to these affs if you want to go the policy route?

 

INB4 someone posts the list of advantage areas in the topic paper - I call bullshit on those I have a really hard time believing the internal link to any of that shit is viable or that the impact would mean anything in debate.

 

EDIT: Also something has been bugging me. Can someone who's an advocate of the taboo topic tell me why the hell it's comparatively better than the other options? For the life of me I can't understand why anyone would choose this topic over the other options.

Edited by Felix Hoenikker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

American social taboos: child pornography, cannibalism, homosexuality, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, public masturbation and nudity, addictive drugs, underage drinking, obscenity, slavery, and domestic violence

 

think long and hard what kind of debates you'd have and if you really want this. what kind of clash would there be? off the top of your head, can you name three legit arguments pro and con each of these?

 

i mean i love 4chan and everything, but explaining why i'm researching the legalization of child porn would be quite awkward.

Edited by Synergy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe now the policy crowd will understand the 'you still have statism links' is a stupid argument...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
maybe now the policy crowd will understand the 'you still have statism links' is a stupid argument...

 

No serious collegiate-level policy debater says that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have yet to see anyone say why the taboo topic is good just why maybe you wouldn't be as totally fucked as some are portraying it. So far the defense of the taboo topic is analogous to when Detroit submitted a bid to host NFL Nats on the platform "We're not as bad as we used to be."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taboo looks like it is good for the K debaters. From what I have read so far, unless you understand Foucault fairly well, I don't think they will have as in depth of debates as intended with this topic. Personally, I would love the Taboo topic, but it seems too far to the left, and would alienate those in community that don't like K debates.

 

 

My second choice would be the nuclear policy topic, as that one is probably caters to both sides of the spectrum the best. There are the policy impacts and links that are rather straightforward, while still providing politics links both ways, and the reps/discourse K links that so many of us love (Kato anyone?)

 

Ultimately, however, I think that Russia is the one that will get the win. Kinda sad, really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will try to post more, later, but here are my current feelings. These feelings don't come from necessarily what I think is best for this activity as a whole (not sure how to think those) but more from what sort of debates I would prefer to judge a thousand times next year, and what sort of debates I would like to work on.

 

Taboo topic is my first choice. I can, if people are curious, go into why. I doubt highly if taboo will be picked, so on to the other choices.

 

Tied for second is nuclear weapons and finical institutions, with right now a slight preference going for nuclear weapons policy.

 

Immigration is my forth choice, followed by Russia in the last.

 

My guess is that Russia will be picked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will try to post more, later, but here are my current feelings. These feelings don't come from necessarily what I think is best for this activity as a whole (not sure how to think those) but more from what sort of debates I would prefer to judge a thousand times next year, and what sort of debates I would like to work on.

 

Taboo topic is my first choice. I can, if people are curious, go into why. I doubt highly if taboo will be picked, so on to the other choices.

 

Tied for second is nuclear weapons and finical institutions, with right now a slight preference going for nuclear weapons policy.

 

Immigration is my forth choice, followed by Russia in the last.

 

My guess is that Russia will be picked.

 

Immigration got pulled because it wasn't developed enough.

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...