Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
simo14

Types of Turns

Recommended Posts

What does it mean to straight/parallel/any other type of turn?

I know what a turn is, but is there any difference between the specific types?

Thanks

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wiki is pretty good, but there is a hole: Link turning a Kritik. Because kritiks are inherently non-unique (in almost all cases) there is no need to control that part of the debate. It is important that you demonstrate how your opponent links to the implications more tightly than you do. You then concede (conditionally if you like theory debates) framework and argue the implications from the kritik pose a unique reason to reject your opponent. Looks like:

 

1ac: standard Cap/Trade aff

1nc: ptix, Lopez, T-AE, Cap K

2ac:

1 - Use of multiple frameworks is philosophical capitalism

2 - Aff's cap within the plan might constitute a reason to reject the plan, but not the team.

3 - Neg's practices are premeditated: capitalist K on top of capitalist practice is a reason to reject the team.

4 - Alt: Select theteam whose discourse demonstrates the least capitalist practices in the round.

Edited by brorlob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thanks but what are parallel turns?
What you learn after the stem Christie? I've never heard the term in relations to debate.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A parallel turn is the argument that plan causes the direct opposite of the internal link. For example, this year in NFA-LD the topic was that the USFG should increase its constructive engagement with Cuba. I ran a Cuban politics scenario on the negative. The disadvantage was structured as follows:

 

A. Obama and Castro do not have government-government interaction

B. Limited reforms have pushed hardliners to the brink, so Raul is slowing reforms.

C. Increased government-government relations leads to reform.

D. Reform in Cuba would be violent. Hardliners would overthrow Castro.

E. Failed state status leads to every imaginable impact

 

The internal link to this position is that reform in Cuba would be violent. The parallel link turn is that plan stabilizes Cuba. Essentially, the negative argues that there is a two-step relationship between the plan being passed and a failed state in Cuba. The affirmative should argue that it is instead a one-step process, but in the direction opposite of the negative articulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can call it a "link turn."

Cool it.

This is the Novice Help center. He asked a question about a specific type of link turn and I explained it to him.

Don't get snippy just because you didn't have the answer.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can call it a "link turn."

Cool it.

This is the Novice Help center. He asked a question about a specific type of link turn and I explained it to him.

Don't get snippy just because you didn't have the answer.

 

This post seems a lot more "snippy" than andrewc's

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This post seems a lot more "snippy" than andrewc's

 

But it was also MUCH more warranted than andrew's. The point of the novice center, like she pointed out, is to help novices with their questions. She gave the novice an answer to the question in a fairly straightforward manner, and clifford decided he had to post and criticize her for being helpful.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, this post is wrong

 

My reply was descriptive of community consensus (i've never heard of a "parallel turn" before - judges won't have a clue either), thus my post was infinitely more useful. Misleading novices with crappy advice is doing more harm than good.

 

Well that's kind of silly. Have debaters become so stupid that we cannot recognize the same argument said with different words? Using the "proper" terminology is all well and good, but it's the argument that counts.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, this post is wrong

 

My reply was descriptive of community consensus (i've never heard of a "parallel turn" before - judges won't have a clue either), thus my post was infinitely more useful. Misleading novices with crappy advice is doing more harm than good.

Clifford, you could have just said something like "a parallel turn is more commonly known as a link turn, and you should probably use that terminology" rather than be a complete dick to a helpful poster about it

 

You're welcome to post in this forum, but please, tone down the immaturity level while you're here, will you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what the hell are you talking about?

 

i wasn't being immature in the least bit

Maturity fail.

 

From what I've gathered (not sure if this contradicts what was above; I'm too tired to figure it out at the moment), a 'parallel impact turn' is one that shows the benefit of one course of action without putting defense on the original impact. Because I realize that made little semantic sense, here's an example:

1NC: LOST good. Key to naval power.

2AC: Lost bad. Kills relations with X country.

 

Hopefully the strategic flaw in such a strategy is apparent; you've conceded that LOST kills naval power, while they're free to put defense on your relations turn and mitigate its relative risk. A properly executed impact turn debate includes both a parallel impact turn (as above) and defense or offense on the opponent's impact. Example:

1NC: Same as above.

2AC: Lost bad, kills naval power projection, also kills relations with X country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure, but when a novice asks "what does it mean to parallel turn an argument", the correct response is "I have no idea what you're talking about - nobody uses that terminology. Maybe if you explain the context of the argument I can more accurately help you".

 

Anything else is just misleading (especially for a novice).

 

I don't think he'd have asked if he didn't have some form of background on the "parallel turn." To say that "nobody" uses the terminology in CX debate is a sweeping generalization. Sure, nobody in my state has even heard of it, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't use said terms somewhere else. Misleading isn't the word here. Especially because Whitney doesn't deserve to be shot at for missing one tidbit of clarification in her post, which was all-in-all extremely useful.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok so if people don't know about it/ it's really just a link turn, then I'll just forget about it. thanks all you guys!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dude, quit being a tool. there is no "parallel turn". official debate jargon has to be widely accepted before it can be useable in a debate round.

 

Attempting to explain a term that somebody else brought up is different from advocating the use of that term in a round and expecting everybody else to catch up.

 

My post wasn't an attempt to corroborate what Whit had said; mine provided another context in which the same phrase had been used. So, I don't know how my 'interpretation' of what she said could be wrong if I didn't attempt to interpret it (in fact, I pretty explicitly said that).

 

If correct application of debate lingo is such a big deal to you, fine. In fact, I'm probably in agreement with you that a small, well-known database of terms is better than a large, frequently-contested one. That doesn't mean that we should ignore novices that come to us with questions, nor does it mean we shouldn't collectively take a stab at interpreting unfamiliar phrases.

 

tl:dr: Consensus happens gradually. Let it take its course.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AndrewC, shut up. Seriously. I'm right about parallel link turns and I was only answering a question.

Debate theory questions should be answered when they are asked. My point still stands: just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There is nothing wrong with learning advanced debate theory.

I've heard this term used on the college circuit in judge's RFDs before on more than one occasion.

I never said he should call it that in a round, but understanding different types of turns aids in the ability to answer them.

 

So cool it. This is why people don't like you.

 

simo14: your question was valid and I hope I answered it.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also, never call it a "parallel turn". nobody will know what you're talking about.--AndrewC

 

If nobody will know what you are talking about when you use the term, AndrewC, how did you know to call it a link turn? Seems like it was explained well enough that you were able to figure it out just fine in the time it took you to respond.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol, funny how the jargon's changing as we go...

I explained the phrase "parallel turn" in the context of a "link turn." Jargon hasn't changed. Start paying attention.

btw, what exactly is the difference between a regular old link turn and a "parallel link turn"? Sorry, I guess I've just never been exposed to such "advanced debate theory".

I don't know what you mean by "regular old link turn." There are perpendicular link turns, also. And straight link turns. Internal link turns. There is a more specific name for everything, I'm sure. I'm not an expert on everything (I know this comes as quite a surprise), but I knew the answer to the question posed, so I answered our novice friend's question.

AndrewC, seriously. I'm done with this. Cool down your temper and maybe you'll start making some friends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if most debaters/ judges in your area know what it means, then go for it.

 

What's cooler than cool is how you said this after I said you should say it.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I explained the phrase "parallel turn" in the context of a "link turn." Jargon hasn't changed. Start paying attention.

 

I don't know what you mean by "regular old link turn." There are perpendicular link turns, also. And straight link turns. Internal link turns. There is a more specific name for everything, I'm sure. I'm not an expert on everything (I know this comes as quite a surprise), but I knew the answer to the question posed, so I answered our novice friend's question.

AndrewC, seriously. I'm done with this. Cool down your temper and maybe you'll start making some friends.

 

quoted for the truth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL. AndrewC deleted his post.

No, I deleted his post. If he's not going to tone it down I'm just going to delete the trolling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, I deleted his post. If he's not going to tone it down I'm just going to delete the trolling.

 

Mod power!

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...