Jump to content
Lt. Dan

Abuse in T debates

Recommended Posts

Many judges when asked how they evaluate topicality, they will say something to the effect of “well, I’d prefer that you debate about substance issues, but if you win a clear abuse story, I’ll pull the trigger on T”. The problem with saying things like “in round abuse is a voter” or even “potential abuse is a voter” is that it’s just silly…

 

Most people are on the same page as to why in round abuse is a horrible standard for evaluating T. It’s never abusive for the aff to link out of disads that don’t link to their plan - making in round abuse a voter forces the aff to defend disads that don’t apply because they’re afraid that saying “no link” will suddenly make the neg’s T violation more legitimate. The second reason is that making in round abuse necessary to win T debates forces the neg to purposely waste their 1nc time reading args that don’t link just to “prove abuse”. Why should the neg have to waste 1nc time reading wind disad to a CTL case just to prove in round abuse? And conversely - if the neg doesn’t waste time proving in round abuse, every aff becomes topical as long as the aff says “no in round abuse - we defended all of their disads”.

 

I might be in the minority here, but I don’t think potential abuse should be a “voter” either - it seems to me like potential abuse is inevitable under every interpretation. Every interpretation has arguments that you can’t read. The neg can say “The USfg = the United States of Brazil - that’s potential abuse because we don’t get our Brazil economy disads - voter”. Really?

 

The neg should never be required to prove in round or potential abuse (unless the aff wins reasonability and the neg wants to somehow prove that the aff’s interp isn’t reasonable topical…) Potential/ in round abuse should always be reasons to prefer your interpretation, ie saying “the arguments that their interpretation excludes are better for debate than the ground that our interp excludes” rather than simply a reason to reject an interpretation or be an independent voting issue.

 

Thoughts?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Many judges when asked how they evaluate topicality, they will say something to the effect of “well, I’d prefer that you debate about substance issues, but if you win a clear abuse story, I’ll pull the trigger on T”. The problem with saying things like “in round abuse is a voter” or even “potential abuse is a voter” is that it’s just silly…

 

Most people are on the same page as to why in round abuse is a horrible standard for evaluating T. It’s never abusive for the aff to link out of disads that don’t link to their plan - making in round abuse a voter forces the aff to defend disads that don’t apply because they’re afraid that saying “no link” will suddenly make the neg’s T violation more legitimate. The second reason is that making in round abuse necessary to win T debates forces the neg to purposely waste their 1nc time reading args that don’t link just to “prove abuse”. Why should the neg have to waste 1nc time reading wind disad to a CTL case just to prove in round abuse? And conversely - if the neg doesn’t waste time proving in round abuse, every aff becomes topical as long as the aff says “no in round abuse - we defended all of their disads”.

 

I might be in the minority here, but I don’t think potential abuse should be a “voter” either - it seems to me like potential abuse is inevitable under every interpretation. Every interpretation has arguments that you can’t read. The neg can say “The USfg = the United States of Brazil - that’s potential abuse because we don’t get our Brazil economy disads - voter”. Really?

 

The neg should never be required to prove in round or potential abuse (unless the aff wins reasonability and the neg wants to somehow prove that the aff’s interp isn’t reasonable topical…) Potential/ in round abuse should always be reasons to prefer your interpretation, ie saying “the arguments that their interpretation excludes are better for debate than the ground that our interp excludes” rather than simply a reason to reject an interpretation or be an independent voting issue.

 

Thoughts?

 

In round abuse is ALWAYS a voter and potential abuse is debatable.

 

It is ALWAYS abusive for the aff to jump out of politics when they don't link to it because that is what the T violation is about. It gives that as a reason why specing the agent is bad, and when the aff does that exactly, it gives alot of ground to the argument that the neg couldn't have won the round from the beginning because the aff will just spike out of every link possible.

 

On the other hand, potential abuse can be a voter too. Debate is too establish rules, it is not always what a team did in round, but what they justify in rounds to come. If one team wins that the other teams interp justifies bad things, they can win the round. The argument that rounds spill over is good, and when it is made, the round comes down to the justifications of the interpretation.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is why I never try to prove in round abuse with T. I usually just use it as a time suck.

 

On the other hand, potential abuse can be a voter too. Debate is too establish rules, it is not always what a team did in round, but what they justify in rounds to come. If one team wins that the other teams interp justifies bad things, they can win the round. The argument that rounds spill over is good, and when it is made, the round comes down to the justifications of the interpretation.

 

wrong-o. the judge only has the jurisdiction to evaluate what happens in the round. anything that happened before or will happen after is not his concern and cannot be a part of his/her decision making process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In round abuse is ALWAYS a voter and potential abuse is debatable.

 

It is ALWAYS abusive for the aff to jump out of politics when they don't link to it because that is what the T violation is about. It gives that as a reason why specing the agent is bad, and when the aff does that exactly, it gives alot of ground to the argument that the neg couldn't have won the round from the beginning because the aff will just spike out of every link possible.

 

 

This is at best a reason why your interpretation (that allows politics ground) is good. If the aff read a plan that doesn't link to politics, there's no reason why he should be punished for saying "no link" if he wins that his interp is better than the neg's interp on the T debate.

 

What I'm saying is the fact that politics was read isn't a reason in and of itself that the neg's interp should be prefered, or that the aff should be punished for being non topical. What happens on other flows should never impact what happens on the T debate.

 

 

 

On the other hand, potential abuse can be a voter too. Debate is too establish rules, it is not always what a team did in round, but what they justify in rounds to come. If one team wins that the other teams interp justifies bad things, they can win the round. The argument that rounds spill over is good, and when it is made, the round comes down to the justifications of the interpretation.

 

 

Sort of - potential abuse is a good argument to make (ie, what happens in this specific round isn't important - what's more important is what types of debate the aff's interp justifies). However, that does NOT mean that potential abuse should be a voter - it's just an argument to prefer your interp. Making it a voter means that the neg would win every debate even if the aff's interp is the best.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I might be in the minority here, but I don’t think potential abuse should be a “voter” either - it seems to me like potential abuse is inevitable under every interpretation. Every interpretation has arguments that you can’t read. The neg can say “The USfg = the United States of Brazil - that’s potential abuse because we don’t get our Brazil economy disads - voter”. Really?

This is a ground issue, not a potential abuse issue (like your standard quoted below). For example, if aff specifies Congress passes plan, the ground issue is that they don't link to your Courts disad. The potential abuse issue is when they don't specify a branch in the 1AC and could spec out of your disad in the 2AC. Those would both be standards to support an interpretation that the aff must defend all three branches.

 

The neg should never be required to prove in round or potential abuse (unless the aff wins reasonability and the neg wants to somehow prove that the aff’s interp isn’t reasonable topical…) Potential/ in round abuse should always be reasons to prefer your interpretation, ie saying “the arguments that their interpretation excludes are better for debate than the ground that our interp excludes” rather than simply a reason to reject an interpretation or be an independent voting issue.

Good way to argue T debates, and a good answer to aff saying "no in round abuse." Neg should always provide specific reasons why specific arguments are core neg ground and would be excluded by aff's interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
wrong-o. the judge only has the jurisdiction to evaluate what happens in the round. anything that happened before or will happen after is not his concern and cannot be a part of his/her decision making process.

This is a silly way to think of the issue. No one has ever suggested that future judges will be bound by the Topicality decisions made by another judge. However, it is reasonable to suspect that a judge's voting record is tracked by other debaters...if you have a history of rejecting politics disads, smart negs will avoid politics in front of you and smart affs will make good defensive analytics against politics, seeing your biases. In that sense, what happens in this round will affect future rounds for the judge.

 

More specifically, topicality is often governed by "reasonability" which means that the community standard can determine what is topical. We call "core of the topic" the cases that were put out at camps and were run frequently. If everyone voted down nuclear cases in September, no one would be running nuclear cases in October. Topicality debates definitely have an effect on future rounds, even if it is non-binding.

 

However, the potential abuse analysis is always about which interpretation is better for debate - sure, aff may not have made an abusive argument in this round, but the fact that they could hangs over the debate and could lead to really crappy/unfair debates. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask judges to vote on this kind of conjecture or to conceive of T debates in this way, since all policymaking is a vote for one interpretation of the future over another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In round abuse is ALWAYS a voter and potential abuse is debatable.

 

It is ALWAYS abusive for the aff to jump out of politics when they don't link to it because that is what the T violation is about. It gives that as a reason why specing the agent is bad, and when the aff does that exactly, it gives alot of ground to the argument that the neg couldn't have won the round from the beginning because the aff will just spike out of every link possible.

 

On the other hand, potential abuse can be a voter too. Debate is too establish rules, it is not always what a team did in round, but what they justify in rounds to come. If one team wins that the other teams interp justifies bad things, they can win the round. The argument that rounds spill over is good, and when it is made, the round comes down to the justifications of the interpretation.

If they're winning a good counter interpretation with 2 pieces of evidence, why does your "abuse" story matter if they're putting defense on it and running disads to your interpretation? Your interpretation of abuse is subjective and theres no way to evaluate it. I dont think its abusive to run 3 counterplans and a K in a round, but others would differ. Similarly, I dont think its bad to no link out of every disad if the aff has a good counterinterpretation that solves it for them.

 

this is why I never try to prove in round abuse with T. I usually just use it as a time suck.

Not a winning strat to put arguments in the 1NC you are definitely not going to go for ;x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Topicality, like all theory spills over like jeff said, but in another way as well - theory arguments create a reasonable set of expectations for each judge. If a judge votes that a certian practice (in this instance a case's topicality) as not meeting the resolution people hear about this / experience this. The implication being that if the next day of the tourn an extremely similiar debate were to occur, in front of the same judge, the same decision should be cast. Without grounding debates in the past experiences then debate loses a lot. Another example would be conditionality, if a judge votes for condo bad then a team is more likely to run it in front of them because the judge is willing to vote on this issue.

 

As for the example T debate, to me it would depend on the DAs to the interp, analysis on the counterinterp, and the biggest would be the abuse story. Its sort of hard to know w/o any specifics.

 

I agree w/the no links, but I do not think that good debates happen when there are more then 3 worlds (squo, cp/k, cp/k) pref squo, cp, k. Anymore and the negative block is just too easy because of the nature of the game mixed with conditionality.

 

If the other team ever knows you, you'll get screwed running timesucks. Its a dangerous practice that can backfire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for the example T debate, to me it would depend on the DAs to the interp, analysis on the counterinterp, and the biggest would be the abuse story. Its sort of hard to know w/o any specifics.

 

I agree w/the no links, but I do not think that good debates happen when there are more then 3 worlds (squo, cp/k, cp/k) pref squo, cp, k. Anymore and the negative block is just too easy because of the nature of the game mixed with conditionality.

 

If the other team ever knows you, you'll get screwed running timesucks. Its a dangerous practice that can backfire.

There's still no way to evaluate what's abusive since its pretty subjective, which was what my above post was about, and Lt Dan.

 

It also seems like your assertion that 'multiple worlds' are bad debates. There have been countless debates where thats just a good negative strat; just take a look at the finals of the NDT with I think 4 counterplans? and kansas won. Multiple worlds is a silly concept because they aren't worlds; they're just different opportunity costs that the neg is showing to the judge.

 

Timesucks? I think those are just when the 2ac misallocates their time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes its subjective, but that's debate and if debated correctly there's a lot less subjectivity. i'm focusing more on the mutiple worlds portion. Yes, I do assert that and its not what i'd say is a good negative strategy is and there is a fairly large segment of the community that would most likely believe that 4 cps and a k isn't a good debate. Just because a good negative team does it doesn't make it a good debate. The trend of mutiple CPs at the NDT is horrible. In the finals of the ndt this year kansas did win, but a lot of that win was premised off of flaws in the negative block. Though the wake team kicked major ass, they dropped the ball a bit.

 

Your argument is that they're 'justjust different opportunity costs that the neg is showing to the judge.' But the debate changes significantly when the plan is compared to

a PIC w/a net ben and DA

Squo + da

K (which is a completely different round from the rest)

different PIC that links to the da but has an inbedded nb

 

These are all different impact calculus and comparisions then PIC with das/nbs or K or the squo and das or even theory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes its subjective, but that's debate and if debated correctly there's a lot less subjectivity. i'm focusing more on the mutiple worlds portion. Yes, I do assert that and its not what i'd say is a good negative strategy is and there is a fairly large segment of the community that would most likely believe that 4 cps and a k isn't a good debate. Just because a good negative team does it doesn't make it a good debate. The trend of mutiple CPs at the NDT is horrible. In the finals of the ndt this year kansas did win, but a lot of that win was premised off of flaws in the negative block. Though the wake team kicked major ass, they dropped the ball a bit.

 

Your argument is that they're 'justjust different opportunity costs that the neg is showing to the judge.' But the debate changes significantly when the plan is compared to

a PIC w/a net ben and DA

Squo + da

K (which is a completely different round from the rest)

different PIC that links to the da but has an inbedded nb

 

These are all different impact calculus and comparisions then PIC with das/nbs or K or the squo and das or even theory

Uh, yeah theres some degree of subjectivity, but there is also alot of objectivity if you use competing interpretations and evidence comparison to determine the limits debate on T instead of an arbitrary 'abuse story' thats just the aff whining that they suck and cant cut T evidence.

 

How does the debate change? Yes they're different positions, but they're testing the aff from different angles; so it seems just like a conditionality debate about testing multiple opportunity costs. They're all reasons to vote negative, and none are advocacies, so I dont see what the problem is. There have been ALOT more teams than kansas using 'multiple counterplans.' I ran cap and trade/negotiate with the WTO counterplans multiple rounds this year. Colleyville, (insert another good school here) have all done the same - its really not 'abusive' or a bad strategy. If you ask any of the judges that have judged them (or even me for that matter) they would say they enjoyed the debate; not because all the arguments were the judge's favorite or what they use to go for, but because of the arguments that went on.

 

Its silly to just dismiss 'multiple worlds' and call it abusive. The aff should just man up, have a good defense of their aff, and have offense in the 2ac. It certaintly was never a problem for my partner and I to hit multiple counterplans in a round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its not that I can't man-up or have had problems, its that in my opinion better debates focus highly on case and a few das or cp or k, with a ton of depth. Just because it is done or can be doesn't make it the best way to debate.

 

Speaking of dismissing things, the reasons I give for why that multiple worlds are bad isn't really responded to...that it creates strategic differences in debates

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking of dismissing things, the reasons I give for why that multiple worlds are bad isn't really responded to...that it creates strategic differences in debates

no - it forces the aff to think critically and put their best answers on a flow which is probably better for debate. So what if there's a 'strategic difference' suck it up, theres always going to be a strategic difference in every debate, only proves you should make your best answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its not the same as when you compare the different possible worlds as just plan v cp or squo or world of alt. and when you can run 4 cps and a K, kick out of them and even the offense that you might be able to access can be handled by the block along with your best answers

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is why I never try to prove in round abuse with T. I usually just use it as a time suck.

 

wrong-o. the judge only has the jurisdiction to evaluate what happens in the round. anything that happened before or will happen after is not his concern and cannot be a part of his/her decision making process.

 

Way to tip your hand to future competitors!

 

Also, I don't see where you get off assuming you know what I think my jurisdiction is. I think I can vote on anything and, further, I think I can vote on all kinds of things which happened in previous rounds, at previous tournaments or even things which might happen in the future! Beyond that, I think it's clear based on things like kritiks of language and feminism and the advent of spreading and even Topicality that we can change the way future debaters will behave, to the point of wholly changing the game, based on how judges vote. Voting with an eye to how that vote may impact the future can be pretty legit depending on how it's argued.

 

As to abuse stories, I think that only really lousy debaters just read crap that doesn't link to prove abuse. There are lots of creative ways to prove abuse beyond just extending no-link answers (although I do love that old standby, just because lots of debaters still throw in no-link answers on every 2AC block just as a knee-jerk reaction).

 

The only real problem I have with Abuse is that I think it's actually a sub-category of another, much larger voting issue. Abuse is largely the same thing as Ground, the major difference being "I ran this and it didn't work" vs. "I knew I couldn't run this b/c it wouldn't work." Ground is the key to fairness. If there isn't fair ground for everyone to work with, then the game's not fair. If the game's not fair, it won't be fun anymore and everyone will stop playing. If people stop playing, then they can't LEARN anything from debate and they lose a force from their lives which previously had driven their desire for education. And that's why all issues of Abuse, Fairness and Ground all are actually just Education voting issues. The only other two VI's I can think of for T which are actually legit and separately defensible are "Jurisdiction" and "Rules of the Game." As made clear above, my default position is that I can vote on anything, but if there's a good reason for me to not be allowed to vote on something, I'll recognize that my reach may have limits. Also, last I heard, T is still a mandatory VI at NFL Nationals, so I'd be willing to vote based on precedent if it was argued well.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its not the same as when you compare the different possible worlds as just plan v cp or squo or world of alt. and when you can run 4 cps and a K, kick out of them and even the offense that you might be able to access can be handled by the block along with your best answers

first, 4 cp's and a k dont make it impossible to debate - in the finals of the ndt this year, kansas won when there were 4 cp's in the debate, your beef is with 4 oppurtunity costs and a different worldview, not conditionally as a whole. either way, this kind of debate forces the aff to think critically and strategically about the arguments in the debate,

for example, straight turning 2 of the counterplans that's net benefits link to one of the other counterplans allows you to control a large direction of the debate which can swing the debate in the direction of the aff which is a pretty strategic action. Straight turn the k and see how fucked the neg is. even if they get the block, the fact you have your best answers on the flow makes it harder for the negative to give that block. Debates hard, if you dont like it quit or you can suck up and debate better when theres 4 cps in a debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes they're different positions' date=' but they're testing the aff from different angles; so it seems just like a conditionality debate about testing multiple opportunity costs. They're all reasons to vote negative, and none are advocacies, so I dont see what the problem is.[/quote']
its not that I can't man-up or have had problems, its that in my opinion better debates focus highly on case and a few das or cp or k, with a ton of depth. Just because it is done or can be doesn't make it the best way to debate.

 

Speaking of dismissing things, the reasons I give for why that multiple worlds are bad isn't really responded to...that it creates strategic differences in debates

Actually I answered it...

But it seems like this is turning into a conditionality debate. Unfortunately not all teams (especially my partner and I) had the opportunity to have a lengthy case neg to every team; so I got really good at two generic counterplans/politics/protectionism/T/K so that I almost rarely went for case turns. The best way to debate is whatever way wins and is educational. So for us, this was the best way because had 0 coaches to cut case negs, and my time was spent getting specific links to top teams for positions I thought I could outsmart them on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
first, 4 cp's and a k dont make it impossible to debate - in the finals of the ndt this year, kansas won when there were 4 cp's in the debate, your beef is with 4 oppurtunity costs and a different worldview, not conditionally as a whole. either way, this kind of debate forces the aff to think critically and strategically about the arguments in the debate,

for example, straight turning 2 of the counterplans that's net benefits link to one of the other counterplans allows you to control a large direction of the debate which can swing the debate in the direction of the aff which is a pretty strategic action. Straight turn the k and see how fucked the neg is. even if they get the block, the fact you have your best answers on the flow makes it harder for the negative to give that block. Debates hard, if you dont like it quit or you can suck up and debate better when theres 4 cps in a debate.

 

I'll agree that its with multiple opportunity costs or multiple worldviews, not that any one is conditional because I feel that it changes the nature of the game in a bad way. Its not that it makes it impossible and yes, it happens and happens a lot more often at tournaments like the NDT. Yes, I'm aware of how to handle this type of debate, my question is if its good for the activity. Just because you straight turn the net benefits does not mean that you're good to go and odds are you will most likely straight turn a DA or 2 to stick the negative with it regardless. If one of the CPs accesses a turn then you can conceede the turn and kick the other CP and answer the turn. On the K i'm pretty sure that one or 2 straight turns could be easy pickings. Even if its strategic, the negative can still weasle out that way. The negative isn't fucked just because you have your best answers, the block is big and seems to grow a lot when you can take worlds away.

 

Unfortunately not all teams (especially my partner and I) had the opportunity to have a lengthy case neg to every team; so I got really good at two generic counterplans/politics/protectionism/T/K so that I almost rarely went for case turns. The best way to debate is whatever way wins and is educational. So for us, this was the best way because had 0 coaches to cut case negs, and my time was spent getting specific links to top teams for positions I thought I could outsmart them on.

 

I understand this well, I was on a very small HS squad and I chose to be on one where i'm at in college. If you're on a small squad like you are, your best bet is to truely have a bread and butter position, the K works really well. If you're more into policy, one maybee two DAs and answers to everything that could possibly be said against the position. Couple it with a broad CP that solves almost all topical affirmatives and I don't see the problem. Its when you run 2 CPs that I think the debate quality decreases a bit, though moreso when there are 3 or 4. There are just too many questions about how the different opp. costs interact with each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
first, 4 cp's and a k dont make it impossible to debate - in the finals of the ndt this year, kansas won when there were 4 cp's in the debate, your beef is with 4 oppurtunity costs and a different worldview, not conditionally as a whole. either way, this kind of debate forces the aff to think critically and strategically about the arguments in the debate,

for example, straight turning 2 of the counterplans that's net benefits link to one of the other counterplans allows you to control a large direction of the debate which can swing the debate in the direction of the aff which is a pretty strategic action. Straight turn the k and see how fucked the neg is. even if they get the block, the fact you have your best answers on the flow makes it harder for the negative to give that block. Debates hard, if you dont like it quit or you can suck up and debate better when theres 4 cps in a debate.

 

I'll agree that its with multiple opportunity costs or multiple worldviews, not that any one is conditional because I feel that it changes the nature of the game in a bad way. Its not that it makes it impossible and yes, it happens and happens a lot more often at tournaments like the NDT. Yes, I'm aware of how to handle this type of debate, my question is if its good for the activity. Just because you straight turn the net benefits does not mean that you're good to go and odds are you will most likely straight turn a DA or 2 to stick the negative with it regardless. If one of the CPs accesses a turn then you can conceede the turn and kick the other CP and answer the turn. On the K i'm pretty sure that one or 2 straight turns could be easy pickings. Even if its strategic, the negative can still weasle out that way. The negative isn't fucked just because you have your best answers, the block is big and seems to grow a lot when you can take worlds away.

 

Unfortunately not all teams (especially my partner and I) had the opportunity to have a lengthy case neg to every team; so I got really good at two generic counterplans/politics/protectionism/T/K so that I almost rarely went for case turns. The best way to debate is whatever way wins and is educational. So for us, this was the best way because had 0 coaches to cut case negs, and my time was spent getting specific links to top teams for positions I thought I could outsmart them on.

 

I understand this well, I was on a very small HS squad and I chose to be on one where i'm at in college. If you're on a small squad like you are, your best bet is to truely have a bread and butter position, the K works really well. If you're more into policy, one maybee two DAs and answers to everything that could possibly be said against the position. Couple it with a broad CP that solves almost all topical affirmatives and I don't see the problem. Its when you run 2 CPs that I think the debate quality decreases a bit, though moreso when there are 3 or 4. There are just too many questions about how the different opp. costs interact with each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is why I never try to prove in round abuse with T. I usually just use it as a time suck.

 

 

 

wrong-o. the judge only has the jurisdiction to evaluate what happens in the round. anything that happened before or will happen after is not his concern and cannot be a part of his/her decision making process.

 

 

this wrong-o i boring and slightly rude. Its not like your spitting out debate factiods... because the first rule of debate almost everything is debatable.

 

First off if the judge only has the jurishdiction to evaluate what happens in the round... then why can't the message the debate round sends be a voter. Can't the judge argue that the round should polarize the idea of debate when it comes to theoretical issues, or else every debate you would watch would be hyper shallow on the theory side... which contrary to popular ideas can be very good and entertaining debates, if two teams are using minusha.

 

Next potential abuse should ba a voter for one simple reason. If something means that you could easily skew my links to my DA's because you have an extra topical plank to your plan that would allow an abusive spike. I shouldn't have to run the DA to win the topicality. Simply by creating this standard that their has to be abuse your saying you have to make an unstrategic and stupid decision for me to vote for you. While yes i do prefer strategies that involve a T, a CP, and a DA that work together such as an offset counter-plan strategy. In which for the other team to beat you substantively they almost have to violate the T.

 

 

also on your first standard so if another team steals my plan text before the round, like blantantly grabs it ahnds it to thier coach and he runs away with it. I can't amke that an in round abuse arguement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Way to tip your hand to future competitors!

 

Also, I don't see where you get off assuming you know what I think my jurisdiction is. I think I can vote on anything and, further, I think I can vote on all kinds of things which happened in previous rounds, at previous tournaments or even things which might happen in the future! Beyond that, I think it's clear based on things like kritiks of language and feminism and the advent of spreading and even Topicality that we can change the way future debaters will behave, to the point of wholly changing the game, based on how judges vote. Voting with an eye to how that vote may impact the future can be pretty legit depending on how it's argued.

 

As to abuse stories, I think that only really lousy debaters just read crap that doesn't link to prove abuse. There are lots of creative ways to prove abuse beyond just extending no-link answers (although I do love that old standby, just because lots of debaters still throw in no-link answers on every 2AC block just as a knee-jerk reaction).

 

The only real problem I have with Abuse is that I think it's actually a sub-category of another, much larger voting issue. Abuse is largely the same thing as Ground, the major difference being "I ran this and it didn't work" vs. "I knew I couldn't run this b/c it wouldn't work." Ground is the key to fairness. If there isn't fair ground for everyone to work with, then the game's not fair. If the game's not fair, it won't be fun anymore and everyone will stop playing. If people stop playing, then they can't LEARN anything from debate and they lose a force from their lives which previously had driven their desire for education. And that's why all issues of Abuse, Fairness and Ground all are actually just Education voting issues. The only other two VI's I can think of for T which are actually legit and separately defensible are "Jurisdiction" and "Rules of the Game." As made clear above, my default position is that I can vote on anything, but if there's a good reason for me to not be allowed to vote on something, I'll recognize that my reach may have limits. Also, last I heard, T is still a mandatory VI at NFL Nationals, so I'd be willing to vote based on precedent if it was argued well.

 

 

right on!

 

the trick to no links in the 2ac is not taking out your link turns ! o yeah so many times people mishandle that debate!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
what? the point is to try to get out of the disad. If you put like 3 diverse link turns with a no link then for the neg to get out of the disad they have to concede the no link, so how does this screw over the aff? the negative cant concede the no link and get out of the link turn and still go for the DA.

 

 

Thats confusing as hell. It can't hurt the aff but the neg can't get out of the DA either... the Aff is in a win win situation if they do that. the diversity of the link turns provide a way for the aff to access the advantages even without the neg being able to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thats confusing as hell. It can't hurt the aff but the neg can't get out of the DA either... the Aff is in a win win situation if they do that. the diversity of the link turns provide a way for the aff to access the advantages even without the neg being able to.

 

So the negative keeps the DA in until the 2NR and then concedes the no link. They preserve the time tradeoff and cockblock you from getting the DA as an advantage.

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...