Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
meanmedianmode

Making reasonability winnable

Recommended Posts

The most prevalent argument against reasonability as a framework to evaluate topicality, and the only one I can honestly recall hearing, is that it is subjective and thus arbitrary. The way reasonability is generally argued (if we present and meet a reasonable interpretation, no voter), this is undoubtedly true. However, it isn't inate to the framework. It would be equally arbitrary to say "evaluate T based on which interpretation competes better", if we didn't have a system for evaluating that competition. Ergo, the problem with reasonability is that we don't have a metric for evaluating it. So let's come up with one, and reasonability will be usable.

 

One thought, we could categorize interpretation standards as either "relative" or "absolute". Relative standards would be of the annoying, useless sort, like "we limit out 2 more cases than they do" or "we guarantee a link for the budget tradeoff disad". Absolute standards would be more universal claims, like "our interpretation limits out all cases that change eligibility requirements" or "their interp guarantees that no disad can possibly be unique". With these distinctions, we could say that it is reasonable for an interpretation to be on teh wrong side of a relative standard, but unreasonable for it to be on the wrong side of an absolute standard. Or, unreasonable for it to be on the wrong side of more absolute standards than the other interp. Like/dislike?

Other thoughts?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Competing interpretations is a race to the bottom - moots key topic lit like the aff - education outweighs fairness. The aff was a good thing to talk about - this is the most fundamental argument the aff has to win to win a T debate.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Competing interpretations is a race to the bottom - moots key topic lit like the aff - education outweighs fairness. The aff was a good thing to talk about - this is the most fundamental argument the aff has to win to win a T debate.

I rarely see the impact to T as being fairness; it seems good teams articulate the impact of cost benefit analysis which is the internal link to education, and vote negative on presumption because if they're not topical, voting affirmative wouldn't be affirming the resolution.

 

No teams ever identify an internal link to reasonability. Ultimately the violation is a reason why they're not reasonable.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the most compelling way to explain reasonability is to say that the aff's only burden is to prove that their interpretation provides sufficient ground to ensure the negative a fair ability to compete in the round. Now, obviously what constitutes sufficient ground is a debate to be had, probably on the standards debate - it just means that the aff doesn't have to win that their interpretation is more limiting or provides better ground, but simply that their limits are not too large for the negative to research and that their ground provides competitive strategies for the negative. This means that even if the neg's claims that they've lost certain ground are true (say, they lose a particular CP or DA), as long as the aff is able to win that the lost ground is not vital to the negative's ability to compete, there's no reason to prefer the negative interpretion since the aff interpretation is sufficiently reasonable.

 

I think this explanation makes sense because it only shifts the paradigm for evaluating the standards and voters debate - those debates still have to be had. It means reasonability isn't an automatic killer arg, but rather a way for the aff to gain leverage - I think this is equivalent to what winning competing interpretations does for the neg. I think this also provides a way to determine whether the aff is "reasonable" based on the debate that was had, rather than the judge arbitrarily evaluating whether they feel that the plan is reasonable (which is sometimes necessary when neither team explains why the plan is or is not reasonable).

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I rarely see the impact to T as being fairness; it seems good teams articulate the impact of cost benefit analysis which is the internal link to education' date=' and vote negative on presumption because if they're not topical, voting affirmative wouldn't be affirming the resolution.

 

No teams ever identify an internal link to reasonability. Ultimately the violation is a reason why they're not reasonable.[/quote']

 

Are you retarded? If the violation is a reason they *aren't* reasonable then their counter-interpretation is a reason they *are* reasonable, A.K.A. an internal link to reasonability.

Edited by Studley Dudley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Reasonability" is all but worthless if the argument is simply "if our interp is reasonable then you vote aff obviously". It's even more worthless to say "if our aff is reasonable we win". Even if the question of "what constitutes reasonable?" was ever correctly answered, there still would not be an offensive reason to vote affirmative. If your interpretation is reasonable, but mine is more reasonable and limits out your aff, who wins? The negative, because you forgot offense.

 

Consider the standard of "Aff Predictability". The 1AC cannot predict the 1NC T violation. The 1AC plan text is unconditional so it cannot change to meet the 1NC interpretation. What does this mean for the aff? Well, there has not been a topic (or aff) in decades where T was not routinely in the 1NC: does that mean there has never been a topical aff?

 

"Ground outweighs limits" is arbitrary because it involves ground standards which are never impacted out ("my spending DA is more important than your consult CP!")

 

"Education outweighs limits" is non-unique because we already learned about your aff. This is also woefully nonsensical because you are comparing a terminal impact to an internal link. Also, is there ANY way of actually proving ANY part of this argument? Why is the education from the aff unique, why is it important, why is it MORE important than the specific limits claim, why is there no education without the aff?

 

"Race to the Bottom" assumes the aff is some kind of special flower. Obviously no interpretation in the history of debate has singled out one solitary aff as non-topical. Also, if the negative DID have some sort of magical card that said that, the aff would just get hosed anyway.

 

"Be reasonable!" - be competent.

 

I don't think there is a compelling reason to vote for reasonability other than "aff predictability"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Reasonability" is all but worthless if the argument is simply "if our interp is reasonable then you vote aff obviously". It's even more worthless to say "if our aff is reasonable we win". Even if the question of "what constitutes reasonable?" was ever correctly answered, there still would not be an offensive reason to vote affirmative. If your interpretation is reasonable, but mine is more reasonable and limits out your aff, who wins? The negative, because you forgot offense.

 

Consider the standard of "Aff Predictability". The 1AC cannot predict the 1NC T violation. The 1AC plan text is unconditional so it cannot change to meet the 1NC interpretation. What does this mean for the aff? Well, there has not been a topic (or aff) in decades where T was not routinely in the 1NC: does that mean there has never been a topical aff?

 

"Ground outweighs limits" is arbitrary because it involves ground standards which are never impacted out ("my spending DA is more important than your consult CP!")

 

"Education outweighs limits" is non-unique because we already learned about your aff. This is also woefully nonsensical because you are comparing a terminal impact to an internal link. Also, is there ANY way of actually proving ANY part of this argument? Why is the education from the aff unique, why is it important, why is it MORE important than the specific limits claim, why is there no education without the aff?

 

"Race to the Bottom" assumes the aff is some kind of special flower. Obviously no interpretation in the history of debate has singled out one solitary aff as non-topical. Also, if the negative DID have some sort of magical card that said that, the aff would just get hosed anyway.

 

"Be reasonable!" - be competent.

 

I don't think there is a compelling reason to vote for reasonability other than "aff predictability"

 

Topicality is a neg-biased position, reasonability is the equalizer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perhaps a reason to err aff in the event of a draw, but how to you quantify the amount by which you err aff? Is it really equalizing the debate if the interpretation of reasonability is "aff wins"? When does the judge choose to vote aff if reasonability is "won", when does the judge vote negative under the same circumstance?

 

And finally, what is love?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you retarded? If the violation is a reason they *aren't* reasonable then their counter-interpretation is a reason they *are* reasonable, A.K.A. an internal link to reasonability.

Hey pal, I wasn't aware that the mature way to disagree was to neg rep people, but hey what do I know :(

 

Most counterinterpretations aren't very good, and the ones that are have substantive reasons why they either create better limits/ground. That make sense buddy?

 

lol @ reasonability being an equalizer. Did you just get beat on T a lot when you were young? :(

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey pal' date=' I wasn't aware that the mature way to disagree was to neg rep people, but hey what do I know :([/quote']

No, that was just because you made an absolutely retarded as shit comment while being condescending about it.

 

Most counterinterpretations aren't very good, and the ones that are have substantive reasons why they either create better limits/ground. That make sense buddy?

Doesn't answer the fact that a counter-interpretation is an internal link to reasonability, making what you said totally asinine. And to be fair, most violations are just as bad. Or do you think no aff is topical ever, since "Most counterinterpetations aren't very good" (whereas most interpretations are?). And good ones are good under *your* model of debate. Yes, if you think competing interpretations is good you're going to say that counter-interpretations that compete better are "better" interpretations. You're an idiot. That make sense buddy?

 

lol @ reasonability being an equalizer. Did you just get beat on T a lot when you were young? :(

I don't recall losing a single aff round on T since I was a novice. Did you ever learn how to beat Kato your senior year, or were you stuck losing to Westwood E?
Edited by Studley Dudley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
perhaps a reason to err aff in the event of a draw, but how to you quantify the amount by which you err aff? Is it really equalizing the debate if the interpretation of reasonability is "aff wins"? When does the judge choose to vote aff if reasonability is "won", when does the judge vote negative under the same circumstance?

That's why reasonability is an arbitrary notion. It's not that "aff wins" it's that there is more leeway on the standards debate. I.E. if the neg has an interp that has only 5 topical affs, but the affirmative has 7, yes under competing interpretations the 5 aff list is more predictable, and therefore "better". But does that make the 7 case list undpredictable, or worse? Under a reasonable interpretation of the topic, depending on whether or not the aff can win their interpretation is predictable (just not as predictable as the negs) I say vote aff. If the affs counter-interpretation is unlimiting as hell, say 5 verses 25, it seems like the affs interpretation wouldn't be predictable.

 

I mean, this is a debate I actually had last year.

The neg's t-interp was the government list just without biomass.

Counter-interp was with biomass.

Is 1 more case area really that unlimiting? Depending on the defintion of incentives, maybe. But that doens't mean my interpretation wasn't predictable given it was from a government source. A predictable, albeit worse, interpretation of the topic should not automatically guarantee a neg ballot given equal debating skills of the debaters. The aff can never go for T in the 2ar to beat back the disad. But the neg can go for T in the 2nr when the 1ar impact turns the shit out of their new disad impact scenarios. I think reasonability equalizes the neg's strategic position here. It NEVER hurts the negative to read topicality.

 

And finally, what is love?

Baby don't hurt me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
perhaps a reason to err aff in the event of a draw, but how to you quantify the amount by which you err aff? Is it really equalizing the debate if the interpretation of reasonability is "aff wins"? When does the judge choose to vote aff if reasonability is "won", when does the judge vote negative under the same circumstance?

Right... it's arbitrary b/c there's no metric to determine what is/not reasonable... how about the OP suggestion that reasonability would mute the impact to certain standards arguments... ?

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...