Jump to content
Rhizome

Reasonability: how to be nontopically topical.

Recommended Posts

This thread will work as the groundwork for all discussions related to reasonability! I will be posting a more detailed post within the week of reasonability and how to work and frame the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'd love to hear more about this; i was attempting to putting in a lengthy "competing interpretations bad, reasonability good" portion in my a generic t block and would love any help.

 

so far all i was able to think of was:

 

competing interps bad:

-neg will always be able to outfox the aff with competing interp b/c of time constraints + 11 minute prep for 1NR

-makes judge intervention inevitable, comparing interps is like comparing paintings, they are only 'better' subjectively and there is no universal method of deciding which is better, forces judge to intervene

-words never have a definitive definition [card]

-words never have a meaning of their own [card]

 

reasonability best:

-education

-reasonability isn't a ticket to any affs at all - it would be violated by showing in-round abuse

 

that's all i could think of, but i feel like there should be more stuff i should be able to add on there. anyone have cards or know of files on evason/general args they thought of that could help with making this better?

 

and i had some questions regarding the block i've made:

 

1. the "words never have a definitive definition" point is good, but im not sure how to apply it in respect to a topicality debate, i was thinking about just taking that point out (anyone know how i could actually apply it? usually i ignore it {it's always dropped in addition to the other card} and use the other card)

Edited by ChetanFS
reworded some stuff, added questions

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

competing interps bad:

-neg will always be able to outfox the aff with competing interp b/c of time constraints + 11 minute prep for 1NR

Vacuous - at best a reason there shouldn't be a 1NR.

 

-makes judge intervention inevitable, comparing interps is like comparing paintings, they are only 'better' subjectively and there is no universal method of deciding which is better, forces judge to intervene

That's what standards are for. Even better, that's what impact calculus is for.

 

-words never have a definitive definition [card]

That's why context exists. Also, again, standards

-words never have a meaning of their own [card]

That's why the resolution is a complete sentence.

 

reasonability best:

-education

Go on...

 

T is probably a prerequisite to education because it determines the direction of research on the topic. Despite what you might have heard, research is actually rather important to the education process debate offers.

-reasonability isn't a ticket to any affs at all - it would be violated by showing in-round abuse

Arbitrary alternative - is the aff not allowed to say "no link" to a DA anymore? Also, this probably leads to terrible forms of debate where the neg just asserts they were "abused" and may even read shitty DAs to bait the aff into linking out. I also find it amusing this is your alternative to competing interpretations considering one of your standards for rejection was "judge intervention".

 

that's all i could think of, but i feel like there should be more stuff i should be able to add on there. anyone have cards or know of files on evason/general args they thought of that could help with making this better?

 

1. Aff predictability - aff couldn't predict the 1NC T interpretation as proven by the small handful of rounds in the last 10 years that DIDNT have T in the 1NC. Hell, by the standards of the average 1NC, no aff has ever been topical ever.

2. Ground outweighs limits - if the neg can debate the 1AC, voting the 1AC down on T sets a bad precedent that encourages moving away from substantive debate.

 

anything else is probably not offense (at least I cannot think of any argument I've heard on a reasonability flow that was offense except for these 2), and most of the stuff people say on reasonability barely constitutes defense.

 

Seriously though, just read a counter interpretation that subsumes most of their offense but includes your aff (such as an interpretation with external limits that don't exclude the plan mechanism of the 1AC)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Offense-defense paradigm bad is a reason to prefer reasonability. It is a no risk proposition for the negative, making the argument inherently neg biased. Reasonability is the only way to even the playing fields.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Offense-defense paradigm bad is a reason to prefer reasonability. It is a no risk proposition for the negative, making the argument inherently neg biased. Reasonability is the only way to even the playing fields.

 

a good sub-point for aff predictability, as another justification for a higher threshold to vote against the affirmatives interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Offense-defense paradigm bad is a reason to prefer reasonability. It is a no risk proposition for the negative, making the argument inherently neg biased. Reasonability is the only way to even the playing fields.

 

This is also an argument for why RVI's are legit, and literally 99.9% of the community thinks that's stupid.

 

Reasonability is better used as an argument for why contextuality is a better standard than debatability. E.G. just because research is more limited in a world of the negs interp, that's silly b/c it's not educational b/c it's out of context. Reasonability is nothing more than a framing argument for why education of the aff comes before the loss of some neg arguments.

 

The whole 'evening the playing field' args typically are subjective. I'd recommend framing it as a 'our impact is bigger' arg than 'you're being unfair oh noz!' arg.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, what the fuck? Worst ad hominem ever? That's not the justification for an RVI, it's a reason you should hold the negative to a higher threshold on topicality debates. Just because Logical Policy maker justifies severance doesn't make it a shitty argument (E.G. it's in your [Your as in Ziegler] condo good blocks.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait, what the fuck? Worst ad hominem ever? That's not the justification for an RVI, it's a reason you should hold the negative to a higher threshold on topicality debates. Just because Logical Policy maker justifies severance doesn't make it a shitty argument (E.G. it's in your [Your as in Ziegler] condo good blocks.)

 

No doubt you should be making a side bias argument on conditionality debates. All I'm saying is that, if we replace 'reasonablity' with 'RVI', you're warrants justify RVI's. Look - I'll even do that:

 

Offense-defense paradigm bad is a reason to prefer RVI's. It is a no risk proposition for the negative, making the argument inherently neg biased. RVI is the only way to even the playing fields.

 

The reason I say that warrant isn't that helpful is because if the neg goes for T exclusively in the 2NR, the 'no risk argument' analysis doesn't make sense anymore. Just like an RVI. If that's the boat being rocked in the 2NR, it's an all-or-nothing move for the neg.

 

This is why contextualizing reasonability as a framing device for holding education prior to fairness is a better argument. Because even if the neg is all in on T (even as early as the 1NC, in 1-off framework debates being a prime example), it doesn't mean that their interp isn't arbitrary in the context of the aff. Aff contextualization is key because of the regressive nature of competing interps - you can always find a Black's Law definition that excludes the aff. Even if your standard for competing interpretations being ok is for the interp to be contextual, who defines contextual? Is this an expert in the field? Talking about the concept in general? Talking about the aff exactly? The obvious arbitrariness of any stance either way means that crucial education could get thrown to the wayside, especially since there's rarely, if ever, a pure community consensus on what a particular word or phrase means. This short circuits limits arguments quite effectively because, since there is no universal interp by which to base research on, the limits args by the neg just don't make sense. The only thing the community has ever had is a 'general guess', which is why it doesn't make sense to hold affs to a higher standard on T than that.

 

Note that if the neg is all on T at any point of the debate, this argument is just a big way of saying, "Even if we're not the most topical aff on the topic, we're good enough. Don't reject us - reject the neg because their interp would exclude our education and our education is good for x, y, z reasons."

 

EDIT: This is in the context of T debates. The arguments are substantively more different in a world of general theory like Condo.

Edited by dziegler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vacuous - at best a reason there shouldn't be a 1NR.

 

1. what do you mean by 'vacuous'?

 

2. the advantage is given the most to topicality rather then other args (which can be consolidated much more efficiently + not as easy to multiply by analytically with tons of time)

 

3. we can't eliminate the 1NR altogether, at the very least we should give the affirmative leeway on uneducational argumentation that is given a significant advantage through this type of speech-order-time structure

 

i realized i have phrased this point terribly, i was trying to get at something like this:

 

The multiplying nature of topicality argumentation ensures that because of the time bias the neg would almost always win this type of debate which would lead to one-sided debates, and everyone quitting

 

anyone know how to phrase it more eloquently? the first part ["multiplying nature of topicality argumentation"]

 

 

That's what standards are for. Even better, that's what impact calculus is for.

 

1. but which standard is "the" standard? why should these standards be used at all? by 'universal method' of comparison, i mean a universal method that extends outside the debate account

 

2. as for 'that's what standards are for,' c/a neg can always outfox [previous point]

 

any ideas for an easier way i can claim judge intervention exists in competing interps too? that point was really stupid, but i needed to negate judge intervention offense VS reasonability {although when it comes down to standard impact calc, im sure i could argue other standards outweigh}

 

 

That's why context exists. Also, again, standards

 

eh... this point is worthless, i did say i have no idea how to apply it. ill probably delete it seeing there's no advantage this point could give me.

 

That's why the resolution is a complete sentence.

 

1. but the interpretation drawn upon by the negative does not assume x word within the context of the resolution

 

2. this point is offense against 'interpretations' which are specific to one word and when the definition doesn't assume the context of the resolution in a debate round

 

Go on...

 

here's the entire point from my block:

 

Education – keeps majority focus of debate on educational topics, knowledge gained from topicality is miniscule in comparison to kritiks, disads, counterplans, and case arguments; education should be valued above everything else, it is the reason we debate and keeps debate intellectually instigating, without education in debate, everyone would quit from lack of interest

 

T is probably a prerequisite to education because it determines the direction of research on the topic. Despite what you might have heard, research is actually rather important to the education process debate offers.

 

1. reasonability kills your offense - with reasonability the affirmative must still be within the realm of the resolution

 

2. debate research exists when topicality is decided through a reasonability framework as well

 

Arbitrary alternative - is the aff not allowed to say "no link" to a DA anymore?

 

1. they are as long as their plan text is within the realm of the resolution; if they're running withdraw military satellite above antarctica as being 'military presence', no they're not.

 

2. reasonability should also be used in accordance with disads if they're running like social services bad on last year's topic and the aff is spiking out, or military power projection good on this year's topic and the aff is attempting to spike out by saying 'no link'

 

Also, this probably leads to terrible forms of debate where the neg just asserts they were "abused" and may even read shitty DAs to bait the aff into linking out.

 

1. c/a point 2 from above

 

2. if it's a 'shitty' da, there will be more points of offense then simply 'no link'

 

3. the affirmative doesn't have to take the bait, they can go for offense against disads other then 'no link.'

 

4. at worst the affirmatives are forced to go for offense other then 'no link' on crazy shitty disads the neg runs to reinforce false abuse claims, at worst this type of debate is still more educational, gives more real points of attack for the affirmative and is less advantageous for the negative in reference to the speech-time-order structure of debate then topicality

 

I also find it amusing this is your alternative to competing interpretations considering one of your standards for rejection was "judge intervention".

 

1. the point of that standard was to nullify judge intervention claims against reasonability

 

although it is a bad alt, any other ideas? odds are i could still run it and be successful [to a certain level] in my area, but it would be destroyed at national or regional tournaments

 

 

Seriously though, just read a counter interpretation that subsumes most of their offense but includes your aff (such as an interpretation with external limits that don't exclude the plan mechanism of the 1AC)

 

what do you mean by "such as an interpretation with external limits that doesn't exclude the plan mechanism of the 1AC?" for some reason that sentence made no sense to me.

 

just something that limits the topic + includes the plan? yea, im working on that too. i just hate T (*#%&(@#*%&@(#% enough to want to do this too.

 

 

Offense-defense paradigm bad is a reason to prefer reasonability. It is a no risk proposition for the negative, making the argument inherently neg biased. Reasonability is the only way to even the playing fields.

 

k thanks

 

This is why contextualizing reasonability as a framing device for holding education prior to fairness is a better argument. Because even if the neg is all in on T (even as early as the 1NC, in 1-off framework debates being a prime example), it doesn't mean that their interp isn't arbitrary in the context of the aff. Aff contextualization is key because of the regressive nature of competing interps - you can always find a Black's Law definition that excludes the aff. Even if your standard for competing interpretations being ok is for the interp to be contextual, who defines contextual? Is this an expert in the field? Talking about the concept in general? Talking about the aff exactly? The obvious arbitrariness of any stance either way means that crucial education could get thrown to the wayside, especially since there's rarely, if ever, a pure community consensus on what a particular word or phrase means. This short circuits limits arguments quite effectively because, since there is no universal interp by which to base research on, the limits args by the neg just don't make sense. The only thing the community has ever had is a 'general guess', which is why it doesn't make sense to hold affs to a higher standard on T than that.

 

Note that if the neg is all on T at any point of the debate, this argument is just a big way of saying, "Even if we're not the most topical aff on the topic, we're good enough. Don't reject us - reject the neg because their interp would exclude our education and our education is good for x, y, z reasons."

 

a very useful point, thanks

 

let me make sure i'm understanding it correctly here. basically, it's this:

 

Reasonability is the best way to determine limits – all pre-round prepping is done in reference to the realm of the resolution, a ‘general guess’ type consensus of the community towards what the resolution seemed to contain, in other words, in what they thought would be reasonably topical. It makes no sense to hold the affirmative to every definition of every word in the resolution when none of their pre-round prepping depends on it
Edited by ChetanFS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you."

-Genghis Khan

No sin is worth this much punishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let me make sure i'm understanding it correctly here. basically, it's this:

 

Quote:

Reasonability is the best way to determine limits – all pre-round prepping is done in reference to the realm of the resolution, a ‘general guess’ type consensus of the community towards what the resolution seemed to contain, in other words, in what they thought would be reasonably topical. It makes no sense to hold the affirmative to every definition of every word in the resolution when none of their pre-round prepping depends on it

 

The argument isn't that the aff shouldn't be held to every word in the resolution, but rather, that the process by which the negative has come to interpret the resolution is not a universal standard, and therefore, not reflective of the way actual prepping/neg disad and case strategies are written.

 

This requires a framing argument that T interpretations should be premised on the way actual debate practices go down, otherwise, it's absolutely arbitrary. There's no reason to reject the aff b/c they didn't use a model the neg outlined. Many others, e.g. their we/meet and reasonable counter-interp claims, are probably 'good enough.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The argument isn't that the aff shouldn't be held to every word in the resolution, but rather, that the process by which the negative has come to interpret the resolution is not a universal standard, and therefore, not reflective of the way actual prepping/neg disad and case strategies are written.

 

This requires a framing argument that T interpretations should be premised on the way actual debate practices go down, otherwise, it's absolutely arbitrary. There's no reason to reject the aff b/c they didn't use a model the neg outlined. Many others, e.g. their we/meet and reasonable counter-interp claims, are probably 'good enough.'

 

k thanks for the clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No doubt you should be making a side bias argument on conditionality debates. All I'm saying is that, if we replace 'reasonablity' with 'RVI', you're warrants justify RVI's. Look - I'll even do that:

 

Offense-defense paradigm bad is a reason to prefer RVI's. It is a no risk proposition for the negative, making the argument inherently neg biased. RVI is the only way to even the playing fields.

That's not an argument. "Your [speaking of which is 'your', not 'you're'] warrants could be a justification for another TOTALLY CRAPPY ARGUMENT!" is not a response to the argument I *am* making. It's the worst ad hominem ever. Logical Policy making justifies both Conditionality and severance. Yet I know for a fact that Dzeigler says Logical Policy Making in his 2nc/1nr blocks to condo bad. (Or rather, for condo good). Just because a warrant could be applied elsewhere does not mean the argument I'm making is moot.

 

The reason I say that warrant isn't that helpful is because if the neg goes for T exclusively in the 2NR, the 'no risk argument' analysis doesn't make sense anymore. Just like an RVI. If that's the boat being rocked in the 2NR, it's an all-or-nothing move for the neg.

Again, wrong. There's no reason for the negative not to read T in the 1nc. It is a no risk proposition for the negative team that hurts 2ac strategy by forcing odd time allocations (it's impossible for me to straight turn, you never even have to spend time kicking it, I can't ignore and go for case outweighs, etc.) that are inherently unstrategic for the affirmative that do not harm the negative. This is a form of conditionality that only applies to topicality that's a justification for the negative to being held to a higher burden of proof because of the inherent bias in the argument. No one's going to say condo isn't biased. It may be good but it's only good for one side: the negative. Topicality is an always conditional position that's a much higher risk for the aff than any other negative position. This is a huge negative bias on the argument. If the 2nr doesn't go for it he doesn't even have to spend time on the flow creating the best time trade off you could ever get (anything:nothing). There is literally no other way in debate to do that, even with a PIC and a straight turned (non NB) DA you at least have to assert that the PIC links to the DA and captures the straight turn. T? Nope. Nothing.

 

This is why contextualizing reasonability as a framing device for holding education prior to fairness is a better argument. Because even if the neg is all in on T (even as early as the 1NC, in 1-off framework debates being a prime example), it doesn't mean that their interp isn't arbitrary in the context of the aff.

Predictable limits key to education. If the scope of the resolution is too broad then it makes it impossible for the negative to create an area of affirmatives to predict and research. This leads to a lack of education because the aff and neg are never on the same page in terms of argumentation. Moots the topic and forces generic debates.

C WHAT I DID THUR!? Even if education outweighs competing interps allows for a better inroad in terms of the negative.

 

 

Note that if the neg is all on T at any point of the debate, this argument is just a big way of saying, "Even if we're not the most topical aff on the topic, we're good enough. Don't reject us - reject the neg because their interp would exclude our education and our education is good for x, y, z reasons."

No it's not. It's a way of saying "force the negative to a higher burden of proof than 'limits good judge' because the inherent nature of Topicality means the position is easier for the negative to go for and requires more the worst time tradeoff in debate forcing 2ac undercoverage of either T or other positions. The fact that they went for T doesn't change the biased nature of the argument it probably means we were forced to undercover it because their 13 second shell ran with 8 other positions created an impossible 2ac. If we prove that we provide an example of the topic that creates a reasonable expectation of predictabilty, even if not the most narrow, then you should default affirmative because the offense-defense paradigm on topicality will always tilt negative."

Even when affs read disads to negative interpretations 9 times out of 10 it's because it makes debate harder for... the negative.

 

EDIT: This is in the context of T debates. The arguments are substantively more different in a world of general theory like Condo.

Yup, which is why I'm right, in the context of T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not an argument. "Your [speaking of which is 'your', not 'you're'] warrants could be a justification for another TOTALLY CRAPPY ARGUMENT!" is not a response to the argument I *am* making. It's the worst ad hominem ever. Logical Policy making justifies both Conditionality and severance. Yet I know for a fact that Dzeigler says Logical Policy Making in his 2nc/1nr blocks to condo bad. (Or rather, for condo good). Just because a warrant could be applied elsewhere does not mean the argument I'm making is moot.

 

 

Again, wrong. There's no reason for the negative not to read T in the 1nc. It is a no risk proposition for the negative team that hurts 2ac strategy by forcing odd time allocations (it's impossible for me to straight turn, you never even have to spend time kicking it, I can't ignore and go for case outweighs, etc.) that are inherently unstrategic for the affirmative that do not harm the negative. This is a form of conditionality that only applies to topicality that's a justification for the negative to being held to a higher burden of proof because of the inherent bias in the argument. No one's going to say condo isn't biased. It may be good but it's only good for one side: the negative. Topicality is an always conditional position that's a much higher risk for the aff than any other negative position. This is a huge negative bias on the argument. If the 2nr doesn't go for it he doesn't even have to spend time on the flow creating the best time trade off you could ever get (anything:nothing). There is literally no other way in debate to do that, even with a PIC and a straight turned (non NB) DA you at least have to assert that the PIC links to the DA and captures the straight turn. T? Nope. Nothing.

 

 

Predictable limits key to education. If the scope of the resolution is too broad then it makes it impossible for the negative to create an area of affirmatives to predict and research. This leads to a lack of education because the aff and neg are never on the same page in terms of argumentation. Moots the topic and forces generic debates.

C WHAT I DID THUR!? Even if education outweighs competing interps allows for a better inroad in terms of the negative.

 

 

 

No it's not. It's a way of saying "force the negative to a higher burden of proof than 'limits good judge' because the inherent nature of Topicality means the position is easier for the negative to go for and requires more the worst time tradeoff in debate forcing 2ac undercoverage of either T or other positions. The fact that they went for T doesn't change the biased nature of the argument it probably means we were forced to undercover it because their 13 second shell ran with 8 other positions created an impossible 2ac. If we prove that we provide an example of the topic that creates a reasonable expectation of predictabilty, even if not the most narrow, then you should default affirmative because the offense-defense paradigm on topicality will always tilt negative."

Even when affs read disads to negative interpretations 9 times out of 10 it's because it makes debate harder for... the negative.

 

 

Yup, which is why I'm right, in the context of T.

 

Just a few things:

 

1 - Get cancer before saying "C WHAT I DID THUR!?" ever again.

 

2 - You clearly are underestimating the tricks an aff can deploy on a T flow - after a season of 1AR's defending cases that were virtually anti-topical last year, here's a few:

 

A - We meets serve as no links. We interpreted military presence to mean pretzels. 2NR didn't go for T, and their hard power DA doesn't have a card talking about pretzels. That's a problem.

 

B - T is far from the only no-risk argument. Condition CP's, Consult CP's, Word PICs, most kritiks, etc.

 

C - 'We meets' are just defense against legitimate abuse claims that prevent negs from going for their ideal DA/K. An aff counter-interprets substantially, etc., and the neg assumes this is a 'we-meet' when, really, the aff is just saying a different point of view is better. All of sudden, DA's get mucked.

 

3 - Your only real answer to framing reasonability as a question of education over fairness is "Limits solve education." This is a totally vacuous claim that:

 

A - doesn't answer the arg of 'limits are arbitrary - your 'ideal' limits is a standard that no negative in the country premises research on, and if they do, they're stupid and probably debate for UNT", and

 

B - Just ain't true. In-round education is minimal at best, since most teams default to generics with a link card that says two words that are in the aff plan text even if the topic is small. This also establishes a false dichotomy of 'a select few topics are sweeter for education than many' without ever articulating why the education of those few topics is any better than others outside the scope of the given interpretation. Even if we learn more about a politics disad and CP b/c the topic is small and you can reasonably predict that the strat is competitive against half the affs that will get ran at a given tournament, that education is sort of silly if you're excluding areas of the topic that are sort of central to the discussion.

 

I guess now is the point to talk about the elephant in the room, and that is the difference between critical thinking and lit-based education. You seem to think that critical thinking/preparation/these sorts of artificially established norms are good for the community, and to an extent, they are b/c they don't make final rebuttals risk of an impact vs. risk of a link. But the 2 hours I debate a person is nothing compared to the hours I will put into prepping the strategy to deploy there. Education doesn't occur when a team reads an aff and I have a sweet strategy. Education happens when I'm forced to read a bunch of random shit to prepare for things. If education is a question of what we research vs. what's easy to prepare, then clearly the aff should get a ton of leeway on T debates b/c the alternative is really really stale, limited debate without any real merit to larger knowledge about the topic that is politically useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we please stop wishing cancer on each other? As originator of this cx.com meme, i retract it.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

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...