Jump to content
Rhizome

Impact turning the voter: since when is abuse the bad guy?

Recommended Posts

This thread is going to be the groundwork for all discussions relating to impact turning the T debate as the aff. I will post a much more detailed post later this week on the issue!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am talking about T voters in general, fyi. Abuse is just the most generic and that's why I am picking on that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait... so is this really a stickied section on RVIs against T? I mean, it seems like a lot of critiques of T are very specific to the specific content of the affirmative (for example, the K of T with the black aesthetic will be very different from the K of T with a Baudrillard aff), and are going to be difficult to generalize.

 

On the other hand, if it's just a discussion about really dumb RVI's on T (like "abuse good" or "T is a timesuck"), this seems like a really useless conversation to have (especially as a stickied post). If people need this discussion, I'll provide it here--

 

Dumb RVIs on T are dumb. Your speaks will tank and you won't beat debaters that are not novices. You aren't being clever when you read a RVI on T--it'll probably backfire because judges will be more inclined to vote against you for reading such a terrible argument. If you can't think of a K of T specifically tailored for your non-topical aff, don't read that aff--read a topical one instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait... so is this really a stickied section on RVIs against T? I mean, it seems like a lot of critiques of T are very specific to the specific content of the affirmative (for example, the K of T with the black aesthetic will be very different from the K of T with a Baudrillard aff), and are going to be difficult to generalize.

 

On the other hand, if it's just a discussion about really dumb RVI's on T (like "abuse good" or "T is a timesuck"), this seems like a really useless conversation to have (especially as a stickied post). If people need this discussion, I'll provide it here--

 

Dumb RVIs on T are dumb. Your speaks will tank and you won't beat debaters that are not novices. You aren't being clever when you read a RVI on T--it'll probably backfire because judges will be more inclined to vote against you for reading such a terrible argument. If you can't think of a K of T specifically tailored for your non-topical aff, don't read that aff--read a topical one instead.

Of course, it may be worth the time tradeoff and the potential instant-win, making it a viable option in some cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, it may be worth the time tradeoff and the potential instant-win, making it a viable option in some cases.

 

There are much better "hidden" or "brief" voters that will incur less wrath from judges and are a better use of your time (if you're looking to win some easy rounds from timesucks). Usually, the time trade-off won't be that great either; if you're hitting a bad team, it'll probably turn into a dumb "reverse-reverse voting issue: vote neg because RVIs skew time/kill education" argument. If you're hitting a good team, they'll probably win it's stupid in less words than you use.

 

Chaos-- "Impact turning the voters" would imply "reversing" the voters... = RVI.

 

Besides, if we're going to discuss "impact turning the voters" like "Fairness bad," it's likely to be either

 

(A) The dumbest argument in the history of debate. If the argument is fairness bad, abuse doesn't matter/is good, this is what'll happen.

1NC: T

2AC: RVI--Fairness bad

2NC: Vote neg for no reason-- being unfair is good.

1AR: Vote aff for no reason--being unfair is good.

... which continues until the judge gives everyone 20 speaker points and shits on everyone.

 

 

OR

 

 

(B) It'll be tailored to very specific affirmatives. Black Aesthetic teams, for example, often read that Delgado card to argue that fairness is a white concept that isn't neutral and makes the white supremacy in debate invisible. A Deleuzian aff might argue that fairness standards constrain creativity and flows of becoming in debates. Frankly, a general discussion of "impact turning the voters" is unlikely to be helpful because this generalization fails to realize some of the distinct nuances in the content of these arguments--instead, it's probably better to talk about specific kritiks of T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is RVI's are reasons reading topicality is bad, while impact turning the voters are reasons their interpretation is bad.

 

I think people do this already, just in sneakier ways. Most condo good blocks have something along the lines of "debate should be hard, condo forces critical thinking".

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My understanding is RVI's are reasons reading topicality is bad, while impact turning the voters are reasons their interpretation is bad.

 

I think people do this already, just in sneakier ways. Most condo good blocks have something along the lines of "debate should be hard, condo forces critical thinking".

 

Fair enough. I think my understanding differs slightly--RVI's are reasons why reading topicality is bad (ie, reasons why topicality arguments as a genre are bad, which includes things like impact turning the reasons why T is a voter). Arguing that their interpretation is bad would be a matter of turning/taking out their STANDARDS (not their voters)--these would include things like limits bad, fairness outweighs education...basically, useful shit.

 

I think the condo example is misplaced for topicality. I think "good debate is hard debate" is a reason why negation theory might be justified. BUT, I don't think it serves as a good argument as to why debate shouldn't be limited by a topic. The neg will have a easier time winning that forcing debaters to research and craft specific arguments on a topic leads to hard debate; a debate without a topic will lead to crappy (but easy) debates, where evidence and depth debate are replaced by shit-flinging contests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most condo good blocks have something along the lines of "debate should be hard, condo forces critical thinking".

 

I am wondering, though, isn't this ridiculous as an RVI? I mean, it seems like the same thing as "vote aff--we're topical". I mean, if a team uses that arg saying that debate should be hard and condo does that, doesn't that simply justify using condo, but not automatically voting for neg?

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...