Jump to content
Nelsonwins94

Why does Speed kill Policy debate?

Recommended Posts

 

which also disproves the idea that the least drops in the round wins. That would be a sign of bad judging and poor skills from from the slower team. And by skills, I mean identifying the arguments which need answering and justifying why not answering the irrelevant arguments doesnt merit a ballot for their opponents.

 

That's probably more indicative of a poor strategy by a fast team. Suppose i know ur not gonna be speaking at faster than conversation speed. You read a US-Sino relations advantage. I'll be damned if there is not gonna be 3 minutes of impact turns with 10 different modular scenarios, and 5 more minutes of other stuff. Even if you make 1-2 smart defensive arguments per modular, I'm probably still gonna win a risk of 10 reasons co-operation with China is bad that escalate into extinction, and I'll probably pick up the ballot more times than I drop it in an offense-defense paradigm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's probably more indicative of a poor strategy by a fast team. Suppose i know ur not gonna be speaking at faster than conversation speed. You read a US-Sino relations advantage. I'll be damned if there is not gonna be 3 minutes of impact turns with 10 different modular scenarios, and 5 more minutes of other stuff. Even if you make 1-2 smart defensive arguments per modular, I'm probably still gonna win a risk of 10 reasons co-operation with China is bad that escalate into extinction, and I'll probably pick up the ballot more times than I drop it in an offense-defense paradigm.

 

you make a LOT of assumptions here

 

1) you win an offense-defense paradigm

2) that your arguments are not groupable

3) that the other team is incapable of saying "this is what we *really* need to answer"

4) that having more answers means ANYTHING whatsoever... because i can assure you that spamming people out of rounds only works to an extent... been there, done that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you make a LOT of assumptions here

 

1) you win an offense-defense paradigm

 

If i lose that debate i probably have no business being in a varsity round.

 

2) that your arguments are not groupable

 

If i have groupable impact turn modulars i certainly have no business being in a varsity round.

 

3) that the other team is incapable of saying "this is what we *really* need to answer"

 

In what world can you pick and choose impact turn modulars to answer and its not 100% risk of extinction (thus try or die) for the neg?

 

4) that having more answers means ANYTHING whatsoever... because i can assure you that spamming people out of rounds only works to an extent... been there, done that.

 

Having more answers means less risk of my impact turns... greater risk of your case offense. Seriously, if I read 10 impact turns to US-China relations, and you are speaking at conversational speed, you a) aren't reading cards on all of them and B) are gonna undercover at least 1 -- i feel comfortable saying i will win probably between a 90-99% risk of extinction in that debate, and I feel comfortable that no matter how smart or efficient you are, If i've done my research and my ev is good, I'm gonna win more often than I lose.

 

Slow K debate works. Slow policy debate only works if the other team is not taking advantage of their, well, speed advantage, or the judge is sympathetic to the slow team.

 

Don't get me wrong, lots of teams use speed to compensate for inefficiency. Problem is for the teams that master speed and efficiency, they will blow a slow policy team outta the water nearly every time.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If i lose that debate i probably have no business being in a varsity round.

 

 

 

If i have groupable impact turn modulars i certainly have no business being in a varsity round.

 

 

 

In what world can you pick and choose impact turn modulars to answer and its not 100% risk of extinction (thus try or die) for the neg?

 

 

 

Having more answers means less risk of my impact turns... greater risk of your case offense. Seriously, if I read 10 impact turns to US-China relations, and you are speaking at conversational speed, you a) aren't reading cards on all of them and B) are gonna undercover at least 1 -- i feel comfortable saying i will win probably between a 90-99% risk of extinction in that debate, and I feel comfortable that no matter how smart or efficient you are, If i've done my research and my ev is good, I'm gonna win more often than I lose.

 

Slow K debate works. Slow policy debate only works if the other team is not taking advantage of their, well, speed advantage, or the judge is sympathetic to the slow team.

 

Don't get me wrong, lots of teams use speed to compensate for inefficiency. Problem is for the teams that master speed and efficiency, they will blow a slow policy team outta the water nearly every time.

 

The arrogance of your "speed rocks all" motif is just apalling.

 

1) As a judge, I have no problems abandoning the offense-defense paradigm if given a superior argument from the team suggesting such. What are you going to say? That by being willing to abandon it I don't belong in the back of a varsity round? Would you be willing to concede that if I can point to an example where defense trumps offense that perhaps you, with your "offense-defense rules all" attitude, dont belong in a varsity round?

 

[side note: offense-defense is ridiculed by intelligent folks as a productive platform for decisionmaking... largely because its nonsensical].

 

2) You'd be surprised how many rounds I have judged by teams of NFL and TOC outround caliber who still produce groupable arguments. By your logic, they really dont deserve to be in varsity... despite winning the TOC or NFLs or CFLs. (NDCA didnt exist when I was actively judging).

 

3) In the heat of the moment, some teams that rely on sheer number of arguments miss the fact that not all of their arguments matter for a decision. You can drop 23 different non-groupable points on your standards debate on T... but if you dont win the interp, it doesnt matter. You can toss out as many turns as you want... but at the end of the day, if the creative neg re-turns or un-turns (depending on perspective and argument), thats all that matters. You can have 40 reasons why you solve 70 scenarios of nuke war instead of causing them, but in the offense-defense paradigm, if you cause one nuke war, one is enough. And given a good argument why I ignore your solving 70 scenarios and focus on the fact that you still cause 1, I have no problems voting you down on it. But as with all my decisions, I still need a good argument for it... but then again, I still need a good argument why your solving for 70 scenarios of nuke war trumps your causing one scenario of nuke war.

 

[side Note: Let that be a lesson to all... turns arent the end all to debate. Turning an argument is good, but your job as a debater doesnt end there]

 

[side note: And teams that rush to RFD by declaring "the other team dropped points 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, and 34..." generally tend not to be the best
debaters
in the round. They may win because the other team did indeed drop a significant argument in a round... but they weren't necessarily better debaters. Judges often miss the fact that the ballot often reads: "The better debating was done by team ______"... but a different conversation for a different day]

 

4) I know of a particular school who goes to NFLs in most years and wins by reading inherency on the neg. INHERENCY! They are a conversational speed school. And yet they routinely show up in the late outrounds of NFLs. Do you mean to suggest that by the virtues of their being a Christian school, the debate gods are on their side supplying them with an endless stream of conservative, slow-sympathizer judges, or that their opponents routinely dont utilize their speed advantage?

 

 

 

Now I am not saying the slow is necessarily best. Often, its not. I *know* slow teams win rounds... many times in front of speed-friendly judges like myself. I have voted down anti-speed arguments more times than I can count. I was a superfast debater who relied on the fact that I was dropping so many solvency bombs that it didnt matter what the aff did, they didnt solve for anything, game over, case dismissed. I have quite literally gone for 20+ voters in the 2nr (inefficient and totally atrocious and absurd) and spammed aff teams out of rounds. My speaks suffered but as long as I was winning the rounds, I didn't care how many low point wins I got. So I quite obviously have no problems with speed or teams taking advantage of their speed. You should always use the tools you have available to you in order to make the best case for the W. But its absurd to think a slow team cant or shouldn't win rounds just because the faster team dropped more answers... and they may be good answers... but were they the right answers? Not always... sometimes, it works by the nature of the fact that slower teams can "slow the pace down" mentally to a point where they can identify fatal flaws in their opponent's logic and then craft an argument to defeat them by exploiting the weakness... they see the forest among the trees. And then again, some slow teams are just awful. Speed is simply not an indicator of quality.

 

Being slow CAN be a disadvantage... but having a sharper mind is a far greater advantage than speed ever will.

Edited by Ankur
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4) I know of a particular school who goes to NFLs in most years and wins by reading inherency on the neg. INHERENCY! They are a conversational speed school. And yet they routinely show up in the late outrounds of NFLs. Do you mean to suggest that by the virtues of their being a Christian school, the debate gods are on their side supplying them with an endless stream of conservative, slow-sympathizer judges, or that their opponents routinely dont utilize their speed advantage?

 

I feel like this is more of an indict of the quality of the judging at NFLs than anything else. It's well known that the judges are dinosaurs at that tournament. The slow speed of this team probably does make these judges more sympathetic to these arguments though.

 

[side note: offense-defense is ridiculed by intelligent folks as a productive platform for decisionmaking... largely because its nonsensical]

How should I answer the offense defense paradigm?

 

Also, you've been answering a lot of my questions recently. Thanks for that, I hope I'm not annoying you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The arrogance of your "speed rocks all" motif is just apalling.

 

1) As a judge, I have no problems abandoning the offense-defense paradigm if given a superior argument from the team suggesting such. What are you going to say? That by being willing to abandon it I don't belong in the back of a varsity round? Would you be willing to concede that if I can point to an example where defense trumps offense that perhaps you, with your "offense-defense rules all" attitude, dont belong in a varsity round?

 

[side note: offense-defense is ridiculed by intelligent folks as a productive platform for decisionmaking... largely because its nonsensical].

There's times to abandon the offense / defense paradigm... in a round with a word PIC for example. In an impact turn debate, no. It is in fact, illogical to abandon it, and alot of intelligent folks would find abandoning offense / defense in an impact turn debate tto be nonsensical. If I cant win an argument that OFFENSE should matter in an IMPACT TURN debate, I dont belong in a varsity debate
2) You'd be surprised how many rounds I have judged by teams of NFL and TOC outround caliber who still produce groupable arguments. By your logic, they really dont deserve to be in varsity... despite winning the TOC or NFLs or CFLs. (NDCA didnt exist when I was actively judging).

No... I wouldn't be surprised. See below, thats using speed to make up for poor efficiency. I'm talking about a team that has good speed and good efficiency, seems like you haven't judged many of those teams.

 

 

3) In the heat of the moment, some teams that rely on sheer number of arguments miss the fact that not all of their arguments matter for a decision. You can drop 23 different non-groupable points on your standards debate on T... but if you dont win the interp, it doesnt matter. You can toss out as many turns as you want... but at the end of the day, if the creative neg re-turns or un-turns (depending on perspective and argument), thats all that matters. You can have 40 reasons why you solve 70 scenarios of nuke war instead of causing them, but in the offense-defense paradigm, if you cause one nuke war, one is enough. And given a good argument why I ignore your solving 70 scenarios and focus on the fact that you still cause 1, I have no problems voting you down on it. But as with all my decisions, I still need a good argument for it... but then again, I still need a good argument why your solving for 70 scenarios of nuke war trumps your causing one scenario of nuke war.

 

Dude. You said US-Sino relations good. I gave 10 totally different reasons why cooperating with China is bad. You can't pick and choose which to answer, and you cant group them. This isn't a T debate. This is an impact turn debate, you have to answer every impact turn, or you will lose no matter how smart you are.

 

and your sidebar comment here was asinine. EVEN IF the ballot says "better debating" the ROLE OF THE BALLOT should probably be "best policy option", a policy option that ends in nuclear war is, hopefully, not the best.

 

4) I know of a particular school who goes to NFLs in most years and wins by reading inherency on the neg. INHERENCY! They are a conversational speed school. And yet they routinely show up in the late outrounds of NFLs. Do you mean to suggest that by the virtues of their being a Christian school, the debate gods are on their side supplying them with an endless stream of conservative, slow-sympathizer judges, or that their opponents routinely dont utilize their speed advantage?

 

probably all three. Or they are winning conservative ballots on inherency, and other ballots on other arguments.

 

Being slow is a disadvantage, end of story. If you go up against a well coached, efficient, fast team, you will lose more often than you will win. Do people overcome this disadvantage? Yea. But how about stop being lazy and do a couple speed drills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure the poster above is a troll, but I think Jim Schultz is pretty indicative of relatively slow success. Also, performance/project teams regularly beat the top "well coached, efficient, fast" policy teams. The distinction between "policy" and "kritikal" debate is not particularly valid because both can rely on very technical, card heavy argumentation. If K teams can answer 8 minutes of diversified expert opinion on aff advantages reading slowly, than I think Ankur can answers your "10 different scenarios" in just as many words if he already has a defense of US-Sino relations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaos, see my responses below to KingofSoda

 

There's times to abandon the offense / defense paradigm... in a round with a word PIC for example. In an impact turn debate, no. It is in fact, illogical to abandon it, and alot of intelligent folks would find abandoning offense / defense in an impact turn debate tto be nonsensical. If I cant win an argument that OFFENSE should matter in an IMPACT TURN debate, I dont belong in a varsity debate

 

Lets take an example. IPCC report suggest anthropogenic sources of CO2 emissions are leading us towards global warming which will cause impacts A,B,C. What happens if I say that the IPCC report studied ice cores, but that the analysis of ice core data was wrong because they didnt account for variable X and had they done such, they would find no warming as the conclusion. This is clearly a defensive response - its not "offensive".

 

Assuming for the moment that there is no superior response to the ice core debate and we freeze frame the debate right there, how can the judge evaluate the impact if the logic supporting the conclusion of impacts ABC is faulty? To vote on risk of global warming at this point would be the same as saying "the neg wins that global warming isnt/wont happen... but vote aff on risk of global warming". NONSENSE! How does one vote on risk of an impact which wont occur? Risk is defined as probability times magnitude and probability just fell to zero when the neg won the argument. Some suggest that probability doesnt fall to zero, but rather its some undefined non-zero, non-one hundred mitigation. But there is a problem with mitigation in competitive discourse - if challenging warrants (i.e. defensive arguments) are not rewarded with a win then you run into two subsequent issues: 1) warrants are rendered useless and unnecessary (thus warranted evidence is meaningless) and 2) the position espoused by the first team becomes the default position for victory (i.e. why is the judge defaulting towards risk of GW as opposed to not defaulting to non-risk of GW?). Both of these implications are uniquely outrageous in debate. So to suggest that offense-defense rules all is silly. Sure there are times when offense-defense means something. But to claim that there are no impact debates where defensive arguments can win is juvenile.

 

Moral of the story: Defensive arguments which challenge the basic assumptions and logic of arguments render offensive arguments useless, thus defeating the notion of offense-defense.

 

No... I wouldn't be surprised. See below, thats using speed to make up for poor efficiency. I'm talking about a team that has good speed and good efficiency, seems like you haven't judged many of those teams.

 

Judged plenty of those teams too... but for you to say that teams which don't do that particularly well (or to the level which *you* determine adequate) do not belong in varsity debate is pretentious.

 

Dude. You said US-Sino relations good. I gave 10 totally different reasons why cooperating with China is bad. You can't pick and choose which to answer, and you cant group them. This isn't a T debate. This is an impact turn debate, you have to answer every impact turn, or you will lose no matter how smart you are.

 

You're only partially correct. I can group even if the warrants for the 10 turns are quite different... if the underlying assumption is the same. The underlying assumption behind cooperation as bad generally is that unilateralism is superior to bilateralism/multilateralism (and from there authors draw conclusions that coop with China is uniquely bad). I can still critique unilateralism as a grouping answer to multiple turns.

 

But this is a futile exercise given that this isnt a real round and its very dependent on what you read... that being said, its very rare to be able to routinely read that large number of impact turns on a single argument without some degree of overlap between underlying assumptions, common arguments or logic. Good teams will work to identify those commonalities and argue accordingly. THAT is the very definition of the efficiency you espouse.

Edited by Ankur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2) the position espoused by the first team becomes the default position for victory (i.e. why is the judge defaulting towards risk of GW as opposed to not defaulting to non-risk of GW?). Both of these implications are uniquely outrageous in debate.

I didn't understand this part. I think the extinction impact gives the judge a reason to default toward the risk of GW. I feel like if one team is winning a "risk" of offense presumption should flip in favor of the team winning offense.

 

Worst case scenario voting for the team with GW impacts: nothing.

Best case scenario voting for the team with GW impacts: you stop extinction.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets take an example. IPCC report suggest anthropogenic sources of CO2 emissions are leading us towards global warming which will cause impacts A,B,C. What happens if I say that the IPCC report studied ice cores, but that the analysis of ice core data was wrong because they didnt account for variable X and had they done such, they would find no warming as the conclusion. This is clearly a defensive response - its not "offensive".

 

Assuming for the moment that there is no superior response to the ice core debate and we freeze frame the debate right there, how can the judge evaluate the impact if the logic supporting the conclusion of impacts ABC is faulty? To vote on risk of global warming at this point would be the same as saying "the neg wins that global warming isnt/wont happen... but vote aff on risk of global warming". NONSENSE! How does one vote on risk of an impact which wont occur? Risk is defined as probability times magnitude and probability just fell to zero when the neg won the argument. Some suggest that probability doesnt fall to zero, but rather its some undefined non-zero, non-one hundred mitigation. But there is a problem with mitigation in competitive discourse - if challenging warrants (i.e. defensive arguments) are not rewarded with a win then you run into two subsequent issues: 1) warrants are rendered useless and unnecessary (thus warranted evidence is meaningless) and 2) the position espoused by the first team becomes the default position for victory (i.e. why is the judge defaulting towards risk of GW as opposed to not defaulting to non-risk of GW?). Both of these implications are uniquely outrageous in debate. So to suggest that offense-defense rules all is silly. Sure there are times when offense-defense means something. But to claim that there are no impact debates where defensive arguments can win is juvenile.

 

That's bad negative debating. All of 10 impact turns rely on winning ice core reports obviously is not taking advantage of my speed. Counter-example. I read 10 reasons global warming is good, all different impacts, all different warrants, all different justifications, all citing different studies... which is why Jim Shultz wasn't a policy debater.

 

 

You are correct, slow teams can win against fast teams... if the fast team is under utilizing an advantage. I think we agree on 90% of the issues, I even think you'd agree being slow IS a disadvantage. People SHOULD do speed drills, they shouldn't assume they can win regardless of the speed of the debate. Being faster sure makes it easier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's bad negative debating. All of 10 impact turns rely on winning ice core reports obviously is not taking advantage of my speed. Counter-example. I read 10 reasons global warming is good, all different impacts, all different warrants, all different justifications, all citing different studies... which is why Jim Shultz wasn't a policy debater.

 

You're trolling and mixing up arguments. The part of my previous post you cited was an example on how defense trumps offense... not whether you can group ten offensive arguments. That argument I make later in my previous post.

 

I think teams should take advantage of whatever skills they have or skills they are interested in developing. If I am coaching debaters who do not want to learn how to talk fast because they don't think its a productive use of their time, I will coach them to learn how to overcome their opponent's speedy talking. Debaters who talk fast tend to win rounds not because they talk fast, but because speed talking is learned with time and practice - this means they have experience in debate. Debaters who are generally still speaking slowly do not have the same experience... and it is the difference in experience which leads to the fast team beating the slow team... because the fast team understands what arguments to go for, which to dump, how to quickly answer a turn and kick an argument, etc.

 

Since practice time is finite, in this situation, a debater has a binary choice: use practice time on improving their argumentation or their speed/delivery. There is a tradeoff - you're doing one or the other. I would posit that the debater who focuses more on argumentation will win more rounds after equal practice time because delivery may improve your speaks, but your ability to make arguments that win rounds is better by focusing more on argumentation. I don't have the statistics to back it up, but based on my understanding of science and learning and competitive debate, I don't think its much of a stretch.

 

I didn't understand this part. I think the extinction impact gives the judge a reason to default toward the risk of GW. I feel like if one team is winning a "risk" of offense presumption should flip in favor of the team winning offense.

 

Worst case scenario voting for the team with GW impacts: nothing.

Best case scenario voting for the team with GW impacts: you stop extinction.

 

You're defaulting into typical (but bankrupt) debate logic. You're forgetting that risk is defined as magnitude times probability! In order to get to the point where you weigh the outcomes of both scenarios (w/ or w/o GW impx), you must first assign probability. Thats where the logic of defensive warrants comes into play.

 

Lets ignore what the arguments are saying, whether its nuclear war or no nuclear war and break it down to a simple logic statement.

 

Team A posits position 1: X --> Y --> implication Z

 

At this point you are assigning team A 100% risk of Z

 

Team B posits X !--> Y

 

Normal debate logic suggests that there is "mitigated risk" of Z. In the real world, this may be true. Solvency, risk, implications all operate on sigmoidal shaped curves with asymptotes at 0% and 100%. But in competitive debate, we use a thing called warrants to justify our claims: if an argument lacks warrants, we dont buy the claim. Its the fundamentals of logical arguments (see Toulmin).

 

If you give team A the "risk" of implication Z, then you have made a tacit statement that regardless of what Team B's argument is, there is always probability of X --> Y. You can only arrive at this conclusion by defaulting to it by the sheer virtue of having said it first.

 

It doesn't matter whether X --> Y is GW exists or not exists. Its logic statements.

Edited by Ankur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No... it was part of your post about how you can answer one report to dispute a chain of impact turns. It's clear you dont want to continue this debate because you've retracted to the tried and true "I can't convince you so you must be trolling" line of argument, and I'm fine agreeing to disagree. I just wish you wouldn't do debaters a disservice by making them think being slow isn't a disadvantage in every since of the word.

 

btw, practice time is limited, so research / speed drills are zero sum? You GOT to be kidding! I hope you don't coach basketball, "You can't practice your jump shot AND your post skills, big men are bad free throw shooters"

Edited by Kingofsoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this thread has demonstrated its potential to incite meaningful discussion, I have stickied it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No... it was part of your post about how you can answer one report to dispute a chain of impact turns. It's clear you dont want to continue this debate because you've retracted to the tried and true "I can't convince you so you must be trolling" line of argument, and I'm fine agreeing to disagree. I just wish you wouldn't do debaters a disservice by making them think being slow isn't a disadvantage in every since of the word.

 

btw, practice time is limited, so research / speed drills are zero sum? You GOT to be kidding! I hope you don't coach basketball, "You can't practice your jump shot AND your post skills, big men are bad free throw shooters"

 

Not at all. Your previous response was nonsense because it was talking about a completely different issue than what you responded. I do note, however, that you have nothing to respond with about the answer I gave to your example. Or that you have nothing to respond with about the logic of offense-defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Offense / defense is a topic foe another thread. We can have it if you want to make one. You said "If i prove X study wrong, I don't have to answer your 10 impact turns that rely on that study" ... I said relying on 10 impact turns from 1 study is asinine. I said imagine a debate where i have 10 impact turns from 10 unrelated studies and premises (or all from the same premise that you have previously admitted to be fact and I conceded... like plan boosts US-Sino relations)... you have yet to rebut that example, if you did feel free to repost it, I'll answer it.

 

You said something like "I could answer unilateralism isnt good" ... unless my 10 turns are along the lines of "US-China decreases russia-china... russia china good" or "US-China decreases China-Pak... China pak good" etc etc.

 

Global warming is an easy one to come up with 10 impact turns, only one of which is ice age.

 

You seem to be thinking along the lines of "I have 10 different reasons why economic collapse is bad" ... I agree with you about that, you have to answer 2, maybe 3 internal link chains and "meta" issues to win a de-dev debate. My example that is not that case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Offense / defense is a topic foe another thread. We can have it if you want to make one. You said "If i prove X study wrong, I don't have to answer your 10 impact turns that rely on that study" ... I said relying on 10 impact turns from 1 study is asinine. I said imagine a debate where i have 10 impact turns from 10 unrelated studies and premises (or all from the same premise that you have previously admitted to be fact and I conceded... like plan boosts US-Sino relations)... you have yet to rebut that example, if you did feel free to repost it, I'll answer it.

 

You said something like "I could answer unilateralism isnt good" ... unless my 10 turns are along the lines of "US-China decreases russia-china... russia china good" or "US-China decreases China-Pak... China pak good" etc etc.

 

Global warming is an easy one to come up with 10 impact turns, only one of which is ice age.

 

You seem to be thinking along the lines of "I have 10 different reasons why economic collapse is bad" ... I agree with you about that, you have to answer 2, maybe 3 internal link chains and "meta" issues to win a de-dev debate. My example that is not that case.

 

My GW example was purely about offense-defense. Its not an example of answering multiple turns with one card. So your whole position on it is distorted by your misunderstanding. So no, I didnt ever say I can answer your 10 studies with one study, although, its technically possible.

 

If your 10 answers are US-China decreases China-X,Y,Z (ten diff countries)... I would simply answer with a defensive argument and a turn - Bilateral cooperation doesnt tradeoff with other bilateral coop opportunities and US-China emboldens and empowers China to forge coop with others. Grouped.

 

As I said before, its VERY challenging to come up with 10 unique turn motifs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My GW example was purely about offense-defense. Its not an example of answering multiple turns with one card. So your whole position on it is distorted by your misunderstanding. So no, I didnt ever say I can answer your 10 studies with one study, although, its technically possible.

 

If your 10 answers are US-China decreases China-X,Y,Z (ten diff countries)... I would simply answer with a defensive argument and a turn - Bilateral cooperation doesnt tradeoff with other bilateral coop opportunities and US-China emboldens and empowers China to forge coop with others. Grouped.

 

As I said before, its VERY challenging to come up with 10 unique turn motifs.

 

I may have used your example on a different argument with global warming to charge my example on the 10 impact turns story... is that legal?

 

If I have a piece of evidence that gives a unique example why US-China trades off with Russia-China, and China-Pakistan, and China-North Korea, etc etc. And you answer it by saying "doesn't tradeoff' without ev, and without a specific warrant to why it wouldn't to answer my evs specific warrant, and you say "forges alliances" but isn't specific to my countries, and I can come up with smart arguments for why like US-Sino wouldn't FORGE China-North Korea, then I'm probably going to win more times than I lose, at least I hope I could.

 

If US-China ==> China pressure on NK... which ==> NK collapse, which ==> Refugees, which ==> CCP crisis, and ur answer is "forges alliance and not zero sum" ... I hope I can win US-China doesnt foge a NK alliance with China, and I hope I can win it IS zero sum

Edited by Kingofsoda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your position was that you can come up with ten unique turns that I cant possibly group and thus show how a slow team can efficiently answer ten turns without answering each individually. Your point was that if I can group them, then you dont belong in varsity.

 

You came up with ten US-Sino relations trade off with Sino-X relations scenarios... and regardless of their specificity, I easily found a commonality which I can exploit. It doesnt matter whether my argument is analytical or whether its the best piece of evidence ever written - this was an academic exercise to show that despite your effort to prevent me from grouping 10 turns, I can still do it.

 

As far as specificity of evidence goes, you can argue that your disad scenario is ultra unique, which it might be as the scenario might clearly detail that a tradeoff exists and that the tradeoff results in something horrible... but that will backfire when you use an ultrageneric link "US-Sino coop" because good luck finding evidence which says that US gift to China of renewable energy technology leads to a trade off with North Korea. So either my generic catch all grouping response is valid or your entire disad is irrelevant, take your pick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't disagree that you found a "specificity", I think your line of defense against the specific scenario is troublesome for you to undermine the risk even marginally. Remember, in the 1AC, it was your argument that clean tech co-op spills over to cooperation on security / diplomatic issues (seeing as how it is your advantage...), I am conceding that point, which will make it a bit difficult for you to stand up in the 2AC and say "No spillover".

 

You can absolutely group them and make those two arguments. You might even win some ballots. It kinda depends on how competitive your debaters want to be though, if your strategy is a good pedagogical model. If in your local circuit what you responded with is a winner, hey, more power to you, they could be circuit champs. If their goal is to be collegiate level debaters or even TOC bid caliber, I don't think you'll find nearly as many judges who would vote for you in that pool in this scenario.

 

Each style has their advantages, and drawbacks I suppose, so it depends on at what level the students want to compete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're defaulting into typical (but bankrupt) debate logic. You're forgetting that risk is defined as magnitude times probability! In order to get to the point where you weigh the outcomes of both scenarios (w/ or w/o GW impx), you must first assign probability. Thats where the logic of defensive warrants comes into play.

 

Lets ignore what the arguments are saying, whether its nuclear war or no nuclear war and break it down to a simple logic statement.

Team A posits position 1: X --> Y --> implication Z

At this point you are assigning team A 100% risk of Z

Team B posits X !--> Y

Normal debate logic suggests that there is "mitigated risk" of Z. In the real world, this may be true. Solvency, risk, implications all operate on sigmoidal shaped curves with asymptotes at 0% and 100%. But in competitive debate, we use a thing called warrants to justify our claims: if an argument lacks warrants, we dont buy the claim. Its the fundamentals of logical arguments (see Toulmin).

 

If you give team A the "risk" of implication Z, then you have made a tacit statement that regardless of what Team B's argument is, there is always probability of X --> Y. You can only arrive at this conclusion by defaulting to it by the sheer virtue of having said it first.

 

It doesn't matter whether X --> Y is GW exists or not exists. Its logic statements.

I feel that assuming that there is a risk that the link arguments are correct is justified in situations with an impact. Known unknowns mean that no claim can be made definite. Scientists are sometimes wrong, don't bet the future on your certainty that GW isn't real.

 

We don't always need to do impact analysis based on Mag*Prob either. The offense defense paradigm would argue that probability is fluid and can't be perfectly assessed because no one knows everything about everything and known unknowns could invalidate certain arguments. Therefore there is always a small risk of the link. We should err on the side of possibly preserving human life, even if there's only a tiny risk.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel that assuming that there is a risk that the link arguments are correct is justified in situations with an impact. Known unknowns mean that no claim can be made definite. Scientists are sometimes wrong, don't bet the future on your certainty that GW isn't real.
So you do not require evidence on the impact for the DA? The debater can just assert an impact without warranted evidence? If you do require warranted evidence for the impact, ask yourself why. From your paradigm, all the negative needs to say is "It is within the realm of possibilities that we all will die, so vote for us". Even criminal trials have the burden of guilty without a reasonable doubt, not any conceivable doubt.

 

We don't always need to do impact analysis based on Mag*Prob either. The offense defense paradigm would argue that probability is fluid and can't be perfectly assessed because no one knows everything about everything and known unknowns could invalidate certain arguments. Therefore there is always a small risk of the link. We should err on the side of possibly preserving human life, even if there's only a tiny risk.
Why do you default to "we are going to die"? Why don't you default to "we are not going to die" and force a team to prove to you that you will indeed die if you don't vote for their advocacy. That seems to me to be judge intervention to assume that any possibility of death is something to be avoided.

 

Surely, outside of debate rounds, you don't actually make decisions this way. There is an actual, documented, warranted risk that you can die by getting in your car to drive, yet you still do it. And that is with warrants! There is a theoretical risk that you can be abducted by aliens, yet that isn't a reason to build a giant laser to defend yourself. And that is a real argument you might hear next year! So you would vote for the laser every time, even if the other team runs defense that aliens don't exist?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of what you said answers back my warranted argument about known unknowns. Stop using rhetoric and hyperbole and start arguing.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
None of what you said answers back my warranted argument about known unknowns. Stop using rhetoric and hyperbole and start arguing.
Not sure I understand what you mean by stop using rhetoric, but I don't believe that I was using hyperbole. I thought I was answering your argument about unknowns. Let me try to be clearer.

 

My understanding of your position on why to only accept the offense/defense paradigm (read as offense only) is that if you can never be certain then assume the risk of the impact. Thus as soon as the impact is asserted, even if it is not warranted, but within the imagination of the judge, then the only thing that matters is the direction of the impact.

 

There are several logical conclusions of this:

 

1. That warrants for impacts are meaningless. I can assert that all life will end, without evidence, and as long as you believe it is within the realm of possibilities. I don't have to waste 30 seconds reading evidence, since you are not willing to evaluate them anyway even in the face of opposition (defense).

 

2. Since there are known unknowns, and no claim can be definite, the impact is never definate. You say scientists could be wrong. Debaters are more likely to be wrong. So we should doubt the prediction of the impact and assume the status quo will continue, in which we are alive. The conclusion is not that we should assume "try or die" but that we should assume "everything is okay till proven otherwise".

 

3. Agreed that there is always the tiniest of risk. This is where my examples of driving a car and space aliens come into play. There is an established rate of risk in driving, yet the impact of death does not prevent driving. Though I have no warrants for the impact, it is within the realm of possible impacts that space aliens could destroy Earth. It is a known unknown if you will die in a car accident or if aliens exist. That doesn't mean we should do whatever to avoid the impact, but the opposite that we should ignore the impact until it is warranted that we pay heed.

 

I will give you this. The current state of the prevailence of the offense/defense paradigm is the evolution from a concept in policy debate that also lead to the evolution of speed debate. That concept is that anything I assert is true unless directly refuted. Heck, in speed debate we don't even listen to the warrants until reading them after the round, just the tags which only the assertions of the individual debater. Speed debate thus creates an advantage in that the judge can't evaluate the warrants of the author, just the assertions of the kid, but gives the kid the credibility of the author. If the kid says nuke war will occur because of economic collapse, and reads something, we act as if it is an undeniable truth that this will occur. So if the DA is dropped, it is automatically true even though no one actually believes it, and that kid wins the round even if the warrants of the evidence said the author will "freak'n nuke everyone" if his "401K goes down one penny more". Historically speed debate took advantage of this philosophy. The logical next evolution would be that as soon as something is said, since we ignore warrants anyway, we always assume it to be true even when refuted. No matter how much warranted evidence a kid reads now saying nuke war won't happen, it is still within the realm of possibilities, and since the judge isn't listening to or evaluating warrants anyway, we create a paradigm to fit what is happening. The next generation pick up that paradigm thinking that is the way it is supposed to be, and we continue to evolve, even if it is into nonsense.

 

It isn't the kids fault and I don't blame any debater no matter the style. Kids will do what judges reward them for. Judges who vote on nonsense promote the activity into nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for my rudeness earlier.

 

My understanding of your position on why to only accept the offense/defense paradigm (read as offense only) is that if you can never be certain then assume the risk of the impact. Thus as soon as the impact is asserted, even if it is not warranted, but within the imagination of the judge, then the only thing that matters is the direction of the impact.

Correct, I think.

 

There are several logical conclusions of this:

 

1. That warrants for impacts are meaningless. I can assert that all life will end, without evidence, and as long as you believe it is within the realm of possibilities. I don't have to waste 30 seconds reading evidence, since you are not willing to evaluate them anyway even in the face of opposition (defense).

No. Defense would serve as substantial probability mitigation which would help you weigh case against the DA, etc.

 

O/D paradigm is basically a different interpretation of presumption. It's superior to other interpretations because change is not inherently bad.

 

2. Since there are known unknowns, and no claim can be definite, the impact is never definate. You say scientists could be wrong. Debaters are more likely to be wrong. So we should doubt the prediction of the impact and assume the status quo will continue, in which we are alive. The conclusion is not that we should assume "try or die" but that we should assume "everything is okay till proven otherwise".

There's no reason we should assume that every little thing is gonna be all right. A nonwarranted claim should be assume to have an equal probability to be wrong or to be right, but the probability that the claim is right has a bigger impact. We should err on the side of avoiding the worst case scenario.

 

3. Agreed that there is always the tiniest of risk. This is where my examples of driving a car and space aliens come into play. There is an established rate of risk in driving, yet the impact of death does not prevent driving. Though I have no warrants for the impact, it is within the realm of possible impacts that space aliens could destroy Earth. It is a known unknown if you will die in a car accident or if aliens exist. That doesn't mean we should do whatever to avoid the impact, but the opposite that we should ignore the impact until it is warranted that we pay heed.

This seems to be an appeal to popularity more than anything else. Just because people don't make decisions logically doesn't mean that the offense defense paradigm should be abandoned.

 

I will give you this. The current state of the prevailence of the offense/defense paradigm is the evolution from a concept in policy debate that also lead to the evolution of speed debate. That concept is that anything I assert is true unless directly refuted. Heck, in speed debate we don't even listen to the warrants until reading them after the round, just the tags which only the assertions of the individual debater. Speed debate thus creates an advantage in that the judge can't evaluate the warrants of the author, just the assertions of the kid, but gives the kid the credibility of the author. If the kid says nuke war will occur because of economic collapse, and reads something, we act as if it is an undeniable truth that this will occur. So if the DA is dropped, it is automatically true even though no one actually believes it, and that kid wins the round even if the warrants of the evidence said the author will "freak'n nuke everyone" if his "401K goes down one penny more". Historically speed debate took advantage of this philosophy. The logical next evolution would be that as soon as something is said, since we ignore warrants anyway, we always assume it to be true even when refuted. No matter how much warranted evidence a kid reads now saying nuke war won't happen, it is still within the realm of possibilities, and since the judge isn't listening to or evaluating warrants anyway, we create a paradigm to fit what is happening. The next generation pick up that paradigm thinking that is the way it is supposed to be, and we continue to evolve, even if it is into nonsense.

I don't understand the relevance of speed debate to my defense of the O/D paradigm.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason you are having a difficult time understanding the point we are making is because you are jumping to the impact debate before you EVER sort out the rest of the argument.

 

My answer is simple.

 

Team A reads that China is aggressive because of our troops in the pacific and removing troops from Japan solves a scenario of regional war and nuke war.

 

Next, Team B reads that the power vacuum created by removing troops from Japan leads to greater Chinese aggression resulting in regional war and nuke war.

 

Who wins? By your logic, it can never be Team B. After all, regardless of the fact that Team B claims the precise opposite, there is still risk that the Team A is right. By your logic, it doesnt matter whether Team B's argument is defense, a turn, or whether it has an impact - Team A is always the default position. Until you look to the warrants of their arguments, you can never sort it out and thus, the team that speaks first is always at the advantage. This proves that warrants matter, and if warrants matter, then they should universally matter - you don't get to pick an choose moments in which warrants matter and in which they dont. Warrants either matter or they dont. Do you see the problem with your position now?

 

I am going on a short ski trip for a few days. Might not be back to respond until then.

Edited by Ankur

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...