Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
cleelau

Multiple World's Theory

Recommended Posts

I'm confused as to what "multiple worlds" theory is. For example, I'm writing up an aff for next year, and it has to do with researching about the likelihood/magnitude of global warming by using space tech. Would this be considered an abuse worthy of multiple world's theory, because there is no steady impact scenerio, because the impact scenerio can always change after research is done? Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused as to what "multiple worlds" theory is. For example, I'm writing up an aff for next year, and it has to do with researching about the likelihood/magnitude of global warming by using space tech. Would this be considered an abuse worthy of multiple world's theory, because there is no steady impact scenerio, because the impact scenerio can always change after research is done? Thanks

No.

 

Multiple worlds theory applies to the negative reading multiple advocacies, like more than 1 CP or K (with an alternative).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No.

 

Multiple worlds theory applies to the negative reading multiple advocacies, like more than 1 CP or K (with an alternative).

 

would my aff impact scenerio still be considered abusive

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn't seem abusive due to the global warming research part. However, specifying what the space equipment will do may be abusive because it is arguably outside the scope of the topic. You can say that space equipment should be created, but cannot mandate that the equipment is used for certain purposes, unless you win that 'development' comprises more than the construction of space assets.

 

The negative will claim that if you could specify that equipment be used for certain purposes then you could specify missions to specific planets, of which there are thousands, or you could specify that equipment be used to spy on or threaten different countries, of which there are hundreds. This makes it hard to be the negative team.

 

This also seems like a bad impact scenario. You are unable to claim that global warming is bad or good, only that the lack of knowledge about global warming is bad. This makes it much more difficult for you to win a reason that global warming research is key to solve extinction. Having extinction level impacts is extremely desirable.

 

Additionally, I think that the problem with global warming is not lack of climate data, but rather a disagreement on how that data should be viewed. Satellites seem unlikely to solve that problem.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To my knowledge, multiple worlds is a form of conditionality. FOr example, at our last tournament our strat was aspec, gpr cp, skfta da, and Nietzsche. One world was the policy strat, and the other world was Nietzsche. I took the k in the 2nc and my partner took the policy in the 1nr. These are contradicting because we run it as a security type k saying that the negation of positive difference makes your life something ugly that needs to be negated, which leads to microfacism and you are reduced to nihilism. But of course, the policy strat links to this. but with multiple worlds, you can really avoid that debate and really just have to deal with generic condo/multiple worlds bad.

 

If this wasn't what you were referring to, I apologize.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To my knowledge, multiple worlds is a form of conditionality. FOr example, at our last tournament our strat was aspec, gpr cp, skfta da, and Nietzsche. One world was the policy strat, and the other world was Nietzsche. I took the k in the 2nc and my partner took the policy in the 1nr. These are contradicting because we run it as a security type k saying that the negation of positive difference makes your life something ugly that needs to be negated, which leads to microfacism and you are reduced to nihilism. But of course, the policy strat links to this. but with multiple worlds, you can really avoid that debate and really just have to deal with generic condo/multiple worlds bad.

 

So basically, what you're saying is that you're using this opportunity to talk about yourself to try and sound good...

 

But yeah, multiple worlds is just an argument to view each advocacy in its own little bubble because one links to another's net benefit. However, DO NOT still be advocating multiple plans/alternatives in the 2nr, the point of claiming multiple worlds is to give the negative more ground to test the aff, but not to end up contradicting itself all the way through.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn't seem abusive due to the global warming research part. However, specifying what the space equipment will do may be abusive because it is arguably outside the scope of the topic. You can say that space equipment should be created, but cannot mandate that the equipment is used for certain purposes, unless you win that 'development' comprises more than the construction of space assets.

 

The negative will claim that if you could specify that equipment be used for certain purposes then you could specify missions to specific planets, of which there are thousands, or you could specify that equipment be used to spy on or threaten different countries, of which there are hundreds. This makes it hard to be the negative team.

 

This also seems like a bad impact scenario. You are unable to claim that global warming is bad or good, only that the lack of knowledge about global warming is bad. This makes it much more difficult for you to win a reason that global warming research is key to solve extinction. Having extinction level impacts is extremely desirable.

 

Additionally, I think that the problem with global warming is not lack of climate data, but rather a disagreement on how that data should be viewed. Satellites seem unlikely to solve that problem.

 

This seems stupid on a few accounts:

1. Its not extra topical to say that a technology would be used for a certain purpose, otherwise you could never have an advantage area. Under your interp, building space colonies (not saying its feasible, just topical) and saying they would save people from an asteroid strike is untopical because you specified what the colonies would be used for. Your argument would only be true if you built the tech with a mandate that it be used for warming, which is a conditioning argument, not extra t.

2. This topic will allow hundreds of small aff's that's inevitable in the wording, its best to learn to deal with it.

3. You can still say warming is good or bad, that makes no sense. Unless you think that would be extra topical too.....

 

To my knowledge, multiple worlds is a form of conditionality. FOr example, at our last tournament our strat was aspec, gpr cp, skfta da, and Nietzsche. One world was the policy strat, and the other world was Nietzsche. I took the k in the 2nc and my partner took the policy in the 1nr. These are contradicting because we run it as a security type k saying that the negation of positive difference makes your life something ugly that needs to be negated, which leads to microfacism and you are reduced to nihilism. But of course, the policy strat links to this. but with multiple worlds, you can really avoid that debate and really just have to deal with generic condo/multiple worlds bad.

 

If this wasn't what you were referring to, I apologize.

 

This is right. Multiple worlds is a way of framing conditionality arguments. I.e. you get conditional advocacies as long as they are not in conflict with each other. Whether or not that's legitimate is only slightly dependent on what the aff does. Usually the way a neg tries to defend it using the aff is either that the aff is new or that it is very small and therefore unpredictable, which its hard to tell with how you described your aff.

 

Overall though, its not as if there is a clear yes or no answer, its whether you can justify it. Theory debates are not won or lost on objective truth, its about how you can spin the debate in your favor. So really there is no right or wrong answer to your question.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just saw your post, sorry for the late reply.

 

This seems stupid on a few accounts:

1. Its not extra topical to say that a technology would be used for a certain purpose, otherwise you could never have an advantage area. Under your interp, building space colonies (not saying its feasible, just topical) and saying they would save people from an asteroid strike is untopical because you specified what the colonies would be used for. Your argument would only be true if you built the tech with a mandate that it be used for warming, which is a conditioning argument, not extra t.

We already have the requisite satellites to measure global warming, therefore I assumed that he was just mandating the use of those satellites. Additionally, I'm not aware that there are any type of special satellites which can only be used for measuring climate data, so I assumed that he would attach a condition to the plan text saying that the satellites would be used for climate purposes.

 

His explanation of his idea was that the USFG should be "researching about the likelihood/magnitude of global warming by using space tech". Nothing within this implies new space assets are created which is an additional reason the case might not be topical.

 

My argument is not that saying that the technology would be used for the certain purpose is bad, it's that mandating the use of technology for that purpose is bad.

 

Conditioning arguments is a form of extra t. This is proven because if the condition is mandated in the resolution, it is acceptable. If a condition mandated in the resolution isn't acceptable, than no resolution is acceptable because all of them have a target area, ie "persons living in poverty" or "beyond the Earth's mesosphere".

 

2. This topic will allow hundreds of small aff's that's inevitable in the wording, its best to learn to deal with it.

Big claim. No warrant. This argument will rarely win T debates.

 

3. You can still say warming is good or bad, that makes no sense. Unless you think that would be extra topical too.....

You're misunderstanding his advantage. His idea was to increase our certainty about the state of global warming. Because the link from increasing certainty of GW to stopping it is tenuous at best, any advantages with good internal links would have to come directly from the accumulation of knowledge regarding warming. External to the global warming debate, there appears to be little benefit from climate research, so he wouldn't be able to access any quality extinction impacts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol thats not multiworld theory. Multiworld theory is usually an argument for the affirmative team to run against the negative team.

When the negative team runs mutually exclusive arguments like a Do nothing CP and a Consult NATO CP you would say that the neg operates in more than one world. more than one advocacy. You see, the neg themselves contradict themselves while they do multiple world advocacies. This leads to the neg running arguments without complete faith in al the arguments. and stuff like that. The aff would run multiworld bad saying that there should only be single worlds that way teams have one advocacy which promotes in depth debate and position. Its runnable with conditionality bad and somewhat similar to Performance contradiction bad.

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...