Jump to content
Hailie Johnson

Aurora Borealis

Recommended Posts

I would probably make it a theory argument. A few things to remember with theory arguments:

 

1) Theory is a gateway argument- simply put, if you win theory, then the judge won’t evaluate the spending da, even if you are losing it.

 

2) Theory works in a similar way to Topicality. Remember T is structured Interpretation-Violation-Standards (reasons to prefer interp)-Voters (Impacts). Theory is similar:

 

A. Interpretation: X should or should not be in debate.

 

B. Standards/Voters

 

The violations is [usually] understood, although stating it is never a bad idea. The Standards are reasons to prefer the interpretation, and usually become reasons to vote down the argument/team.

 

Here is how I would structure this theory argument:

 

Interp: Issues of funding or spending should not be included in a debate round.

 

Several reasons to prefer:

 

1) *Topic-specific education- the negative distracts us from issues surrounding the plan by running spending da’s, that limits our topic-specific education.

2) *Extra-topical- the resolution only asks us to debate the merits of going into space, issues of spending fall outside the resolution. Extra-T is bad because:

a) Proves resolution insufficient- means that resolution by itself is not enough to warrant a ballot.

B) Unpredictable- no way to predict actions outside of the resolution.

3) Effects-topical- allowing issues of spending make the entire plan dependent on a part of plan that is outside the resolution. Effects-T is bad because:

a) Infinitely regressive- allows any number of steps to be taken to reach the resolution.

B) Mixes burdens- the judge must decide what is justifiable and what isn’t, which mixes the burden of debaters on both sides.

4) Framer’s Intent- the framer wanted us to debate about space policy not about budget problems.

5) *Game-theory proves- we don’t have our hands on the levers of power, we should only discuss the resolution in itself and not all the infinite details needed to actually implement. They would prefer we read a 8-minute plan text as opposed to solvency and advantages.

6) *Empirically denied- the federal government can always find ways to fund a bill, your impacts are empirically denied.

7) *Theory is a gateway argument- if we win a single standard, then you don’t evaluate the da.

8) Vote them down- they are sucking away valuable time from the important debate over the plan itself.

 

Notice the standards that have an asterisk (*) before them- these are the ones you would want to read if you had to trim down your responses due to time issues. Also, since the 1ar is almost always crunched for time, those are the responses you should probably extend, if not the rest.

 

Just guessing on how a team will respond to theory (because it usually isn’t used outside of cp perm statuses), responses will probably be defensive. You will want to have a overview like this:

 

Overview: all of their responses on theory are just defense with all our standards offensive reasons to vote down the spending da (and possibly the team as well). If there is even a risk of one of our standards, then its game-over on theory.

 

I don’t know what part of the country (or world, I suppose) you come from, but if its anything like Kansas, with lay judges and dumb debaters to boot, then NOT ALL your judges will like theory or be technical enough for theory arguments. You can still use some standards (Empirically denied, for example) as responses on the spending da.

 

Also, some teams you hit may have this as there A-strategy along with another argument called Justification or Hasty Generalization (usually run poorly), which ask you to justify the federal government as the agent of action. If so, you can add another response at the bottom of theory.

Finally, they ask us to justify the USFG, make them justify spending das in turn.

 

Theory shouldn’t be your only argument on das, however. I would put it at the top of other responses like these:

Non-unique: the federal government is over-budget all the time, and we still haven’t seen [impact] happen.

 

Uniqueness overwhelms the link: we just tripled our national debt in the past few years, which should have already triggered the link if the link is true.

 

No link: we don’t know how much the plan costs, it could be ten dollars [or other bs response specific to you case].

 

Link turn: its empirically proven that new markets created by going to space would provide systemic economic booms

Dolman ‘2 (Everett C., Associate Professor of Comparative Military Studies, School of Advanced Airpower Studies, Maxwell AFB, Alabama, Astropolitik, page 6, First published in Great Britain 2002)

If anything, the relationship between rising wealth and rising democracy is an ‘iron law’ of political science. Should the vast wealth of space be tapped and brought to constructive use on Earth, the wealth of all people should dramatically rise (at least in terms of per capita income, but undoubtedly in more meaningful ways as well). Significant infusions of capital, such as that observed in the sixteenth century after the discovery of the New World by the Spanish, serve to ignite systemic economic booms.

 

Link turn: specific to case.

 

Case outweighs, my 1ac impacts are awesome.

 

Personally, I like controlling the uniqueness and link turns as opposed to impact turns, especially with economy impacts, because they will probably have an impact file like this:

 

http://www.planetdebate.com/files/view/398

 

And the block with go something like this: “You said impact turn? Cool, here’s 15 new econ scenarios†and the 1ar will lose that battle. Badly.

 

Of course, with normal da responses, theory becomes less of an issue, and certainly not necessary if crunched for time. Unless you know the team is terrible at theory and the judges love a good theory debate, in which case you could mess them up by having theory be the only response…

 

Hint to all cap hacks- the Dolman evidence can be used as a generic link for a cap K.

 

 

EDIT: not quite sure what the smilies are for...

 

EDIT: smilies are supposed to be bNOSPACE) without the NOSPACE of course

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jschroeder and Hillcrest kid are my new best friends. One quick question on theory, ive never run it before. If i were to use that would i run it in my 1AC or 2AC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, when you say make them justify spending DA how would they go about that? Because i hate the ASPEC arguments and i would like to have a good response to them

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One quick question on theory, ive never run it before. If i were to use that would i run it in my 1AC or 2AC?

 

2AC. There is no reason to run in in your 1AC [its a response to a spending da]. I would just put it at the top of your other responses on the da.

 

Also, when you say make them justify spending DA how would they go about that?

 

That just means that they have to win theory on the spending da to win the da. Their justification argument is saying that you have to justify the resolution's actor, the USFG, before the judge can vote for the plan. You're saying the same thing on the disad, just using the negative's logic to justify it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jschroeder - in all honesty no judge is EVER going to reject a spending DA on spending DA bad theory unless the other team straight up drops it.

 

1) *Topic-specific education- the negative distracts us from issues surrounding the plan by running spending da’s, that limits our topic-specific education.

 

Really? Spending DA's are topic specific. Space exploration is extremely expensive, and ignoring that ignores a large topic area. Spiking out of that

A. guts all neg groud

B. Precludes effective neg strats

 

2) *Extra-topical- the resolution only asks us to debate the merits of going into space, issues of spending fall outside the resolution. Extra-T is bad because:

 

I don't think you quite understand extra T - that is when the AFF team does something outside of the rez and claims an advantage. Running a disad against something that the plan does is NOT extra T. Spending DA's are part of the negative. By definition all ground outside of the resolution belongs to the negative. If you read this arg in round you will lose some serious judge cred.

 

5) *Game-theory proves- we don’t have our hands on the levers of power, we should only discuss the resolution in itself and not all the infinite details needed to actually implement. They would prefer we read a 8-minute plan text as opposed to solvency and advantages.

 

This argument isn't very good, but I'll deal with another problem with it first. If they read a K, and you happen to read this argument, you potentially have just lost the round. Any decent K team will argue that this means we as debaters will never be policy makers, thus the best option is to vote for the alt in order to achieve some real world change.

 

Additionally, this arg doesn't apply at all to spending. Space exploration is super expensive, so spending disads are core negative ground. That is a subjective term, but heightened spending is a direct consequence of the plan, and should be debated.

 

7) *Theory is a gateway argument- if we win a single standard, then you don’t evaluate the da.

 

Uhhhh... ? Yes... this is true. However, YOU STILL HAVE TO WIN THAT SPENDING DA'S are illegit, which is almost IMPOSSIBLE in front of a decent team. The disad is core negative ground, its hardly abusive - all you have to do is cut a couple spending high now cards (I hear those are *very* hard to find right now), and win the line by line. It doesn't steal the aff, it doesn't do any of that. It is a direct cost of the plan. I highly recommend NOT reading spending DAs bad in round because it is not a winning argument at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

jschroeder, have you ever tried this in a round? Did you win on this argument?

 

I would never buy this argument. Not only does it make a big deal out of one of the dumbest arguments, but the issue of spending disads can be answered a lot better:

 

1. Find the solvency cards on funding--easy as that. If you have specific prices and they don't, you can easily beat them on specificity of your card

 

2. Link Turns:

 

3. Impact Turns

 

Not only is answering it easy, but you can actually gain offense on it easily. Plus, spending disads usually suck anyway. If the person has nothing else to win on but spending, then you should be able to beat them anyway (UNLESS it's UIL, that's a whole 'nother story)

 

Specifically on theory, no judge would buy theory on a disad, especially one like spending. Firstly, spending is probably the MOST PREDICTABLE argument on a plan, and is actually a relevant one. At the core of any and every plan is the funding, which is something that used to be specified more than it is now. I could literally stand up and say "Judge, this theory argument is b.s., funding is fair game, and at the very least default to predictability."

 

In the time that you would spend reading this theory argument, you could very well destroy the disad with time to spare. Judges would give you a hardcore wtf look if you ran this, so don't.

 

EDIT: ANDDDD, wtf would you do if their like "You're right, we concede spending disads are illegit" in the 2AC, then go hardcore on another, better argument, or case, OR replace the disad with a new one in the 2NC. You would have completely time-skewed yourself, when you could have turned the argument and gotten your own offense.

 

tl;dr DONT RUN THIS. YOU'D LOOK DUMB.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote name='jschroeder' timestamp='1309300792' post='838252'

That just means that they have to win theory on the spending da to win the da. Their justification argument is saying that you have to justify the resolution's actor, the USFG, before the judge can vote for the plan. You're saying the same thing on the disad, just using the negative's logic to justify it.

 

Wouldn't there technically be no actor in their DA?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the block with go something like this: “You said impact turn? Cool, here’s 15 new econ scenarios†and the 1ar will lose that battle. Badly.

This, seriously. People need to NOT impact turn econ DAs next year. There's a ridiculous amount of literature that says economic collapse is bad, and even if the literature supporting this is low quality, there's so much of it that it's impossible to answer.

 

You won't win a link turn because it's not possible that going to space will immediately save the government money. Crush them on the uniqueness debate and win that the case outweighs whatever marginal risk there is that the plan itself is enough to send us spiraling into depression. Then go home with your trophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This, seriously. People need to NOT impact turn econ DAs next year. There's a ridiculous amount of literature that says economic collapse is bad, and even if the literature supporting this is low quality, there's so much of it that it's impossible to answer.

 

You won't win a link turn because it's not possible that going to space will immediately save the government money. Crush them on the uniqueness debate and win that the case outweighs whatever marginal risk there is that the plan itself is enough to send us spiraling into depression. Then go home with your trophy.

 

agree 100% with the bottom part of the post. However, Impact turns *can* be a good strategy against the spending DAs. If spending is a net benefit to a counterplan and you need to win some offense, de-dev CAN be the right way to go because some of the ev is just so sic. Obviously you don't want to impact turn the disad every time, because it is a definite uphill battle, but in certain occasions if the 1ar is ready to do some good de-dev action and allocate time correctly, it is certainly possible to execute this strategy correctly.

 

Most De-dev authors write WAY better than economic collapse bad authors, and there is also a ton of dedev literature out there. Its obvious that no one should adopt this strategy every round, but it can be a good one in certain instances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

agree 100% with the bottom part of the post. However, Impact turns *can* be a good strategy against the spending DAs. If spending is a net benefit to a counterplan and you need to win some offense, de-dev CAN be the right way to go because some of the ev is just so sic. Obviously you don't want to impact turn the disad every time, because it is a definite uphill battle, but in certain occasions if the 1ar is ready to do some good de-dev action and allocate time correctly, it is certainly possible to execute this strategy correctly.

 

Most De-dev authors write WAY better than economic collapse bad authors, and there is also a ton of dedev literature out there. Its obvious that no one should adopt this strategy every round, but it can be a good one in certain instances.

 

i feel dumb asking but de-dev is what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so you know, I have to split up my responses to the last few posts, cause it won't let me just post it for some reason...

 

 

Well, since people seemed to have missed it, DISCLAIMER: I never said theory was the best or the only way to respond to a spending da. I just provided that as an option for responding to it in certain situations. In fact, I specifically said:

 

Of course, with normal da responses, theory becomes less of an issue, and certainly not necessary if crunched for time.

 

And, I even pointed out that it would be bad strategy to run ONLY theory on a spending da:

 

Theory shouldn’t be your only argument on das, however.

 

I'm not unconditionally advocating theory on spending das. However, I am going to advocate them as a possibility that could be tested. If you believe otherwise, that's fine! More power to you! I probably agree with you, but I still believe that theory on a da is something that could theoretically be used in-round. That is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 2

 

 

Jschroeder - in all honesty no judge is EVER going to reject a spending DA on spending DA bad theory unless the other team straight up drops it.

 

Specifically on theory, no judge would buy theory on a disad, especially one like spending.

 

I think you both underestimate the variability with judges. There are indeed judges out there that would never accept this, and I don't advocate running theory in front of them. However, there are (at least a few) judges that are essentially willing to vote on anything, including theory, and something like this could not only make sense in the judges mind, but also catch the other team off guard. If you don't believe me (who would, anyway?), look at the rounds won on Specs, Crazy Ks, and Performance teams, as well as the worst frameworks imaginable. Its important to remember that at the end of the day, debate is all about getting the ballot. If theory helps you do this, then why not?

 

As a side note, I think it would be fun to kill someone on da theory, if possible.

 

Really? Spending DA's are topic specific. Space exploration is extremely expensive, and ignoring that ignores a large topic area. Spiking out of that

A. guts all neg groud

B. Precludes effective neg strats

 

Really? Spending DA's aren't topic specific at all. Potentially any bill that could be passed [say, increasing the number of park rangers at Muir Woods] could trigger the link. I think it should be mentioned [especially if someone decided to run this] that technology evolves over time. Once, cell phones were extremely expensive and unreliable, and while they can still be expensive, you can get one for really cheap with a simple, cheap plan. In terms of this argument, just because the tech may not be perfected now, it is something that we should consider for the future, which is what debate is all about (preparing policy debaters to be policy makers in the future).

 

Guts all neg ground? Sorry, you don't get one DA? Not to be rude, but I'm sure your tub has other DAs you can run. Besides, you still get all other ground that's directly anti-resolution based.

 

Also, I'm not sure you can call a spending da an effective negative strategy...

 

I don't think you quite understand extra T - that is when the AFF team does something outside of the rez and claims an advantage. Running a disad against something that the plan does is NOT extra T. Spending DA's are part of the negative. By definition all ground outside of the resolution belongs to the negative. If you read this arg in round you will lose some serious judge cred.

 

I think what I was trying to say is being misunderstood. This isn't calling the da extra-t [that would just be dumb], its saying that issues of solvency fall outside the resolution, so the negative team would prefer we establish a secure source of funding, which would be an extra burden placed on the affirmative team that the resolution doesn't support. Take that as you may, it basically calls for a good case debate [advs and other das] as opposed to an economics debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part 3

 

 

This argument isn't very good, but I'll deal with another problem with it first. If they read a K, and you happen to read this argument, you potentially have just lost the round. Any decent K team will argue that this means we as debaters will never be policy makers, thus the best option is to vote for the alt in order to achieve some real world change.

 

First, a K would completely change the rules of the game. I'm talking about a straight up policy round.

 

Second, no K has ever changed a judge's behavior. If it has, its rare enough to be extremely unlikely, and is arbitrary nonetheless.

 

jschroeder, have you ever tried this in a round? Did you win on this argument?

 

I just thought of this. Completely untested. Just like a K before 1990.

 

1. Find the solvency cards on funding--easy as that. If you have specific prices and they don't, you can easily beat them on specificity of your card

 

2. Link Turns:

 

3. Impact Turns

 

1. That's what I said.

 

2. That's what I said.

 

3. No, not really.

 

This, seriously. People need to NOT impact turn econ DAs next year. There's a ridiculous amount of literature that says economic collapse is bad, and even if the literature supporting this is low quality, there's so much of it that it's impossible to answer.

 

Not only is answering it easy, but you can actually gain offense on it easily. Plus, spending disads usually suck anyway. If the person has nothing else to win on but spending, then you should be able to beat them anyway (UNLESS it's UIL, that's a whole 'nother story)

... spending is probably the MOST PREDICTABLE argument on a plan, and is actually a relevant one. At the core of any and every plan is the funding, which is something that used to be specified more than it is now.

 

Okay. Predictability is a good argument to respond on theory with. You would still have to weigh that against the other standards.

 

EDIT: ANDDDD, wtf would you do if their like "You're right, we concede spending disads are illegit" in the 2AC, then go hardcore on another, better argument, or case, OR replace the disad with a new one in the 2NC. You would have completely time-skewed yourself, when you could have turned the argument and gotten your own offense.

 

1. Cool story.

 

2. Extend the voter from the 2ac block. They just dropped this, which makes it an automatic round winner. Let's go home and eat pizza.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You won't win a link turn because it's not possible that going to space will immediately save the government money. Crush them on the uniqueness debate and win that the case outweighs whatever marginal risk there is that the plan itself is enough to send us spiraling into depression. Then go home with your trophy.

 

I completely agree with controlling the uniqueness [ie: its non-unique, so there is only a risk that plan can reverse the status quo]. However, I would say that link turns make the aff seem more compelling. Even if the da is totally non-unique, the neg can be like "look, there is still a risk they make it worse. Look to our CP that solves 100% of case and avoids this risk- its a win-win for the negative" in that scenario.

 

agree 100% with the bottom part of the post. However, Impact turns *can* be a good strategy against the spending DAs. If spending is a net benefit to a counterplan and you need to win some offense, de-dev CAN be the right way to go because some of the ev is just so sic. Obviously you don't want to impact turn the disad every time, because it is a definite uphill battle, but in certain occasions if the 1ar is ready to do some good de-dev action and allocate time correctly, it is certainly possible to execute this strategy correctly.

 

Most De-dev authors write WAY better than economic collapse bad authors, and there is also a ton of dedev literature out there. Its obvious that no one should adopt this strategy every round, but it can be a good one in certain instances.

 

If your running a cap bad aff, then you would concede the entire scenario and pull across the full weight of the 1ac to weigh against their one-card impact. This is true.

 

However, if you're a straight up policy aff, you will lose this battle because the block will always be able to read more scenarios than the 1ar can answer. The negative would spread you like crazy.

 

Further, if you're sitting in front of a lay judge, that would look bad, because they like a good economy. [Note here: don't run theory in front of lay judges]

 

Wouldn't there technically be no actor in their DA?

 

Yes. You're not asking them to justify their actor, you're asking them to justify the issue of spending in the first place.

 

i feel dumb asking but de-dev is what?

 

Its the idea that we should de-develop our economy. I'm sure someone can elaborate better than me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TLDR: chill out peeps. No need to ruffle your feathers.

 

Also, sorry for the quitile posting going on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TLDR: chill out peeps. No need to ruffle your feathers.

 

Also, sorry for the quitile posting going on

 

Thanks for all your help, everyone. Policy debaters really are the best

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would say that link turns make the aff seem more compelling. Even if the da is totally non-unique, the neg can be like "look, there is still a risk they make it worse. Look to our CP that solves 100% of case and avoids this risk- its a win-win for the negative" in that scenario.

I think that this might be right in normal cases, but link turns this year are even more useless than normal. Currently the most probable (or at least most popular) route to immediate economic collapse is if the US doesn't pay its bills. That means that helping out random space related sectors of the economy won't stop the DA. It's also unlikely that the link turn occurs before or anywhere near the time of the link because of the terrible time frame for developing space. This functionally makes the DA unturnable.

 

It's a waste of time to spend more than 20 seconds of the 1AR on the link turn unless the negative team is atrocious. That time would be better spent beating the DA, winning solvency deficits, or even going for theory.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that this might be right in normal cases, but link turns this year are even more useless than normal. Currently the most probable (or at least most popular) route to immediate economic collapse is if the US doesn't pay its bills. That means that helping out random space related sectors of the economy won't stop the DA. It's also unlikely that the link turn occurs before or anywhere near the time of the link because of the terrible time frame for developing space. This functionally makes the DA unturnable.

 

It's a waste of time to spend more than 20 seconds of the 1AR on the link turn unless the negative team is atrocious. That time would be better spent beating the DA, winning solvency deficits, or even going for theory.

 

word. link turns are absolutely useless against the spending DA this year. Unless your specific case has some sic, and I mean AMAZING, means of saving a ton of money in the short term you are never going to win a link turn against a decent team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...