Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BlueWaffle

counterfactual?

Recommended Posts

i heard someone talking about a running counterfactual and i was wondering it worked? its bascially like: The USfg should have done _____ right? idk i was just curious. clarification would be highly appreciated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I DOESNT KNOWZ HOWZ NEJUAN CAN KNOWZ DA FACTAUL NATURR OF CONTERFACTAUL GIVIN ITZ CONTERFACTAUL NATURR

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. Counterfactual is a "but for x, this would have happened" proposition. I lost a round in college on a welfare topic that argued without welfare in the 30s, we would have lost WWII. It was weird to argue concentration camps in Brooklyn impacts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is arguably a great time to run a K, because it should link to the argument.

 

This would also be a time to run more generics.

 

I would also run a Topicality or Framework argument saying that time travel debate/counter factuals are illegitimate & unfair. The resolution says "should" not "should have in 1976"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they aren't usually arguing time travel. Generally speaking, CFs were run on the negative as a way of refuting the resolution, so they were in a hypothesis testing paradigm. They got their start, at least from my memory of them, in CEDA (Value/quasi-policy topics circa 1995.) The way they worked was, as the negative you could argue any warrant that refuted the resolution as "disproving the resolution" (look into counterwarrants and whole res for more on this.) Counterfactuals were a way of saying if we HAD done this, then the resolution would be irrelevant/untrue. So, an example on space might be to say if we had joined with the Soviets instead of competing, we'd have space colonies by now and your ISS aff would be irrelevant. And they usually do it in a somewhat kritiky kind of way like that, (competition vs cooperation etc) because they can argue root cause of your harms. (We have a space debris problem because we outsourced space ex to private companies in the 60s. Corporations don't care about the environment. If we had done it ourselves, your space debris problem would be moot.)

 

They also argue that anything NOT the resolution is neg ground, so they CAN say as a counter resolution "The US should HAVE..." In other words, the reason the resolution is untrue is that we should have done X in the past instead.

 

Answers are on paradigm (policy best, timeframe equivalence is fair ground, parametrics, bidirectionality negates hypotesting, etc.) This argument really does assume a different type of resolution than the ones used in HS debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So essentially by running a counterfactual you take yourself "back in time" to when the event presented actually happened, and rather than having the current chain of events happen, pursue a different timeline in which we did something different altering our discourse now? How would this work on the aff while still being topical (idk if its possible)? Would i be along the lines of The USfg should have joined the soviets to explore and develop space beyond the earth's mesosphere? thanks for the help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Using the theoretical justification I described it would always be a critic of the resolution, not a topical option. To run it aff, you either have to accept non topical K affs, or argue that the resolution is not necessarily present tense...that fiat is just asking the hypothetical question generally should the US explore space. Be ready for T-increase.

 

In other words, we should explore space, here is an example of when that would have been a good idea. Incidentally, this opens you up to counterwarrants and every possible disad, because they can say oh yeah, well here are 50 examples of when it would be a bad idea. They don't have to link to your case, just some topical case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob,

 

You were right to make the distinction, but I understand its not literally time travel. But calling it time traveling is a way to describe the geometric expansion in resolutional burdens these because its # of options x any moment in time

 

July 29, 1958 was the beginning of NASA

 

53 years X 365= 19,345 without making any hour by hour or minute by minute....which could be made in the context of space travel....given particular angles of planets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I just made the distinction because I have heard time travel CPs. But yes, dramatic expansion of possible positions.

 

With regard to LD, that actually makes more sense. In a value resolution, you expect a value to have equal weight regardless of timeframe. In my college example the res was technically value. I think it was "that the welfare system exacerbates the problems of the urban poor." It is designed for whole res, timeframe irrelevant debate. Neh argued the counterwarrant that welfare prepared the US for WW2.

 

By the way, as an example of whole res debate, our aff was stigma. We didn't argue one program, like afdc or food stamps bad. We argued welfare on the whole stigmatized the poor.

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...