Jump to content
NobiumCX

Kicking Out Of Arguments

Recommended Posts

Disads - make sure you answer any offense (i.e. link turns, impact turns) on the flow. Then, concede their defensive arguments (non-unique, no link, no impact, etc.) and make it clear to the judge you aren't going for the disad. If they're read both defensive and offensive arguments (i.e. a link turn and a no link argument) an easy way to answer the link turn is just by conceding their no link argument. The same goes for impact turns and no impact arguments. If they've straight turned you (only read offensive arguments), you're out of luck and are going to have to do a lot of work to win the disad.

CPs/Kritiks - same as disads (answer any offense and concede solvency deficits), but also concede that their permutation solves. however, you should make it clear that the permutation is just a test of competition, and not an advocacy, so even though it solves, they shouldn't be able to win on it in the 2AR.

 

Hope this helps.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they're read both defensive and offensive arguments (i.e. a link turn and a no link argument) an easy way to answer the link turn is just by conceding their no link argument. The same goes for impact turns and no impact arguments. If they've straight turned you (only read offensive arguments), you're out of luck and are going to have to do a lot of work to win the disad.

 

The only thing to watch out for is that sometimes the link turn doesn't correlate perfectly with the link defense. This weekend I hit GBN's Sawyer and we kicked out of the straight turned DA by conceding his link defense argument that funding was already allocated, but his L/T was predicated off of the perception of the plan being built, meaning he still maintained the offense.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Situations in which you cannot kick out of the DA:

-the only arguments are a non-unique and link turn

-the only arguments are impact turns

 

Situations in which you cannot kick the CP or K:

-you have read it dispositionally and they read offense on it without perming it

-you have read it unconditionally

 

If they have read a combination of offensive and defensive arguments on a DA:

-if they read non-unique, link turn, and no impact: "concede no impact, that means there's no offense from the straight turn, not going for it"

-if they read non-unique and impact turn: "concede non-unique, the impact turn isn't offense for them because it happens whether you vote aff or neg, not going for it"

-if they read no link and impact turn: "concede no link, the impact turn isn't offense for them because they don't cause it, not going for it"

 

If you have read the CP or K conditionally:

-if they have read a perm: "not going for it, perms are a test of competition, don't let them advocate it"

-if they have not read a perm: "not going for it"

 

If you kick the CP or K, you must answer any theory on it which is a reason to reject the team. You should always clarify in 2AC cross-x what these theory arguments are.

 

If you kick the DA and there is both a no link and link turn, follow RaawrCat's advice. Nuances in the link debate can mess you up considerably if mishandled.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For kicking out of DAs on the negative I would suggest there are 5 routes:

1. Concede the no links

2. Concede the no internal links

3. Counterplan solves or counterplan links (so captures the link turns) or solves the link turns. Also, sometimes--sometimes the counterplan solves the add-on. This is often a super quick way to do this.

4. Answer the offense (link turns, impact turns, add-on advantages).

a) There are specific ways to answer link turns & impact turns that I won't go into here--except to say using uniqueness to box them out or to prove them to be empirically denied/false (this works best with impact turns). Hopefully if they are impact turning you've laid down some pretty good defense already--or will do so in this speech, but without.

b] 2NC counterplan to solve the impact turns or to solve the impact that you are a loss for

5. Even-if thinking/even-if explanation

a) This isn't necessary, but it can help. Usually this is minimizing their risk and or impact--and amplifying yours.

b] Also, you have the option of functionally doing the same thing on your top level overview/impact analysis.

One way is if you OWN the case impact or you OWN the ballpark impact in the debate (aka the nexus question). You can make it go away. But this is difficult unless you are winning both timeframe and probability and even if you are, because any smart team will turn their add ons into a way to access every single one of your impacts.

 

* I don't think there is 1 single way to kick out, but this should work 90 to 95% of the time.

 

Kicking out of a counterplan:

1. We are no longer advocating the counterplan--You just concede the permutation--its non-competitive, remember it was dispositional or conditional (whichever it happened to be).

2. Answer their theory objections. Also turn their theory objections into a reason to reject the team.

 

Kicking out of a critique:

1. No link

2. Concede the perm, but make sure they can't advocate it.

3. Concede policy framework good. Protect yourself ideally.

 

In the case of most all of the above--particularly the counterplan and the critique--you probably can give a reason why your other stuff matters more anyway. Or some sort of even-if story.

 

If you happen to be going for topicality--you may want to answer every piece of theory in the round and provide an overview as to why topicality trump other theory arguments--because that framed and set the stage for the entire debate.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3. Counterplan solves or counterplan links (so captures the link turns) or solves the link turns. Also, sometimes--sometimes the counterplan solves the add-on. This is often a super quick way to do this.

5. Even-if thinking/even-if explanation

a) This isn't necessary, but it can help. Usually this is minimizing their risk and or impact--and amplifying yours.

b] Also, you have the option of functionally doing the same thing on your top level overview/impact analysis.

One way is if you OWN the case impact or you OWN the ballpark impact in the debate (aka the nexus question). You can make it go away. But this is difficult unless you are winning both timeframe and probability and even if you are, because any smart team will turn their add ons into a way to access every single one of your impacts.

 

* I don't think there is 1 single way to kick out, but this should work 90 to 95% of the time.

 

Could you further explain this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize....this is not my best explanation of these concepts....and in some cases I may actually conflate some concepts--note the less the following are very critical to winning debates.

1) Nexus impact

2) Impact comparison

3) Even-if

 

 

3. Generally in terms of counterplans--its counterplan still links--which hopefully means it solves for the impact turns. Also, if the counterplan links--hopefully it solves for the link turn. Although, you want to explain it as "counterplan solves for the link turns"--in some cases you can acknowledge the differential in your ability to solve for the link turn--we solve 90 to 95% of the link turn.

 

4. Even if thinking is a critical skill--particularly for later speeches, but they can be set up earlier on. Even-if they win X argument, we will still win Y argument and still win the argument/debate. Sorry, this is a bit crude in terms of the wording, but I think you get the concept.

 

A related option is using a tie breaker--"worst case scenario the arguments are a wash" and you can vote for X argument.

 

Nexus argument or impact. This is the place where you are taking the impacts in the debate too. Usually its the economy or hegemony-but you can make it any impact really (any big impact inter-connects with the others). This is a super, super important issue.

 

Let me think of the nexus question from the negative--how can I use my impact that I'm going to win to say "disad turns the case"

 

On the aff....at least for the 2ac....its how do each of my impact scenarios interact with their argument. But more than that--its thinking about what impacts I'm most likely to win--where will the debate go to. (the idea of begin with the end in mind)

 

Ball parking.

1) Root cause arguments--sometimes laundry list cards can help you get a similar effect.

2) Any argument that says prefer our impact--or reject theirs. No War Arguments are an example of this.

3) Prefer our argument because.....

4) Setting up your argument as the central argument in the debate. This is far more nuanced than saying "we outweigh....nuclear war"

 

You can watch this as a fuller explanation of this question--its a lecture from Northwestern University Debate Institute--although he talks about it in a somewhat different notion than I do (he talks about the nexus question--I'm talking about the nexus impact in the debate OR your nexus impact in the debate):

http://www.cross-x.c...ges-the-speech/

 

Number three--clash. Clash. Clash is the meat of logos or reasoning what Aristotle called logos, the reason why one argument ought to trump another. It is the most difficult skill in debate to teach and the most difficult skill in debate to learn. Clash is the raison d'etre or that which weaves the judge to reach the conclusion when he or she sets side by side two competing alternative visions of the world as they ought to be. You see the judge doesn't operate in a vacuum alone. He or she understands not only the vision of the debate world or universe that you offer for their consideration, but they also consider the similar credibility in most circumstances of the alternative vision of that debate world that is offered by your opponent. The critical question in the debate is how does the judge choose between those two competing alternatives? By what yardstick, by what ruler, by what measure, are they to choose are they to decide which team is right when a question of close call comes before them? Understand this too, in the judge's mind almost all the calls are close calls the room is full of grey areas, but rarely are there black and white decisions to be made as arguments are compared to one another. The game in that respect is first and foremost a game of what I call argument resolution. That means that the team that best defines the essential difference between their own position on the nexus question, the nexus question is the tipping point of the debate the place where if the judge had to say one and only one question was determinative to my thinking about all subordinate issues the nexus question, the tipping point. It is the team that most clearly defines its own relationship to the nexus point, that team is the one that is likely going to persuade a judging panel in a close debate.

 

For more on making these types of determinations (and may help you more than the Deathredge speech, which is quite good)--is the impact comparison lectures from Georgetown.

 

http://georgetowndebateseminar.wikispaces.com/lectures

 

Ideally its best to take a look at the Georgetown 2009 lecture on Impact comparison (presumably its both on the wiki, YouTube, and vimeo....or at least on one of them). This lecture is Bill Batterman trying to create a new method for impact comparison--but I think the old method is more than sufficient for most cases (aka 90 to 95%).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it a good idea to concede the permutation when kicking CPs and Ks?

Basically just an extra layer of defense to concede.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand. I think I'm missing something or misinterpreting you. If the negative concedes that the permutation solves, isn't that irrelevant? Doesn't that just waste the negative's time? Because the permutation leaves the debate when the CP or K does, so why bother spending more time on it? There's no potential negative advantage, both because they've already done enough to get rid of the CP or K and because even if they hadn't it would be up to the affirmative to determine whether or not to go for the K, so this wouldn't function as another layer of defense at all but only possibly as another way for the affirmative to win the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The only thing to watch out for is that sometimes the link turn doesn't correlate perfectly with the link defense. This weekend I hit GBN's Sawyer and we kicked out of the straight turned DA by conceding his link defense argument that funding was already allocated, but his L/T was predicated off of the perception of the plan being built, meaning he still maintained the offense.

 

Could you explain this further? It sounds like that was a case of non-unique and a link turn.

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...