Jump to content
mhostetter

What Does This Mean For Maintenance Affs?

Recommended Posts

There are decent inherency theory arguments to be made that say the affirmative can defend something that hasn't happened yet, but will. Grammatically, it makes perfect sense. The USFG should do what it's already going to do. The negative would claim that this allows the affirmative to nonunique all DAs, which would be abusive, but the affirmative should respond that the debate is not about "status quo vs. a change" but rather about "world of the plan vs. world without the plan", so DAs would still be unique. I can't think of good reasons to not let the affirmative defend something that will happen, and actually the added relevancy makes it more educational to allow them to do so.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are decent inherency theory arguments to be made that say the affirmative can defend something that hasn't happened yet, but will. Grammatically, it makes perfect sense. The USFG should do what it's already going to do. The negative would claim that this allows the affirmative to nonunique all DAs, which would be abusive, but the affirmative should respond that the debate is not about "status quo vs. a change" but rather about "world of the plan vs. world without the plan", so DAs would still be unique. I can't think of good reasons to not let the affirmative defend something that will happen, and actually the added relevancy makes it more educational to allow them to do so.

 

Have I mentioned that you are one of the most helpful people on the Internet? Thanks a lot. I think I can defend this, especially in SW Missouri, where very few people actually know what they're talking about.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. You motivated me to try to think of ways to get more offensive warrants for that theory claim. Here's a list.

1. Utility - debating bills that are currently planned to occur is a more useful form of education than debating that which is, by definition, unlikely to occur. Engagement with the real world establishment is key to translating education into human well being, this is the terminal impact to all of debate. (Warning: don't argue this in that strong of terms if you're facing a K).
2. Realism - debate's focus on debating things other than status quo possibilities has pushed it towards outrageous and repetitive approaches to our topics. (This is distinct from argument 1 - argument 1 is about applying our useful knowledge, this argument is about getting useful knowledge in the first place.)
Possible joke in later speeches about SPS or weird military cases being read every year.
3. Predictability - they can't claim they didn't anticipate this bill since it's actually being planned now.
4. Ground - added relevancy generates a slew of new articles being published on this plan, both in favor of it and against it.
Education/Ground Combo Subwarrant: Dynamically developing ground is uniquely good for education because it reinvigorates the landscape of successful debate strategies; that is, it gives failed arguments a new chance to become competitive, it undermines the hegemony of current ones, and it opens up space for entirely different approaches. It also precludes end of the year coasting.

Lots of these buzzwords don't work very well, all the fairness and ground and education claims are kind of melding into each other. I suppose that's a sign it would easily lend itself to a 2AR narrative, though. Ironically, that narrative which is defending abandoning inherency is very similar to a lot of the reactionary claims made by traditional judges, but it's all coated in the language of destabilization and newness. I find that funny.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...