Jump to content
BernieSanders

Would You Consider This T Okay?

Recommended Posts

So, I run this T - In means Throughout, but I noticed that the generic open evidence shell has like, this words n phrases 1959 card in it. So, I went looking on a thesaurus and found that they are Synonyms. Would you as a judge buy me cutting that and saying "Synonyms of In: Throughout" as a standard? I used it successfully against the Oregon State winning team in our prelim tournament but not at any national tournaments... so I want your guy's opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably not. Just use the old cards.

There's got to be something else I can do then use "Words And Phrases 59" in round. 

 

inb4 "don't run the T." 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's got to be something else I can do then use "Words And Phrases 59" in round. 

 

inb4 "don't run the T." 

 

Date and author don't matter on T cards. It's your job as a debater to convince the judge why your definition is the best for debate. Qualifications are irrelevant for T in my opinion. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's more predictable to read at least some kind of definition, even if it's old, instead of choosing whichever kind of synonym you like the best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From someone who has been in the game a while....since before you were born....

 

The nature of parametrics kind of gets them out of this.

 

There is the idea of "subsets" versus the full resolution.   I think that usually applies in the case of "substantial" being in resolution--I 

don't fully recall.  I've only seen subsets a couple times......and my mind is hazy.

 

But you can look at the theory of parametics.....you could also use logical fallacies to answer this.

In CEDA they used to run Hasty G.

 

This is old school theory in one sense, but given your situation.....you can at least make the argument.  

Its kind of like a backfile check type-argument....

 but in the area of theory.

 

And you have to have 5 cases that meet.  Period.  If you don't have 5 cases that meet--its game over with any halfway decent critic or halfway decent team.  You have to have fair division of ground or their isn't a debate or education.  

 

There could also be an argument (for the aff) somehow around....we are still throughout (ie we are the law of the land).  There is no place where our policy doesn't apply.  It just specifies geographies.  Theres probably some part of your argument that answers this--its a slippery & ambiguous way around your definition....but not your standards......if that makes any sense.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Are you going to nationals....running this strategy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From someone who has been in the game a while....since before you were born....

 

The nature of parametrics kind of gets them out of this.

 

There is the idea of "subsets" versus the full resolution.   I think that usually applies in the case of "substantial" being in resolution--I 

don't fully recall.  I've only seen subsets a couple times......and my mind is hazy.

 

But you can look at the theory of parametics.....you could also use logical fallacies to answer this.

In CEDA they used to run Hasty G.

 

This is old school theory in one sense, but given your situation.....you can at least make the argument.  

Its kind of like a backfile check type-argument....

 but in the area of theory.

 

And you have to have 5 cases that meet.  Period.  If you don't have 5 cases that meet--its game over with any halfway decent critic or halfway decent team.  You have to have fair division of ground or their isn't a debate or education.  

 

There could also be an argument (for the aff) somehow around....we are still throughout (ie we are the law of the land).  There is no place where our policy doesn't apply.  It just specifies geographies.  Theres probably some part of your argument that answers this--its a slippery & ambiguous way around your definition....but not your standards......if that makes any sense.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Are you going to nationals....running this strategy?

 

I'd rather not run any of this T at all, but some cases link hard into it.  I just had a hard time with a really old source like that... but I couldn't find anywhere else that had In = Throughout. Anyway, I'll change it back to the original cards then. 

 

In fairness, the team we ran this on we only did as a time suck so they wouldn't be able to answer our real offense. It ended up working. I just wish we'd beaten them on opposite sides at finals :( 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T - In = Throughout is a good Topicality not because of how realistic the definition it is, but how it puts a clear (and pretty good limit) on the topic. Or else people would be running, let's build infrastructure on this specific street in New York because that street is the one key street to hegemony (or whatever)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or else people would be running, let's build infrastructure on this specific street in New York because that street is the one key street to hegemony (or whatever)

 

The lack of evidence linking a specific New York street to Heg kinda already solves this problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lack of evidence linking a specific New York street to Heg kinda already solves this problem. 

Wall Street

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lack of evidence linking a specific New York street to Heg kinda already solves this problem. 

Broadway k2 culture k2 solve extinction 

Broadway k2 theatre industry k2 economy k2 prevent extinction

Broadway k2 NYC tax revenue k2 state budget k2 prevent damage from another Hurricane Sandy k2 Sid-Ahmed 4

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T - In = Throughout is a good Topicality not because of how realistic the definition it is, but how it puts a clear (and pretty good limit) on the topic. Or else people would be running, let's build infrastructure on this specific street in New York because that street is the one key street to hegemony (or whatever)

There are arguments to be made about how debate definitions divorce it from public discourse, ultimately destroying its purpose in trying to engage citizens in policy issues. I'm not taking a stance on the issue, but it is debatable.

 

To the issue of specificity, there are some people who write about extremely specific issues, like how we need to clean up a particular lake or fix the potholes in a specific street. It's very possible that there may not be literature on the other side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Broadway k2 NYC tax revenue k2 state budget k2 prevent damage from another Hurricane Sandy k2 Sid-Ahmed 4

 

 

Oh God, not that card. I still don't understand the link from natural disasters to extinction, but whatever. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the context of the defining terms so we can understand each other and be fair kills the public square?

 

By default we define things--defining things in debate takes those definitions out of default and assumptions and makes them clear.  In the same way as shining light on abuses of government.

 

Plus, policy debates happen for different reasons and in different contexts.  The public citizen isn't one type of individual--but

one in different contexts.  For instance, the citizens attending public debates in Washington DC are different from public debates in Kansas or middle America or any where else for that matter.  Public debates in the debate context are equally unique to a particular brand of audience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the context of the defining terms so we can understand each other and be fair kills the public square?

 

By default we define things--defining things in debate takes those definitions out of default and assumptions and makes them clear.  In the same way as shining light on abuses of government.

 

Plus, policy debates happen for different reasons and in different contexts.  The public citizen isn't one type of individual--but

one in different contexts.  For instance, the citizens attending public debates in Washington DC are different from public debates in Kansas or middle America or any where else for that matter.  Public debates in the debate context are equally unique to a particular brand of audience.

I'm going to guess that you're addressing this to me.

 

As stated before, I'm not taking a stance on this issue (and this isn't even a position that I hold), but I'll try to defend it to the best of my knowledge (switch side debate bad? :P).

 

As I've been told, debate definitions can (though not necessarily) be divorced from public discourse. For instance, take in = throughout. One of the arguments for why it's good in the debate context is that it sets predictable parameters on the debate, giving the neg enough ground to make certain kinds of arguments (such as a spending DA, regionalism arguments, etc.). Compare this to the public understanding where in = within, within the boundaries of. The public definition is too broad, allowing the aff to spike out of most arguments about region specific disadvantages. For instance, imagine a neg researching in depth about how high speed rail will pollute a particular freshwater stream that holds the only known habitat of an endangered fish (ignore the whole extinction from biosphere collapse and all). The argument goes that the neg should be allowed to run that disad because they put time and effort into researching something so specific (and it's topic-specific, pertinent to us as legislators actually have to think about that kind of thing, etc.). The in = throughout definition allows the neg to say that this is the true abuse in the round, that they didn't get to talk about real world issues that would have been beneficial to us as would-be legislators and us as concerned citizens.

 

Contrast that to the public discourse side (for lack of better term). If we allow the definition of in = throughout to be accepted, then that goes against what most people would understand as being accepted by the majority of people. The majority of people may think that in = within, or they may think some other definition. When told of why in = throughout is important for debate (the above points of abuse and predictable division of ground), it is very possible that most people would understand the rationale. However, that explanation almost never happens (maybe, I don't know). Even when it does, a public person may not understand it (for a variety of reasons, such as speed of the debate or lack of interest in the activity). Even if they do understand it, convincing other people of accepting that definition, especially when it only applies in the context of policy debate, not even in real world debates between political opponents, may be a tough job. The result of this is that the way that policy debaters go about with their activity has become separated from the public sphere, where a different set of rules (norms) apply because of a different set of rules (the actual rules of debate, like speech times). Then some argue that this actually leads to the bureaucratization of policy debate, where everyone is trying to follow the norms because they're the "rules", things to be expected. One may then envision the horrors of the DMV (some high school kids may not understand this reference, but in a few years, you will).

 

Again, this is not a stance that I hold, and I'm most definitely not an expert on this position. If anyone would like to defend it more thoroughly or argue that I've misrepresented it, be my guest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the arguments for why it's good in the debate context is that it sets predictable parameters on the debate, giving the neg enough ground to make certain kinds of arguments (such as a spending DA, regionalism arguments, etc.). 

 

 

Not calling you out personally, but I hear In=Throughout linked to Spending WAYYY too much. "Substantially" ensures a spending DA. You can do something in only half the states, and still spend billions and billions. You can do something (Albeit, something small) throughout all 50 states and not spend that much money. 

 

I haven't  heard before of regional arguments as a justification for "In = Throughout". It actually DOES make a lot of sense. Beyond that though, I don't see much that isn't checked by "Substantially".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Structural limits definitely check in = throughout.

Also, there's probably better violations to run that you can consistently win with.

I never understood this violation because the interp cards are so vague. Does the definition mean that when I'm "in" the US, I'm in all 50 states at once? You need some context for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From someone who has been in the game a while....since before you were born....

.....and my mind is hazy.

sounds about right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I run this T - In means Throughout, but I noticed that the generic open evidence shell has like, this words n phrases 1959 card in it. So, I went looking on a thesaurus and found that they are Synonyms. Would you as a judge buy me cutting that and saying "Synonyms of In: Throughout" as a standard? I used it successfully against the Oregon State winning team in our prelim tournament but not at any national tournaments... so I want your guy's opinions.

I think that if you use a thesaurus there is only so many ways you can cut the card, so might I suggest finding antonyms of out, so you can make the argument that out and in are opposite, so the opposite of out is a synonym of in.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't  heard before of regional arguments as a justification for "In = Throughout". It actually DOES make a lot of sense. Beyond that though, I don't see much that isn't checked by "Substantially".

Outside of being able to link to regional argument, T - In = Throughout I think is the most important because it limits all the millions of potential affs that could only build infrastructure in one of the hundreds of population centers in the United States. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outside of being able to link to regional argument, T - In = Throughout I think is the most important because it limits all the millions of potential affs that could only build infrastructure in one of the hundreds of population centers in the United States.

There's actually something to be said regarding ARGogate's comment. How much is "throughout"? Does it mean that the plan is implemented in every square inch of land, water, and air?

 

As another note, not every topic is like this one. Not every topic requires some kind of physical result. For instance, the investment here needs to be "in", not necessarily the transportation infrastructure itself.

 

In response to JosephDebate, that's mixing burdens (kind of). Why does "substantially" need to mean a lot? Couldn't it mean "more than one" (I've seen it). Further, that's conflating the two, as it's not necessary that both should be in the resolution. Just because both are in the resolution doesn't mean that an aff plan has to only meet one or the other. Some say T is something where an aff plan should meet every single word.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to JosephDebate, that's mixing burdens (kind of). Why does "substantially" need to mean a lot? Couldn't it mean "more than one" (I've seen it). Further, that's conflating the two, as it's not necessary that both should be in the resolution. Just because both are in the resolution doesn't mean that an aff plan has to only meet one or the other. Some say T is something where an aff plan should meet every single word.

 

True, I just believe that "In" is only in the resolution to stop affs from being outside the U.S. I don't consider "In=Throughout" to be necessary for neg ground. Except maybe for regional type DAs 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you can use synonyms! So that means as long as plan action occurs at - on - into - to - by - for - within - with - over, or throughout the United States. Its topical. You can even use antonyms (outside - around - above - below, or behind).

  • Upvote 1

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...