Jump to content
zetazetadelta

Rosa Parks

Recommended Posts

File Name: Rosa Parks

File Submitter: hudsonattar

File Submitted: 30 Jun 2013

File Category: Theory

Resolution: Transportation

 

The goal of a theory argument is to present an issue and a route through which we can address the problem. Generally, this route is either "drop the argument" or "drop the debater".

This file is a variant of the latter route, with one significant difference: it calls for the judge to vote against the person who presented the theory argument. It relies on the metaphor of mutiny and rebellion to prove that the best way to solve a problem is to create a martyr that instigates change in the debate community. The less "fair" the treatment, the better.

This is strategic because you can very often beat people who are vastly better theory debaters than yourself by making the debate smaller. It can also function as a great timesuck; you can simultaneously neutralize a very long theory objection with a single turn and also put the ball back in the other team's court.

I also like this argument because it's applicable in almost every round. Any time theory comes up, you can use this file.

There are some drawbacks: one is opportunity cost, in that running this turn prevents you from making your own theory objections. Furthermore, you'll find that many judges have a prohibitively high threshold for such clearly abusive arguments, so be prepared to spend a lot of rebuttal time to win this position.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Table of contents:

Rosa Parks. 1
Shell 3
High Risk. 4
Low Risk. 5
O/V / Extension. 6
High Risk. 7
Low Risk. 8
AT Fairness. 9
Fairness Solvency Turns. 10
Solvency. 14
AT: “Martyrdom doesn’t solve†Gen. 15
AT: “We Solve Tooâ€. 17
AT: “I Have to want to do it for it to workâ€. 18
AT: “Can’t Change Anythingâ€. 21
AT: Offense. 22
AT: “Leads to perpetual Sacrifice / Martyrdomâ€. 23
AT: “Martyrdom / Sacrifice Intrinsically Badâ€. 24
AT: “Death Badâ€. 25
AT: “Your Argument is Islamic Funamentalismâ€. 28
AT: “Metaphors Badâ€. 29
Other Answers. 31
AT: “We’re Dropping the Theoryâ€. 32
AT: Fear of Death. 33
AT: “Martyr Somebody Else†34

 

Click here to download this file

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$7 for an RVI file?

 

Also what does this have to do with Rosa Parks?

I think that it's high quality. You're paying for a fully blocked out issue and also posterity; I'll update this file throughout next season to reflect the evolution of the argument as I run it more. 

 

Rosa Parks was a martyr; she refused to give up her bus seat and was arrested + went to jail + was a symbol for the civil rights movement.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that it's high quality. You're paying for a fully blocked out issue and also posterity; I'll update this file throughout next season to reflect the evolution of the argument as I run it more. 

 

Rosa Parks was a martyr; she refused to give up her bus seat and was arrested + went to jail + was a symbol for the civil rights movement.

Honestly, I figured that that's where the line of thought was going. However, if this were ever used against me with the metaphor of Rosa Parks, I would say that what Rosa Parks did was an act of civil disobedience. There were actual laws in place that forbade what she did. In response, she defied them and suffered punishment, thereby showing that the laws were unjust.

 

Contrast that situation to debate. There are no set "laws" (beyond speech order and times). The debaters themselves create the laws. Because of the lack of official rules, we're left in a contrived state where we're looking for who to punish. Calling on the metaphor of Rosa Parks is a call to punish those that are right when they go against (unjust) rules. Thus, every time a debater calls for a voting issue (whether it be reverse or not), they're the one making the rules and should thus be punished.

 

These are just my thoughts on the issue, and I'd love to hear a response to hash this out.

 

Honestly, I'm completely fine with the whole concept. My issue is that it costs not $7.00 but $6.95. I mean, do you really need to have exactly $4.17 from each sale?

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I figured that that's where the line of thought was going. However, if this were ever used against me with the metaphor of Rosa Parks, I would say that what Rosa Parks did was an act of civil disobedience. There were actual laws in place that forbade what she did. In response, she defied them and suffered punishment, thereby showing that the laws were unjust.

 

Contrast that situation to debate. There are no set "laws" (beyond speech order and times). The debaters themselves create the laws. Because of the lack of official rules, we're left in a contrived state where we're looking for who to punish. Calling on the metaphor of Rosa Parks is a call to punish those that are right when they go against (unjust) rules. Thus, every time a debater calls for a voting issue (whether it be reverse or not), they're the one making the rules and should thus be punished.

 

These are just my thoughts on the issue, and I'd love to hear a response to hash this out.

 

Honestly, I'm completely fine with the whole concept. My issue is that it costs not $7.00 but $6.95. I mean, do you really need to have exactly $4.17 from each sale?

 

How is this offense for you? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I figured that that's where the line of thought was going. However, if this were ever used against me with the metaphor of Rosa Parks, I would say that what Rosa Parks did was an act of civil disobedience. There were actual laws in place that forbade what she did. In response, she defied them and suffered punishment, thereby showing that the laws were unjust.

 

Contrast that situation to debate. There are no set "laws" (beyond speech order and times). The debaters themselves create the laws. Because of the lack of official rules, we're left in a contrived state where we're looking for who to punish. Calling on the metaphor of Rosa Parks is a call to punish those that are right when they go against (unjust) rules. Thus, every time a debater calls for a voting issue (whether it be reverse or not), they're the one making the rules and should thus be punished.

 

These are just my thoughts on the issue, and I'd love to hear a response to hash this out.

The argument doesn't use Rosa Parks, it's just a convenient label. The evidence is actually about a nautical mutiny and how it spurned greater rebellion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is this offense for you? 

It wouldn't be offense so much as a reason to reject the argument. I would argue that the RVI is circular, so that's a reason to reject it. For instance, arguing on a security K that anti-securitization is circular because you do it to prevent impacts that are grounded in a security mindset. Therefore, the logic is circular and can't stand on it's own and should be rejected.

 

The argument doesn't use Rosa Parks, it's just a convenient label. The evidence is actually about a nautical mutiny and how it spurned greater rebellion.

Okay, that makes more sense, then. However, are you phrasing it as a reverse voting issue or as a reason to accept the voting issue but give the ballot to the opposite team? If it's the former, my arguments may still apply.

 

Also, you didn't respond to my point about the weird pricing. ;)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, that makes more sense, then. However, are you phrasing it as a reverse voting issue or as a reason to accept the voting issue but give the ballot to the opposite team? If it's the former, my arguments may still apply.

 

Also, you didn't respond to my point about the weird pricing. ;)

Generally the way to run this is conceding the whole theory except for the solvency mechanism (drop the arg / drop the debater) and instead vote down the person who presented the theory, because it solves better. I'd say that the latter of your two descriptions is more apt.

 

I'll change the price if it really bothers you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or, I mean, you could just win theory the old-fashioned way. You know, good arguments and analysis. But don't hold me to that, I'm just writing from the standpoint of every judge who doesn't like reverse-voting issues on theory/T (which is around 95% of them)

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ISHYGDDT

 

 

also

 

AT: “Your Argument is Islamic Fundamentalismâ€. 28

That's a common response. I've heard the argument that sacrifice is islamic which is the RC of war several times, both in response to this argument and Bataille.

 

Also, if you think it's such a bad argument, how would you answer it? 

 

 

Or, I mean, you could just win theory the old-fashioned way. You know, good arguments and analysis. But don't hold me to that, I'm just writing from the standpoint of every judge who doesn't like reverse-voting issues on theory/T (which is around 95% of them)

 

 

 

I believe that engaging the theory debate on every level is most productive. At the same time, it's important to recognize that 90% of the time theory is ran for the sake of strategy, rather than legitimate redress. With that in mind, I feel it is important to have as many tools as possible in your box, this being one of them. Also, this is an interesting spin on the traditional RVI, and I've found that many judges are appreciative of the fresh take on stale debates. You think that "95%" of judges want to hear the same condo debate for the 50th time? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that engaging the theory debate on every level is most productive. At the same time, it's important to recognize that 90% of the time theory is ran for the sake of strategy, rather than legitimate redress. With that in mind, I feel it is important to have as many tools as possible in your box, this being one of them. Also, this is an interesting spin on the traditional RVI, and I've found that many judges are appreciative of the fresh take on stale debates. You think that "95%" of judges want to hear the same condo debate for the 50th time? :)

 

First, no judge has heard the same theory debate "50 times," unless your version of theory debates consist of extending tags sans IL/impact analysis and a prioritization of large overviews instead of technical skill. If by that statement you mean "judges get tired of watching lots conditionality debates," judges are able to watch lots of k debates or DA/case debates in a row without getting tired because every time it's different. Plus, this argument is functionally saying "vote aff to vote neg," which almost no credible judge would buy. The ballot says "the better debating was done by ______," not "the team that shouldn't be martyred is _____."

 

Second, theory is a strategy. Even when there's legitimate abuse, theory is run because it could be in the 2NR/2AR, not just because the negative/affirmative was being mean and unfair. That's why in order to win theory, you have to win that the other team's actions are bad for debate, not just whine about unfairness in this one round.

 

Third, the metaphor falls apart when you take into account its context. The EASIEST way for me to answer this argument would be the simple claim that martyrdom has no impact in the debate community because nobody in other rounds cares what happened in this one. The only impacts to theory are the implications for debate if one team were to do X. Becoming a martyr does nothing for debate. I will guarantee you that there is not a single credible card which says "the losing team will start a massive movement against this debate practice and somehow force a mindset shift in the entire debate community that X practice is now bad." Martyrdom has its place. Debate is not that place.

 

I will agree that it's important to have a comprehensive toolbox for theory, but that should consist of cost benefit/minimization analyses-based arguments, not "they presented theory, that means they should lose to end up like Rosa Parks..." She didn't even want to become a martyr, she was just standing up for her rights.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that it's high quality. You're paying for a fully blocked out issue and also posterity; I'll update this file throughout next season to reflect the evolution of the argument as I run it more. 

Wait, so YOU'LL be running, exposing, and disclosing this argument, but you expect people to pay for it?

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, so YOU'LL be running, exposing, and disclosing this argument, but you expect people to pay for it?

What I run in round is vastly different from getting the full file, with extensions, answers, and all of the other fix-ins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, no judge has heard the same theory debate "50 times," unless your version of theory debates consist of extending tags sans IL/impact analysis and a prioritization of large overviews instead of technical skill. If by that statement you mean "judges get tired of watching lots conditionality debates," judges are able to watch lots of k debates or DA/case debates in a row without getting tired because every time it's different. Plus, this argument is functionally saying "vote aff to vote neg," which almost no credible judge would buy. The ballot says "the better debating was done by ______," not "the team that shouldn't be martyred is _____."

 

Second, theory is a strategy. Even when there's legitimate abuse, theory is run because it could be in the 2NR/2AR, not just because the negative/affirmative was being mean and unfair. That's why in order to win theory, you have to win that the other team's actions are bad for debate, not just whine about unfairness in this one round.

 

Third, the metaphor falls apart when you take into account its context. The EASIEST way for me to answer this argument would be the simple claim that martyrdom has no impact in the debate community because nobody in other rounds cares what happened in this one. The only impacts to theory are the implications for debate if one team were to do X. Becoming a martyr does nothing for debate. I will guarantee you that there is not a single credible card which says "the losing team will start a massive movement against this debate practice and somehow force a mindset shift in the entire debate community that X practice is now bad." Martyrdom has its place. Debate is not that place.

 

I will agree that it's important to have a comprehensive toolbox for theory, but that should consist of cost benefit/minimization analyses-based arguments, not "they presented theory, that means they should lose to end up like Rosa Parks..." She didn't even want to become a martyr, she was just standing up for her rights.

At this point, I think it's clear that you want to debate the merit of the argument, but don't actually know what the argument IS because you don't have the file. It's not just "vote aff to vote neg", it's "vote aff to solve the neg's theory". 

 

I agree with your second point. The whole point of this argument is that voting the theory team down is best for debate...

 

As for your third point and the following paragraph, there are several answers to these arguments... in the file. Of course there are solvency advocates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point, I think it's clear that you want to debate the merit of the argument, but don't actually know what the argument IS because you don't have the file. It's not just "vote aff to vote neg", it's "vote aff to solve the neg's theory". 

 

I agree with your second point. The whole point of this argument is that voting the theory team down is best for debate...

 

As for your third point and the following paragraph, there are several answers to these arguments... in the file. Of course there are solvency advocates.

 

I will reward you for trying to scramble together an argument (albeit flawed) for this file. As such, I bought it to prove a point (I'll gladly spend $7 if it means I can help people understand the limitations of RVIs on theory/T).

 

Please don't try to strawman my arguments, especially when they're true. I'm not going to post the file or give it to anyone, but in return for buying the file, I get to say this: you literally have no cards that talk about policy debate. Nobody cares why martyrdom is true in real life, we're living in the debate world; to quote my coach, "we're all egomaniacs" (myself included). If someone walked up to a room full of debaters and said "I lost my debate round and am here to prevent the evils of X theory argument for all of debate," they would either laugh at or ignore that person and get back to prepping.

 

In addition, if "many judges have a prohibitively high threshold for such clearly abusive arguments," why would anyone run the file? In the best-case scenario, even if a judge votes on this, your speaker points will be "prohibitively" low. Forget about collegiate judges who would laugh in your face as they drop you, and high-school judges who won't flow this argument, even a normal person would agree that the argument on its merits is flawed: voting one team down for making a theory violation in a debate round is like kicking someone out of a game because he or she wanted to play by the rules.

 

The only way you could sell this would be as a time-suck, but even that falls apart because a debater could make the argument I posted above and then just go for and win on theory. Even if voting affirmative "solves the negative's theoretical violation" (which it doesn't), it begs the question of what happens to the affirmative. They'll just read this same argument over and over, make a ton of "martyrs," and then we're left with one abusive team who wins. It's ideologically faulty to presume that debate is anything like the real world, and that's where this argument simply breaks down.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. When did I make a strawman of your arguments?

 

2. The reason there aren't cards that are specifically about policy debate is because... the argument isn't about policy debate. It's about the effectiveness of martyrdom. There's plenty of evidence that indicates that martyrdom is an effective way to garner change; if there's even the slightest risk of a spill over, that's a reason why you'd win on the turn. You'll notice how all of the arguments you're making are defensive.

 

3. You should run this file because it's strategic! It's a way to turn a much larger theory debate into a manageable set of issues. Furthermore, because so many people take a purely defensive position toward its refutation, you can win despite the traditionally high threshold judges hold.

 

4. You say that "collegiate judges ... would laugh in your face as they drop you". That's absolutely untrue! Collegiate judges definitely do not vote based on their presuppositions about an argument. I would say you

 

5. If you read the file, you'd notice that there's a SPECIFIC answer to the argument that the turn becomes infinitely regressive if it's successful ever, so I'm going to have to question your assertion that voting for this turn would "make a ton of 'martyrs'".

 

6. You're being reproachably non-tab in your approach to this argument, I think. Go and read or re-read the whole file with more of a blank slate and I feel confident that a lot of your (justifiably) skeptical analyses will resolve themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. My argument wasn't "this argument is stupid and useless and blah blah blah..." Yet you treated it as such and told me there's an answer in the file. My argument was about the specificity of this argument to debate, which is a distinct claim. It's the difference between argumentation as praxis and argumentation in a specific social location.

 

2. If the argument has no implications for policy debate (our speaking position is every round), there's absolutely no reason to read it. Nobody, and I repeat, nobody, cares about your status as a martyr in policy debate. You can vote on a no link when there really isn't a link. As an analogy, take the politics DA read against an aff that has no plan text. There is no link to politics because the plan has nothing to do with congress.

 

3. I agree that "many people take a purely defensive position toward its refutation," but there's no need for offense if the other team concedes that they hurt debate and should be voted down.

 

4. You misunderstand. Collegiate judges won't drop you because they think the argument is stupid, but because you will get destroyed in any college debate where you run this argument. The "laughing in your face" part comes from them hearing how ridiculous the position is. You're conflating predispositions and personal opinions; while judges aren't predisposed against anything, that doesn't mean they will like everything they hear

 

5. Please. Stop. I'm half-inclined to post that card for everyone to ridicule, but that would be wrong because they haven't bought the file. I'd recommend trying to find the word "debate" in that card. I can't. Spin and analytics have their places, but those aren't carded reasons to reject the team, which you're claiming. The arguments that card makes are good, if we were talking about a solitary movement. However, what happens if you went up against a theory violation every round? Would you really just read this once and say "you're the only martyr." In that case, how do you determine who becomes that martyr. Furthermore, how do you ensure that this "martyr" even does anything besides prep for the next round? He/she is still going to make the same arguments.

 

6. Believe it or not, I'm not as non-tab as you think. I think the argument is interesting and merits some appraisal. However, from a purely objective viewpoint, I simply cannot see the strategic value in any theory file or RVI that isn't germane to debate as a social sphere. Now if you had cards specific to debate, and not just metaphors, that would be a different story.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The major problem with this argument is that Rosa Parks was a willing "martyr". She was specifically selected by civil rights movement leaders as a willing candidate with no criminal history that could be used to discredit her. If you put a willing person through unfair treatment for symbolic purposes, its ethically distinct from forcing an explicitly protesting person into the same unfair treatment. 

 

tl;dr making an example out of an unwilling example is wrong.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a common response. I've heard the argument that sacrifice is islamic which is the RC of war several times, both in response to this argument and Bataille.

 

Also, if you think it's such a bad argument, how would you answer it? 

 

ok i have never ever heard of that arg as an answer to bataille but it makes 0 sense to say that fundamentalist islamism is the root cause of anything. obvi that's not on you though.

 

anyway (imo) 100% of debate arguments are run for strategy because debate's a game. the role of theory isn't "legitimate redress," it's to test whether the other team can justify what they've done. theory arguments don't have to "solve." admittedly, the way we conceptualize impacts like fairness and education does go down some interesting logical roads... but the judge only has jurisdiction over one round at a time, and is only seeking to address behavior in a proximate manner, not a broad one.

 

i retract my earlier statement about historical trivialization.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like we're applying a lot more skepticism to this file than we do to others, some of which are obviously worse. Chill out, people. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 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...