Jump to content
MarekIntan

Hypothetical T debate--who would you vote for?

Recommended Posts

I've seen something similar happen to during a REAL debate round, so, here goes:

 

Say, an Affirmative team runs an Aff about Mexican education.

 

Say the Negative team responds with a Topicality argument about how SECURITY assistance isn't economic engagement, and violates the Resolution.

 

The Affirmative team drops the (obviously not-linking) Topicality violation the whole round.

 

The Neg team dutifully extends it the whole round...

 

 

So, who wins the debate? The Negative team because the Aff dropped the Topicality? Or the Affirmative team because any fool can see that the Topicality doesn't link?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Negative team for sure. As long as the block and 2NR cover it enough to actually make it matter. The 2NC can't be "Hey they dropped T, we win. Onto A-Spec" If they have explanation (Even if it's bad), they should still win 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it depends on the 2NR spin. if the violation in the block/2NR is spun as the aff is a security aff for X reason, thats not T, then they probably would win if they extended everything else right (this is assuming they read a card or something that defines what the aff does as security assistance) BUT if the violation was explained as something like "our interp is that security engagement isn't economic engagement. they are an education aff. they aren't T." then i would find it hard to vote neg.

Edited by Schopenhauer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

vote aff.

 

I can't imagine a world in which the negative could explain a reason to reject an affirmative on topicality without a violation. The negative has a burden to prove the aff did something worth rejecting. Just saying "well this is a topicality" is meaningless. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Snarf. Dropping an argument just concedes it, it doesn't mean you lose on it. The argument still has to mean you lose. The Aff could very well agree that Security plans aren't topical. Unless there's argumentation that the Aff *is* a security plan, conceding the argument doesn't matter.

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Snarf. Dropping an argument just concedes it, it doesn't mean you lose on it. The argument still has to mean you lose. The Aff could very well agree that Security plans aren't topical. Unless there's argumentation that the Aff *is* a security plan, conceding the argument doesn't matter.

That is actually really well said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Snarf. Dropping an argument just concedes it, it doesn't mean you lose on it. The argument still has to mean you lose. The Aff could very well agree that Security plans aren't topical. Unless there's argumentation that the Aff *is* a security plan, conceding the argument doesn't matter.

 

I agree with this. I guess it depends on what he means by "extends it the whole round". I took it as meaning that they argued T normally, and just had a sketchy link that didn't REALLY link, but was possible to argue for. If they literally just extend it how it was without explaining how they met the violation, then I would vote aff

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...