Jump to content
USMessi

A2 Lit checks abuse?

Recommended Posts

How could one answer "lit checks abuse" as neg on T? Obviously you argue that potential abuse is still a voter and just because we researched it doesn't make it topical, but what other arguments can be made against this?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"We checked, and we're still abused."

 

Oh, you meant a serious answer. xP

 

Ask the aff for sources/cards you should have that you would have inevitably found doing research on the topic that checks abuse. It'll be the 1AR when they answer, so they shouldn't be shy about it. Make them prove it.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've coached for over 5 years at the college level.  Based on that.....something related to the following.  

 

1. In terms of topicality--the topic defines the literature base.....not the other way around with the literature base defining the topic. (it gets the priority upside down or reverses it)

I'm sure you can think of an example or analogy for this one.  Topicality or the topic defines the literature base not the other way around.

 

2. You're going to be the only one defining whats legitimate topic literature in a fair & legitimate way (or whatever your standards are)--or you have the better definition for what the literature is.

 

The following arguments are less important--as I mostly wanted to answer the question in terms of the topicality answer with what is the REAL answer:

  • This same principle (perhaps) applies to theory perhaps.
  • In terms of counterplans you can use solvency advocate as a check for being in the literature (i.e. to actual due the counter plan not just the idea or concept of the C/P) in terms of fairness.  In some ways its literature credibility fairness or something along those lines.  For instance process counterplans are generally in the topic literature.
  • Combine your standard with their standard......"it needs to be in the literature base, but it also needs to X--literature base alone is insufficient due to X."
  • Or "literature doesn't check anything.....because......X" (make an argument)
Edited by nathan_debate
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have to win the counter interp before they access that argument. Just because there's literature on OU crushing Alabama in the Sugar bowl last night doesnt mean that should be part of the topic. Your interp defines what lit is within the topic. And if you win your predictability arguments that would prove that you cant be expected to research the aff.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see a 'Lit checks abuse' argument without requiring the team to win a counter-interp or using the resolution to determine their topicality to warrant that the referenced literature was part of the topic.

Consider: Plan involves something, like Merida Funding or PDVSA or PEMEX or whatever. This thing is used by other reasonably topical and somewhat common cases, thus there is literature about it which is part of the topic.

So, you run a plan which is sketchily topical, but has an advantage which revolves around that thing. You could very well claim that 'literature checks abuse', because they should have evidence about PDVSA or Merida or whatever. I'd make that argument as part of a reasonability claim, but its also a claim about how otherwise topical literature checks the abuse of plan being less-than-flat-out topical.

 

Edit: Fixed letter transposition in PDVSA, oops.

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also the argument that lit checks abuse suggests that the only important component of a good debate is that there's enough evidence that surrounds the case. You could point to a whole array of things that are important for education. The entire point of a policy aff is to address the topic. So debating about something that truly isn't topical is pointless for the goal of the resolution/debate for the year.

Also, if you really read a lot of on case lit (not impact D) then going for T as your go to strat probs wouldn't make that much sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can see a 'Lit checks abuse' argument without requiring the team to win a counter-interp or using the resolution to determine their topicality to warrant that the referenced literature was part of the topic.

 

Consider: Plan involves something, like Merida Funding or PDVSA or PEMEX or whatever. This thing is used by other reasonably topical and somewhat common cases, thus there is literature about it which is part of the topic.

 

So, you run a plan which is sketchily topical, but has an advantage which revolves around that thing. You could very well claim that 'literature checks abuse', because they should have evidence about PDVSA or Merida or whatever. I'd make that argument as part of a reasonability claim, but its also a claim about how otherwise topical literature checks the abuse of plan being less-than-flat-out topical.

 

Edit: Fixed letter transposition in PDVSA, oops.

 

 

This isn't a true argument.  This is known as research burdens......but its not about in-round fairness.....also it begs the question of what isn't in your files because otherwise the aff wouldn't mind running the other topical version, not this one.

 

Also proves they could be topical if they really wanted to be.  (ie we could get most of their education & be fair to both teams--so we have the best of both worlds--we can have our cake and eat it too)

 

You can use this analogy model to help lend credence and credibility to your topicality arguments--but not in this way.  

A) Its generally the mechanism or the overall shape of the aff (not so much the literature bases it covers)

B] their interpretation kills x, y, and z cases that are the heart of the topic.

 

The only, only only time I can think of this argument having any relevance is defensively against "well we would have to debate X".....but you have to debate X anyway.  And this assumes a very close 1 to 1 relationship of X here....not the disjointed one which seems to be described above.

Edited by nathan_debate

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...