Jump to content
DHGCARBON

Question about Ts

Recommended Posts

Okay so next year is my first year debating, and as many of you probably know the topic is oceans. If you visited the oceans subforum then you already know that I'm running space elevators. So my question is when they argue T is a good response that the means used to achieve is is what justifies T ,not the ends. Like when I talk about space colonization and they argue T is it a sufficient response to say that we're building the elevators in the oceans even though we're using them for colonization and space warfare so because we're building them in the oceans it is topical?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Space warfare wouldn't be topical at all, as the resolution mandates "non-military" (means or ends). However, space elevators in the ocean with the advantage of space col is pretty topical.

 

I over exaggerated that part in not running space warfare is different buti went get into that but how exactly is Colo topical.
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T isn't evaluated by whether the effects of the plan are topical or not, just whether the plan is. As long as your plan text meets all of the topic words, you're fine, and you can read whatever advantages you want.

 

There's a thing you may have heard of called effects topicality (or FX T), which argues that the plan text isn't topical and is only topical because of its advantage areas (in other words, it would cause something that would be topical to occur), but that's different and it doesn't sound like it applies to you.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T isn't evaluated by whether the effects of the plan are topical or not, just whether the plan is. As long as your plan text meets all of the topic words, you're fine, and you can read whatever advantages you want.

 

There's a thing you may have heard of called effects topicality (or FX T), which argues that the plan text isn't topical and is only topical because of its advantage areas (in other words, it would cause something that would be topical to occur), but that's different and it doesn't sound like it applies to you.

No I've heard of it can you explain it to me I think it might apply to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay so next year is my first year debating, and as many of you probably know the topic is oceans. If you visited the oceans subforum then you already know that I'm running space elevators. So my question is when they argue T is a good response that the means used to achieve is is what justifies T ,not the ends. Like when I talk about space colonization and they argue T is it a sufficient response to say that we're building the elevators in the oceans even though we're using them for colonization and space warfare so because we're building them in the oceans it is topical?

 

You're building the space elevators in the ocean right? So long as you are building the elevators in the ocean (aka, developing the ocean by building space elevators) then you're topical. Like dancon25 said, if you evaluate your plan in a vacuum it's topical. Also, you're not FXT because your advantages will still be predicated on you developing the ocean, even if they are space advantages. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, I would buy FX T on the space warfare advantage, but not on the space col advantage. This is because the resolution mandates "non-military". That's basically one of the only times where FX T actually matters. Hope this helped!

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The principle is called "plan in a vacuum". It means that only the actions you take, not the results you get determine what is and isn't topical. If we looked at the effects of the plan only, every single affirmative team would lose on topicality.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit:

[i pulled the quals of a card someone else cut so if they're not accurate, sorry] Professor of Life and Environmental Science @ Azabu University and Systems Engineer @ Andromeda Inc., Italy Patrick Collins (Expert in the economics of energy supply from space) and Adriano Autino

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/what_the_growth_of_a_space_tourism_industry_could_contribute_to_employment_economic_growth_environmental_protection_education_culture_and_world_peace.shtml

 
Investment in low-cost orbital access and other space infrastructure will facilitate the establishment of settlements on the Moon, Mars, asteroids and in man-made space structures. In the first phase, development of new regulatory infrastructure in various Earth orbits, including property/usufruct rights, real estate, mortgage financing and insurance, traffic management, pilotage, policing and other services will enable the population living in Earth orbits to grow very large. Such activities aimed at making near-Earth space habitable are the logical extension of humans' historical spread over the surface of the Earth. As trade spreads through near-Earth space, settlements are likely to follow, of which the inhabitants will add to the wealth of different cultures which humans have created in the many different environments in which they live.

Success of such extra-terrestrial settlements will have the additional benefit of reducing the danger of human extinction due to planet-wide or cosmic accidents [27]. These horrors include both man-made disasters such as nuclear war, plagues or growing pollution, and natural disasters such as super-volcanoes or asteroid impact.It is hard to think of any objective that is more important than preserving peace. Weapons developed in recent decades are so destructive, and have such horrific, long-term sideeffects that their use should be discouraged as strongly as possible by the international community. Hence, reducing the incentive to use these weapons by rapidly developing the ability to use space-based resources on a large scale is surely equally important [11,16]. The achievement of this depends on low space travel costs which, at the present time, appear to be achievable only through the development of a vigorous space tourism industry.

As discussed above, if space travel services had started during the 1950s, the space industry would be enormously more developed than it is today. Hence the failure to develop passenger space travel has seriously distorted the path taken by humans' technological and economic development since WW2, away from the path which would have been followed if capitalism and democracy operated as intended. Technological know-how which could have been used to supply services which are known to be very popular with a large proportion of the population has not been used for that purpose, while waste and suffering due to the unemployment and environmental damage caused by the resulting lack of new industrial opportunities have increased.

In response, policies should be implemented urgently to correct this error, and to catch up with the possibilities for industrial and economic growth that have been ignored for so long. This policy renewal is urgent because of the growing dangers of unemployment, economic stagnation, environmental pollution, educational and cultural decline, resource wars and loss of civil liberties which face civilisation today. In order to achieve the necessary progress there is a particular need for collaboration between those working in the two fields of civil aviation and civil space. Although the word "aerospace" is widely used, it is largely a misnomer since these two fields are in practice quite separate. True "aerospace" collaboration to realise passenger space travel will develop the wonderful profusion of possibilities outlined above.

As discussed above, the claim that the Earth's resources are running out is used to justify wars which may never end: present-day rhetoric about "the long war" or "100 years war" in Iraq and Afghanistan are current examples. If political leaders do not change their viewpoint, the recent aggression by the rich "Anglo-Saxon" countries, and their cutting back of traditional civil liberties, are ominous for the future. However, this "hellish" vision of endless war is based on an assumption about a single number—the future cost of travel to orbit—about which a different assumption leads to a "heavenly" vision of peace and ever-rising living standards for everyone. If this cost stays above 10,000 Euros/kg, where it has been unchanged for nearly 50 years, the prospects for humanity are bleak. But if humans make the necessary effort, and use the tiny amount of resources needed to develop vehicles for passenger space travel, then this cost will fall to 100 Euros/kg, the use of extra-terrestrial resources will become economic, and arguments for resource wars will evaporate entirely.The main reason why this has not yet happened seems to be lack of understanding of the myriad opportunities by investors and policy-makers. Now that the potential to catch up half a century of delay in the growth of space travel is becoming understood, continuing to spend 20 billion Euro-equivalents/year on government space activities, while continuing to invest nothing in developing passenger space travel, would be a gross failure of economic policy, and strongly contrary to the economic and social interests of the public. Correcting this error, even after such a costly delay, will ameliorate many problems in the world today.

As this policy error is corrected, and investment in profitable space projects grows rapidly in coming years, we can look forward to a growing world-wide boom. Viewed as a whole, humans' industrial activities have been seriously underperforming for decades, due to the failure to exploit these immensely promising fields of activity. The tens of thousands of unemployed space engineers in Russia, America and Europe alone are a huge waste. The potential manpower in rapidly developing India and China is clearly vast. The hundreds of millions of disappointed young people who have been taught that they cannot travel in space are another enormous wasted resource.

We do not know for certain when the above scenario will be realised. However, it could have such enormous value that considerable expenditure is justified in order to study its feasibility in detail [5]. At the very least, vigorous investment by both private and public sectors in a range of different sub-orbital passenger vehicle projects and related businesses is highly desirable. Fortunately, the ambitious and rapid investment by the Indian and Chinese governments in growing space capabilities may finally jolt the space industries of Russia, America, Europe and Japan out of their long economic stagnation, and induce them to apply their accumulated know-how to economically valuable activities—notably supplying widely popular travel services to the general public.

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T isn't evaluated by whether the effects of the plan are topical or not, just whether the plan is. As long as your plan text meets all of the topic words, you're fine, and you can read whatever advantages you want.

 

There's a thing you may have heard of called effects topicality (or FX T), which argues that the plan text isn't topical and is only topical because of its advantage areas (in other words, it would cause something that would be topical to occur), but that's different and it doesn't sound like it applies to you.

 

Kinda eh description but usually almost always true.

Edited by ARGogate
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kinda eh description but usually almost always true.

 

Honestly, please do explain it better; I'm not super great at theory and usually get things mixed up in my head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, please do explain it better; I'm not super great at theory and usually get things mixed up in my head.

It doesn't have to be an advantage area, just a result of the plan.

 

Pretend that lifting embargoes wasn't topical. In this universe, a Cuban embargo aff would be effects topical because of the increase in trade. Because the plan leads to a topical action it's effects T even if you don't claim an advantage off of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, please do explain it better; I'm not super great at theory and usually get things mixed up in my head.

 

It's almost always true, but there are some cases where T can be a question of plan action and not just the plan text. I think the distinction to be made can best be described by untopical affs with resolution language in the plan text. For example, I read Mayport on the TI topic, and the plan text was "...substantially invest in Mayport transportation infrastructure." That's 100% topical if you just consider the plan text, but the plan action was military, so there was still a link to T-military. It's not as strong as if the plan text is bad, but it can be made.

Edited by ARGogate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's almost always true, but there are some cases where T can be a question of plan action and not just the plan text. I think the distinction to be made can best be described by untopical affs with resolution language in the plan text. For example, I read Mayport on the TI topic, and the plan text was "...substantially invest in Mayport transportation infrastructure." That's 100% topical if you just consider the plan text, but the plan action was military, so there was still a link to T-military. It's not as strong as if the plan text is bad, but it can be made.

 

How does the neg frame the argument against this? (In the block and 2NR) 

 

The 2AR will say something along the lines of "Plan text in a vacuum. Even if our solvency advocates make it seem untopical, the resolutional words in the plan text mean that the plan will be forced to fit within the resolution." It doesn't matter if the plan text doesn't necessarily solve the aff at that point, because the 2NR almost definitely didn't go for T AND a disad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since everyone downvotes me for trying to help, imma try something new to answer this guy's question. Horse shit timecuba ashtar menyoy menyoy menyoy mao tse tsung menyoy Baudrillard Menoy consult jesus cp menoy menoy menoy menoy SKEET SKEET SKEET 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a0hFAgXqGpU

Do not try and be the WGLF.  Those who try, do fail.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a reminder to be respectful. There's good-natured trolling, then there's that post.

 

Sincerely,

The Novice Center Overlord

shit, now you make it look like I'm the one posting WGLF videos.  I'm innocent.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shit, now you make it look like I'm the one posting WGLF videos.  I'm not innocent.

Your honor, the witness is taking testimony out of context:

"I'm not innocent."

That's a confession your honor. I suggest we move to sentencing.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your honor, the witness is taking testimony out of context:

"I'm not innocent."

That's a confession your honor. I suggest we move to sentencing.

oh not this shit again

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh not this shit again

It's okay, we have new moderators now! Because none of the new moderators have ever taken part in such frivolity...*wink*

Edited by Phantom707
  • Upvote 2

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...