Jump to content
nasg

Free T File

Recommended Posts

Hello,

 

The Debate Institutes at Dartmouth has just produced its starter T file. It's done by Ken Strange, Director of Debate at Dartmouth College and widely known as the master of all issues related to T (as well as to really all issues related to debate).

 

www.ddidebate.org

 

Scroll to the bottom of the page. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assessment:

The definition compilation is okay.  The quality of the shells and associated arguments isn't very good overall.

 

General:

 

One standard T shells? Really?

 

Also, dat voter.  'Good, well prepared debating' is weak when you could say 'fairness and education' (which carries much larger impacts too).

 

------

 

Specific violations:

 

1. I think we all know that first 'increase' violation is bs.  The resolution is asking us to increase exploration or development, so even a 'new type' of exploration or development is an increase in total exploration or development even per their definition and (questionably-applicable) legal standard.  In short, the actual object of the verb is just general USFG exploration and/or development, both of which exist, so there's no possible creation of new things relative to this object.  When you're going to specifically (and properly) cite the transitive verb definition, its important to remember what object the verb actually takes in the sentence, as that's the key to meaning.  Basic grammar disallows this violation.

 

2. The second one isn't much better.  A specific argument depends on what exactly is being protected.  The UN 11 tag is grossly wrong - limiting *future* development could still be an increase in current development, and limiting particular activities could develop resources.  Ie, limiting fishing activities could 'increase' and 'develop' fish stocks.  It all depends on what is being developed - as long as something is developed, there is an increase relative to that kind of development.  (And as long as its more than the USFG was doing before, we've increased the USFG's development.  What private industry was doing before is irrelevant, the resolution is entirely and grammatically focused on the increase of USFG activity).

 

3. Third one should just be an FX T shell.  (And not a particularly good one).

 

4. The incentives violation is actually decent.  The strong argument is on 'its'.

 

4. International cooperation violation is also BS.  The USFG's exploration and/or development has increased even if it shares with other nations.  If a bunch of friends pool money to buy a share of Berkshire Hathaway A stock, the value of all their stock holdings has increased. (The problem with international coop is fiat - you can't fiat other countries, so you'd need solvency they want to do whatever your plan is).

 

5. Specific location argument is... wow... it's like negation theory all over again.  Of course the affirmative gets to specify where, for the same reason they get to specify a particular course of action at all.  Otherwise the negative can attack whatever the affirmative doesn't mention that's within the topic and win because 'they disproved the resolution'.  We already rejected this as a bad model of debate for very good reasons (kills clash, kills fairness, kills education).  Specifying location is part of the affirmative's right to contextualize the resolution in a specific plan of action.

 

But it's worse than that, because this violation -> the negative artificially creating ground like 'violates international norms' because the affirmative wants to, say, drill for oil in US waters, but the negative argues they have to defend drilling everywhere around the globe, and run specific international law and sovereignty violations for like China, India, and Russia.  That's beyond stupid, and completely unfair to the affirmative.

And the violation is effectively anti-education.  It makes having specific solvency advocates nearly impossible (because most authors who advocate specific plans actually advocate specific plans, which have a location).  It kills any actual discussion of whether plan actually solves, because it forces plans to be nebulous.  And it lets the negative imagine where, say, oil may be located, instead of where its actually known to be located (or suspected).  Letting the affirmative specify is much better for education.

 

(Oil drilling used as an example cause the shell uses it).

 

6. Substantially as 2% is okay, but they're using the wrong referrent for what the 2% should be based on.  250 billion in ocean economy is not the same as USFG exploration and development spending.  It should be 2% of the latter, since that's what is being increased.  I don't have the figure offhand, but if we're spending more than 50 billion on it, i'd be surprised.

 

7. Off-shore wind... really?  Talk about ridiculous semantics.  And off-shore wind is going to be such a bad case, why bother attacking topicality?  Also, if you bothered to write a T-shell for a specific case before anyone released any cases, it's clearly predictable and you lose your own standard.  (Not only that, they have the great argument that they have to build stuff in the ocean, like the electric cables which transmit the power from the turbines to the grid, which is development on-face and directly in the ocean).

 

8. Dual-use is... um... really abusive.  "Prove there's no way the military could ever benefit from this" is not a good interpretation.  If the money isn't going directly to the military, its non-military.  Their interpretation requires the affirmative to have precognition and somehow know what could never be used by the military.  Their example goes to this point - if plan somehow involves sensors, well, military might conceivably use them someday.  Oh noes...  The existence of this T-shell's argument is bad for debate.

 

9. Icebreakers, yeah, that's pretty much military on-face.

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

9. Icebreakers, yeah, that's pretty much military on-face.

 

 

Civilian Icebreakers do exist... 

Edited by RainSilves
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assessment:

The definition compilation is okay.  The quality of the shells and associated arguments isn't very good overall.

 

General:

 

One standard T shells? Really?

 

Also, dat voter.  'Good, well prepared debating' is weak when you could say 'fairness and education' (which carries much larger impacts too).

 

------

 

Specific violations:

 

1. I think we all know that first 'increase' violation is bs.  The resolution is asking us to increase exploration or development, so even a 'new type' of exploration or development is an increase in total exploration or development even per their definition and (questionably-applicable) legal standard.  In short, the actual object of the verb is just general USFG exploration and/or development, both of which exist, so there's no possible creation of new things relative to this object.  When you're going to specifically (and properly) cite the transitive verb definition, its important to remember what object the verb actually takes in the sentence, as that's the key to meaning.  Basic grammar disallows this violation.

 

2. The second one isn't much better.  A specific argument depends on what exactly is being protected.  The UN 11 tag is grossly wrong - limiting *future* development could still be an increase in current development, and limiting particular activities could develop resources.  Ie, limiting fishing activities could 'increase' and 'develop' fish stocks.  It all depends on what is being developed - as long as something is developed, there is an increase relative to that kind of development.  (And as long as its more than the USFG was doing before, we've increased the USFG's development.  What private industry was doing before is irrelevant, the resolution is entirely and grammatically focused on the increase of USFG activity).

 

3. Third one should just be an FX T shell.  (And not a particularly good one).

 

4. The incentives violation is actually decent.  The strong argument is on 'its'.

 

4. International cooperation violation is also BS.  The USFG's exploration and/or development has increased even if it shares with other nations.  If a bunch of friends pool money to buy a share of Berkshire Hathaway A stock, the value of all their stock holdings has increased. (The problem with international coop is fiat - you can't fiat other countries, so you'd need solvency they want to do whatever your plan is).

 

5. Specific location argument is... wow... it's like negation theory all over again.  Of course the affirmative gets to specify where, for the same reason they get to specify a particular course of action at all.  Otherwise the negative can attack whatever the affirmative doesn't mention that's within the topic and win because 'they disproved the resolution'.  We already rejected this as a bad model of debate for very good reasons (kills clash, kills fairness, kills education).  Specifying location is part of the affirmative's right to contextualize the resolution in a specific plan of action.

 

But it's worse than that, because this violation -> the negative artificially creating ground like 'violates international norms' because the affirmative wants to, say, drill for oil in US waters, but the negative argues they have to defend drilling everywhere around the globe, and run specific international law and sovereignty violations for like China, India, and Russia.  That's beyond stupid, and completely unfair to the affirmative.

And the violation is effectively anti-education.  It makes having specific solvency advocates nearly impossible (because most authors who advocate specific plans actually advocate specific plans, which have a location).  It kills any actual discussion of whether plan actually solves, because it forces plans to be nebulous.  And it lets the negative imagine where, say, oil may be located, instead of where its actually known to be located (or suspected).  Letting the affirmative specify is much better for education.

 

(Oil drilling used as an example cause the shell uses it).

 

6. Substantially as 2% is okay, but they're using the wrong referrent for what the 2% should be based on.  250 billion in ocean economy is not the same as USFG exploration and development spending.  It should be 2% of the latter, since that's what is being increased.  I don't have the figure offhand, but if we're spending more than 50 billion on it, i'd be surprised.

 

7. Off-shore wind... really?  Talk about ridiculous semantics.  And off-shore wind is going to be such a bad case, why bother attacking topicality?  Also, if you bothered to write a T-shell for a specific case before anyone released any cases, it's clearly predictable and you lose your own standard.  (Not only that, they have the great argument that they have to build stuff in the ocean, like the electric cables which transmit the power from the turbines to the grid, which is development on-face and directly in the ocean).

 

8. Dual-use is... um... really abusive.  "Prove there's no way the military could ever benefit from this" is not a good interpretation.  If the money isn't going directly to the military, its non-military.  Their interpretation requires the affirmative to have precognition and somehow know what could never be used by the military.  Their example goes to this point - if plan somehow involves sensors, well, military might conceivably use them someday.  Oh noes...  The existence of this T-shell's argument is bad for debate.

 

9. Icebreakers, yeah, that's pretty much military on-face.

I didnt mean to downvote you sorry!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...