A2: Fairness is Arbitrary

[fdsdfwe 30]

How do you answer that argument? I use it a lot, but I never really knew how to answer it. Like the arguement that the negative team will say everything is unfair. 

[Zuul 666]

It's not? Just say that fairness is making sure teams are winning rounds solely on their ability.

[BobbyTables 298]

It's not? Just say that fairness is making sure teams are winning rounds solely on their ability.

I'm pretty sure that's impossible (resource disparities, etc.).  

 

Generally, I'd recommend going for other standards, but, if you have to go for fairness, you can argue that the aff is uniquely abusive.  Even if you can't access the idealized notion of fairness described by Zuul, you can still approach it, and some things are more extremely outside of the realm of fairness than others.  Also, competing interpretations is a reason the judge should prefer the better version of the topic, even if the aff's isn't actually abusive.

[StormA03 20]

Fairness isn't arbitrary? The judge has the ability to set a precedence as to what is/isn't fair and establish a bright line. The other team saying that fairness is arbitrary is the impact of the judge not setting a precedent.

[Snarf 3595]

You can argue no link - that your notion of fairness is not objective per se, but relationally established (i.e. by the specific interactions of the aff and neg in this particular round). Then just do specific link work on how you are put at a competitive disadvantage unrelated to your merit as debaters. .

[Coconuts 872]

Fairness isn't arbitrary? The judge has the ability to set a precedence as to what is/isn't fair and establish a bright line. The other team saying that fairness is arbitrary is the impact of the judge not setting a precedent.

In that line of view, the judge should set a precedent that teams from big schools and who go to camp for 8 weeks a year should automatically use to make debate more fair.

[Zuul 666]

I'm pretty sure that's impossible (resource disparities, etc.).  

 

Generally, I'd recommend going for other standards, but, if you have to go for fairness, you can argue that the aff is uniquely abusive.  Even if you can't access the idealized notion of fairness described by Zuul, you can still approach it, and some things are more extremely outside of the realm of fairness than others.  Also, competing interpretations is a reason the judge should prefer the better version of the topic, even if the aff's isn't actually abusive.

As close as possible then.  Its just like the answer to objectivity is impossible-even if it is then we should still try to get as close as we can.