Jump to content
InsertCleverUsername

Why do some people believe that Poltics DAs are bad, and what makes a Poltics DA different than "normal" DAs?

Recommended Posts

They are "looked down upon" because, in general, either their link, specific link, or impact is really sketchy, or just not true at all, however because the entire DA arch-type is based off of having the newest possible information (because politicians change their minds all the time), and it doesn't necessarily have to be rational because "x-actor said that they would do this if x-thing happens" is a legitimate argument, politics can essentially say anything, and make it much harder to answer with analytics than any other "normal DA". this combined with the fact that there could be literally any link, internal link, and impact, makes them easy to run, but much harder to answer. (basically people think that they're a cheap strategy, like T but it gets evaluated much easier, and it's a lot harder to answer)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cop: How much did he inject?

Coroner: Four. Four whole political capitals.

Cop: Jesus.

It's a miracle that the body was intact. Usually that amount of political capitals will cause combustion

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Along with most people, I think they are generic as fuck, and it pisses me off when teams run them on cases that obviously don't link. 

 

Here is my generic theory shell against them.

 Politics DAs Bad

 

They’re repetitive – they run the exact same politics shell every round, which doesn’t give good education for the debaters.

 

They detract from topic focus – politics are super-generic, so the negative never needs to read on-case or research ocean policy, which hurts education and is against framer’s intent.

 

It moots the resolution – the resolution is supposed to be a guide to negative debating as well, they defeat the purpose of having a new resolution each year by always running the same arguments.

 

The ‘should’ in the resolution means plan is passed in a vacuum – should means that plan ought to occur, not that it will, so we’re effectively just debating over the plan, not what may occur while plan is being passed, because passage is never assumed. 

 

Encourages poor evidence quality – look at their cards, they all suck, there aren’t any warrants and most of them are taken out of context.  This type of citing would not be acceptable for any forum besides debate – people can get kicked out of college for misreporting sources, it shouldn’t be encouraged in debate.

 

It hurts political activism – their large but unlikely impacts wouldn’t be used in any forum but debate, for example, the city council won’t be convinced that passing an ocean policy will lead to a republican takeover that allows Bush to destroy the world.  That makes us less effective at political activism in the outside world.

 

Those are all reasons to vote aff, and reject the team, not just the argument to send a message that this type of argumentation won’t be tolerated and to discourage future violations.

 

 

 

 

I hope you beat them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Along with most people, I think they are generic as fuck, and it pisses me off when teams run them on cases that obviously don't link. 

 

Here is my generic theory shell against them.

 

 Politics DAs Bad

 

They’re repetitive – they run the exact same politics shell every round, which doesn’t give good education for the debaters.

 

They detract from topic focus – politics are super-generic, so the negative never needs to read on-case or research ocean policy, which hurts education and is against framer’s intent.

 

It moots the resolution – the resolution is supposed to be a guide to negative debating as well, they defeat the purpose of having a new resolution each year by always running the same arguments.

 

The ‘should’ in the resolution means plan is passed in a vacuum – should means that plan ought to occur, not that it will, so we’re effectively just debating over the plan, not what may occur while plan is being passed, because passage is never assumed. 

 

Encourages poor evidence quality – look at their cards, they all suck, there aren’t any warrants and most of them are taken out of context.  This type of citing would not be acceptable for any forum besides debate – people can get kicked out of college for misreporting sources, it shouldn’t be encouraged in debate.

 

It hurts political activism – their large but unlikely impacts wouldn’t be used in any forum but debate, for example, the city council won’t be convinced that passing an ocean policy will lead to a republican takeover that allows Bush to destroy the world.  That makes us less effective at political activism in the outside world.

 

Those are all reasons to vote aff, and reject the team, not just the argument to send a message that this type of argumentation won’t be tolerated and to discourage future violations.

 

 

 

 

I hope you beat them.

No one should ever lose to this.
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ‘should’ in the resolution means plan is passed in a vacuum – should means that plan ought to occur, not that it will, so we’re effectively just debating over the plan, not what may occur while plan is being passed, because passage is never assumed. 

 

This is silly - what does it mean to say the plan "passes in a vacuum"? Assuming they win UQ, the bill passes inevitably in the squo, so a link means the plan derails that agenda which causes X impact to occur. This means the DA --is-- an opportunity cost - saying it's not would be susceptible to an infinite regression claim - i.e. you could no-link out of any disad (except for, like, the environment DA) by saying "that's not an opportunity cost, plan passes in a vacuum."

 

Intrinsicness is an actual arg, this is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is silly - what does it mean to say the plan "passes in a vacuum"? Assuming they win UQ, the bill passes inevitably in the squo, so a link means the plan derails that agenda which causes X impact to occur. This means the DA --is-- an opportunity cost - saying it's not would be susceptible to an infinite regression claim - i.e. you could no-link out of any disad (except for, like, the environment DA) by saying "that's not an opportunity cost, plan passes in a vacuum."

 

Intrinsicness is an actual arg, this is not.

 

 

Trying to talk about people's reactions to a plan is a far different opportunity cost than a spending/trade-off.  

 

I believe the plan passing in a vacuum means that people's attitudes towards plan are irrelevant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main problem with them is the Uniqueness and link. You can find any Uniqueness card that says something like "If we pass [Aff plan], Congress won't pass this bigger bill, act, etc." It's like a link to every case. This is similar to agency trade-off DA's. For example, there's a NASA trade-off DA that says that Congress always cuts the NASA to make room for new plans. If we pass the Aff plan, and they are reallocating money for funding, then NASA will be underfunded, and cue terminal impacts, and so on so forth. But then there's another Uniqueness card from a CDC DA that says that Congress has been looking for a reason to cut the CDC budget, and the internal link is passing the Aff plan results in trade-off, meaning ebola won't be stopped, cue terminal extinction impact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main problem with them is the Uniqueness and link. You can find any Uniqueness card that says something like "If we pass [Aff plan], Congress won't pass this bigger bill, act, etc." It's like a link to every case. This is similar to agency trade-off DA's. For example, there's a NASA trade-off DA that says that Congress always cuts the NASA to make room for new plans. If we pass the Aff plan, and they are reallocating money for funding, then NASA will be underfunded, and cue terminal impacts, and so on so forth. But then there's another Uniqueness card from a CDC DA that says that Congress has been looking for a reason to cut the CDC budget, and the internal link is passing the Aff plan results in trade-off, meaning ebola won't be stopped, cue terminal extinction impact. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main problem with them is the Uniqueness and link. You can find any Uniqueness card that says something like "If we pass [Aff plan], Congress won't pass this bigger bill, act, etc." It's like a link to every case. This is similar to agency trade-off DA's. For example, there's a NASA trade-off DA that says that Congress always cuts the NASA to make room for new plans. If we pass the Aff plan, and they are reallocating money for funding, then NASA will be underfunded, and cue terminal impacts, and so on so forth. But then there's another Uniqueness card from a CDC DA that says that Congress has been looking for a reason to cut the CDC budget, and the internal link is passing the Aff plan results in trade-off, meaning ebola won't be stopped, cue terminal extinction impact. 

I'm confused what you are saying--yes the politics disad links to most affirmatives.  Why is that bad?  I'd say if anything it is good because it allows negatives to have a generic strategy that they can always have ready.  Besides, if you

 

A lot of them are generic af. A lot of people have problems with generic arguments. And on top of that, the election ones are just outrageous. 

Why are they so outrageous?  And even if they are, shouldn't it be easy to beat them?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are they so outrageous?  And even if they are, shouldn't it be easy to beat them?

Not when they've become accepted by most judge pools despite their ridiculousness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused what you are saying--yes the politics disad links to most affirmatives.  Why is that bad?  I'd say if anything it is good because it allows negatives to have a generic strategy that they can always have ready.  Besides, if you

 

Why are they so outrageous?  And even if they are, shouldn't it be easy to beat them?

My point was just about the uniqueness. They could read one that says one thing, but I could find one that says something different. The example is spending trade-off DAs. So this there's a CDC DA that says "Funding aff plan requires reallocating funding, CDC is the most likely candidate to get cut. Empirics show this blah blah blah" then I could go up there and say "Nope, I got a card here that says that NASA is always the one that gets cut first" and while that doesn't really help my case, it just trades one DA for another, there's still the stupidness of going back and forth. The same thing goes for some PTX DAs. At this weekends districts, a team said that Obama's political capital from NSA reform or something. Since I didn't have an answer to it I just read another one that says his political capital is low from the Veto of the Keystone XL, and I was surprised that they didn't do the smart thing and say "none the less, this political capital is still low, DA still stands" and we won the argument about their uniqueness being wrong. 

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...