Arsenal 4 Report post Posted August 13, 2014 Can someone explain what this is, and why/when we use a Role of The Ballot argument? I'm an LDer, btw. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Payton 450 Report post Posted August 13, 2014 I'm not sure about this in the context of LD, but you say the role of ballot is to vote for the team that best does something, now what that action is is up to you/up for debate, but, do not make this ROB inherently self-serving, i.e. if you run cap don't say "the ROB is to vote for whoever fights cap" because that's inaccessible unless they have a cap aff and judges are less willing to vote on it. You should make the ROB something like "the ROB is to vote for whoever best removes/diminishes oppression" that way it isn't inherently self-serving but its still slanted in your favor. ROBs are usually used as a just in case argument, if they drop the ROB (don't propose a counter-ROB) & fail to meet it you almost automatically win, you still have to win some form of alt solvency/impact calc to make sure they can't recover, but other than that you're gold. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Awesomepants3 113 Report post Posted August 13, 2014 In LD, normally a K or even non critical arguments can have a role of the ballot. If your an Lder, I suggest having a generic one for each topic on aff and neg, so for example if the resoulotion said: hypersexualization in the media is morally unjust. and you ran a kritikal affirmative. You could said the role of the ballot is to vote for whoever solves best for womyn in the media. Honestly I ran Ks in LD and never really had a good role of the ballot debate. Good luck and I hope this was helpful. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CrypticKitten 87 Report post Posted August 13, 2014 I feel like the value debate in LD is really similar to ROB arguments. With your value you have this central theme in debate that you try to prove your case upholds. So if your value is justice you are telling the judge to vote for whoever upholds justice better. Like Payton said with ROB args, your value doesn't make it impossible for the other team to win but generally favors you. Obviously there are usually competing values as there can be competing ROB arguments. And to win the round you have to prove 1) that your value should be the lens the round is evaluated through and (2) you win in that lens. If you want to have a bit more of a critical spin to your cases then I might begin calling it an ROB but to me it seems really like a semantics issue. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arsenal 4 Report post Posted August 13, 2014 I'm not sure about this in the context of LD, but you say the role of ballot is to vote for the team that best does something, now what that action is is up to you/up for debate, but, do not make this ROB inherently self-serving, i.e. if you run cap don't say "the ROB is to vote for whoever fights cap" because that's inaccessible unless they have a cap aff and judges are less willing to vote on it. You should make the ROB something like "the ROB is to vote for whoever best removes/diminishes oppression" that way it isn't inherently self-serving but its still slanted in your favor. ROBs are usually used as a just in case argument, if they drop the ROB (don't propose a counter-ROB) & fail to meet it you almost automatically win, you still have to win some form of alt solvency/impact calc to make sure they can't recover, but other than that you're gold. So how would you warrant the ROB must look to ameliorate oppression? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KimJongUn 664 Report post Posted August 13, 2014 People use RoB claims to preclude framework and topicality/theory arguments in LD, so no, your value isn't similar. They're almost always impact-justified, circular, and self serving. They never provide for good debates and thats why I use them, because I'm a cheater, and no one responds to them, and just runs T, so I win. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Payton 450 Report post Posted August 14, 2014 So how would you warrant the ROB must look to ameliorate oppression? I would just say that, and then the 1ac/1nc is the reason why that's the ROB. If they make a competing ROB, you just have to win impact calc. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arsenal 4 Report post Posted August 14, 2014 Wait, so do you run an ROB in a rebuttal or prior to your framework/constructive? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dancon25 1264 Report post Posted August 14, 2014 Wait, so do you run an ROB in a rebuttal or prior to your framework/constructive? Read it in your constructive. A Role of the Ballot argument is really just an impact framing argument, and you really need that in the NC to not only be fair (it's so impossible for a 2AR to answer a new definition of what the ballot signifies), but also just to win the K. 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Payton 450 Report post Posted August 14, 2014 Read it in your constructive. A Role of the Ballot argument is really just an impact framing argument, and you really need that in the NC to not only be fair (it's so impossible for a 2AR to answer a new definition of what the ballot signifies), but also just to win the K. Again, i don't know about LD, but in policy i don't think you NECESSARILY need to create an ROB to win the K, if you don't create an ROB the only ROB is to vote for "whoever did the better debating", which means the round is decided by whoever is winning whatever was in the 2nr Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
S7arf 43 Report post Posted August 14, 2014 I agree that a RoB arg is macro level impact framing in LD, but it's ambiguous (meaning there's disagreement in the community) whether the role of the ballot filters what theory arguments are acceptable or whether you can run theory on a role of the ballot. Having a good understanding of your view on role of the ballot/theory interaction is key. Also, I'm a big fan of running critical arguments as framework arguments or as arguments that try to link offense into another framework because a bunch of them interact with the ontological/epistemological presuppositions of your standard Kant/util/contracts/Rawls framework. If you're not a big fan of theory debates, that might be a method to explore. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Arsenal 4 Report post Posted August 15, 2014 Why do you guys only associate RoB with K's? Can't RoB be ran with plans or just traditonal LD case(simply V/VC and contentions)? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Payton 450 Report post Posted August 16, 2014 Why do you guys only associate RoB with K's? Can't RoB be ran with plans or just traditonal LD case(simply V/VC and contentions)? The reason people (again, speaking from a policy perspective) associate ROB's with K's is because something like a K that calls into question the worldview of the aff, then the ROB is simply to vote for whoever did the better debating or to decide whether or not the plan would be a good idea 3 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
