Jump to content
Palindrome

T - Exploration and/or development

Recommended Posts

Me and my partner once hit a LOST aff and ran T - development. The aff team then answered it by defending T - exploration claiming that since the resolution said "exploration and/or development" they only have to be topical to one of the terms (either development or exploration).

 

Is that a valid way to answer T? How should the neg answer their claims if the aff defends T like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a legit way to answer it in my opinion.  I debated a team in quarters at a tourney and we ran T-Development, they answered it with a T-Development definition and a T-Exploration definition just to stick it to us.

 

The way I would pin them down is ask which of the two they are in the 1AC CX.

The other way to get around it is do they really meet their own T-exploration definition?  Another problem I have with LOST T wise is that it seems like probably the most effectually topical aff on the topic... which can be a standard in your T-development shell, and by reading t-exploration they wouldn't avoid that violation.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply make the Dev T argument and put Extra T and FX T into my standards. Prove they dont meet their counter interp b/c they're FX and you dont even have to win the interp debate, all you have to win is the Extra T and FX T bad debate.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I simply make the Dev T argument and put Extra T and FX T into my standards. Prove they dont meet their counter interp b/c they're FX and you dont even have to win the interp debate, all you have to win is the Extra T and FX T bad debate.

this is not true at all. If you don't win the interp debate, then you can't win effects or extra. Without having a clear interp of expo or dev, then how can you claim that they are not direct expo or dev? If you say X only leads to Y, but you don't have a working definition of exactly what Y is, then you have no basis for claiming that X isn't Y in and of itself

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a reason why LOST doesn't meet T-development is because it's extra-T. It includes other laws and regulations that are not ocean development. If you use that as one of your 1NC violations and they read T-exploration, they you can cross-apply the violation as an extra-T argument.

 

For example, if you make the argument that LOST extends surface requirements to vessels (which is not ocean development), and the other team reads T-exploration, then you can say that they don't meet their interp of exploration either because extending surface requirements to vessels is not increasing ocean exploration. Just some thoughts.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is not true at all. If you don't win the interp debate, then you can't win effects or extra. Without having a clear interp of expo or dev, then how can you claim that they are not direct expo or dev? If you say X only leads to Y, but you don't have a working definition of exactly what Y is, then you have no basis for claiming that X isn't Y in and of itself

But if their C/I means X only leads to Y and X isn't Y then you can still win FX T bad and get a voter on that.

 

But yeah, if you're going for T it won't hurt to ask if they're exploration or development.

Edited by Rigbert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can't get them on FX-T or Extra T than I think the way they answered it is 100% legit. I think the whole and/or makes it clear that in can be one or the other or both. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if their C/I means X only leads to Y and X isn't Y then you can still win FX T bad and get a voter on that.

 

this is why you must win an interp to win extra/effects T. In this scenario, you are conceding their C/I as a basis for the violation, and thusly the standards of extra/effects

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is why you must win an interp to win extra/effects T. In this scenario, you are conceding their C/I as a basis for the violation, and thusly the standards of extra/effects

Ah, you're right. I just felt the phrasing of "winning the interp debate" is meaning that your C/I is superior rather than analysis on their C/I.

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...