Reverse Voting Issue

[Theprorules 0]

LDers here and I was just kinda curious why no one takes RVIs seriously in cx. RVIs are like the norm in LD. Doesn't it make sense that if you call someone a cheater and you're wrong you should lose the round just like false accusations of clipping would lose you the round? It seems unfair to introduce an unreciprocal burden into the round (i.e. T) where the negative can win on either T or substance while aff has to win both. Only thing I have ever heard CXers say is that aff shouldn't win because they are fair but this a. has no impact to fairness/education b. is false because the aff isnt asking to win because they are topical but because the neg unfairly accused them of being untopical. Just curious why does everyone hate RVIs? 

Edited February 26, 2015 by Theprorules

[Alwaysgoforinherency 118]

RVI's make no sense because the affirmative should not win because they are topical. T and theory aren't saying you are cheating, they are saying your aff or your neg arg doesn't represent a good model of debate. if you think of T and Theory as DA's, it makes more sense. the violation is the link; the standards are the DA's/net benefits and the interpretation is the CP that gives T Uniqueness. You wouldn't punish a team for reading a DA that says your aff is undesirable and not linking so why should you punish a team that says your model of debate is wrong if you meet it? RVI's are bad -- they disincentivize calling teams out for dumb strats and dumb affs. in LD the time skew is like the zero point of the Holocaust, so its understandable why time skew is much more important, but in policy, skill, speed and infinite prep compensate. 

Edited February 26, 2015 by Alwaysgoforinherency

[raynman 70]

 in LD the time skew is like the zero point of the Holocaust, so its understandable why time skew is much more important

It's funny you say that - having done both circuit LD and policy, my experience has been the 1AR is harder in policy than in LD.

 

And in LD the "block" is 175% the time of the 1AR, but in policy the "block" is 260% the time of the 1AR.

 

I choose to blame the norms in LD - apparently if it's hard, then it's cheating.

[raynman 70]

LDers here and I was just kinda curious why no one takes RVIs seriously in cx. RVIs are like the norm in LD.

 

The reason why LDers move into policy whenever they can.

 

 

LDers here and I was just kinda curious why no one takes RVIs seriously in cx. RVIs are like the norm in LD. Doesn't it make sense that if you call someone a cheater and you're wrong you should lose the round just like false accusations of clipping would lose you the round? It seems unfair to introduce an unreciprocal burden into the round (i.e. T) where the negative can win on either T or substance while aff has to win both. Only thing I have ever heard CXers say is that aff shouldn't win because they are fair but this a. has no impact to fairness/education b. is false because the aff isnt asking to win because they are topical but because the neg unfairly accused them of being untopical. Just curious why does everyone hate RVIs? 

 

 

And that's because the impact to T/theory isn't fairness/education - it's portable skills. So even though no RVIs makes it harder for the aff to win, allowing RVIs is kinda against the whole ethos of debate

[Jahmoses 1]

Running T and theory aren't accusing the affirmative of cheating they are just testing if your plan is an appropriate representation of the resolution. If RVI's were used in the sense that you are modeling then it could also be ran against DA's after the Aff has proven there isn't a link... Plain and simple RVI's just piss people off

[actiniumblue 155]

And in LD the "block" is 175% the time of the 1AR, but in policy the "block" is 260% the time of the 1AR.

 

Yeah but in policy the 1AR isn't hard because you just extend stuff from the 2AC. In LD you're fucked because you have a 4 minute speech sandwiched between a 7 minute and 6 minute speech, and you don't get a 2AC.

[philiburgers 262]

T is a resolutional burden for every affirmative to meet. Saying that they dont doesnt warrant a loss its just checking if the aff meets this burden.

You technically never actually lose on T.

[Jahmoses 1]

Yeah but in policy the 1AR isn't hard because you just extend stuff from the 2AC. In LD you're fucked because you have a 4 minute speech sandwiched between a 7 minute and 6 minute speech, and you don't get a 2AC.

the 1AR in policy is the hardest speech in debate.. you have to cover 13 minutes of speech in 5 minutes.

[BernieSanders 1775]

Yeah but in policy the 1AR isn't hard because you just extend stuff from the 2AC

Said no debater ever

[actiniumblue 155]

Said no debater ever

 

It's true though. I like affirming because in the 1AR you can just kick out of whatever they spent the most time on in the block. 2NR/2AR are infinitely harder.

 

In fact if you're lazy, you can just sandbag them with new cards and have your 2A do all the work for you.

[Theparanoiacmachine 1676]

It's true though. I like affirming because in the 1AR you can just kick out of whatever they spent the most time on in the block. 2NR/2AR are infinitely harder.

 

In fact if you're lazy, you can just sandbag them with new cards and have your 2A do all the work for you.

lol idk how you debate then, must be fun to watch though 

[Nodulux 54]

It's true though. I like affirming because in the 1AR you can just kick out of whatever they spent the most time on in the block.

 

I don't know how your opponents use the neg block, but in my experience they spend the most time on Off-Case arguments. And we all wish we could just "kick" the DA, or the K, but unfortunately debate doesn't work that way.

[agl125 218]

 

You technically never actually lose on T.

na...i lose on T

[philiburgers 262]

na...i lose on T

If you are on the aff sure you can 

if you are on the neg you probably lost because the aff won T and you had no offensive reason. Thats if it isnt a reverse voter 

[agl125 218]

If you are on the aff sure you can 

if you are on the neg you probably lost because the aff won T and you had no offensive reason. Thats if it isnt a reverse voter 

on the real though, I've won on an RVI on T when i was on aff multiple times. In an isolated round, with a good line-by-line judge, I am of the camp that it is a viable argument. If it is answered at all, it basically becomes useless, but when dropped, I see no logical reason why it shouldn't/can't be a round winner. People dismiss it out of a bias, not unlike the way some judges are predisposed to vote on theory against process cp's, or judges who will flat-out say before the round that they won't vote on theory unless it literally gets dropped the entire debate. 

 

The actual standards debate of an unreciprocal time skew is highly convincing in my opinion. Also, considering how easy it is to answer, i find it inexcusable to simply dismiss when its dropped. If the aff drops a standard on the T debate, they will likely lose (assuming the neg can win their link and impact). I think that an RVI can be seen the same way, as an offensive standard for the aff. If they can mitigate the link, it serves as offense. 

 

shoutout to my man D Zing for voting me up on RVI's twice - you the real MVP

Edited February 28, 2015 by agl125

[ARGogate 2316]

This is that whole argument about "the game" coming back up or some shit...

[agl125 218]

This is that whole argument about "the game" coming back up or some shit...

debate is a game. anyone who says otherwise is fundamentally wrong imo

[Snarf 3598]

LD has less time development (two total neg speeches; each speech is shorter) and a higher propensity for substance-altering theory ("debaters may not make arguments that are necessary but insufficient burdens"). The dynamic between the two is what makes RVIs substantially more acceptable in LD. Both dynamics are absent in CX, so RVIs are an embarrassing joke to us