Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This year I think it'd be cool to run a counterfactual aff (saying like "The USFg should have curtailed some program")

I know some topic ideas, but can anyone help me out with the kind of theory args you'd need to be super prepared to go against?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok 4 things you should be ready to debate: 

T-Should 

Chaos DA 

Give back the land 

and the old politics DA scenario ( )

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok 4 things you should be ready to debate: 

T-Should 

Chaos DA 

Give back the land 

and the old politics DA scenario ( )

What's the chaos DA and the old politics scenario...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the chaos DA and the old politics scenario...

Chaos DA sounds a lot like a "You fucked with a butterfly in the past and that somehow tanked species diversity 70 years later and we dedz" type of argument 

 

Old politics scenario is basically the politics DA in the past. You should research what big bills were passed from the time your plan gets implemented and answer the specific agenda items that were pushed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This year I think it'd be cool to run a counterfactual aff (saying like "The USFg should have curtailed some program")

I know some topic ideas, but can anyone help me out with the kind of theory args you'd need to be super prepared to go against?

Wilderson

K of islamaphobia that indict reformism and structural oppression

Settlerism (Give back the land) 

Tbh I could see good K's of time and linearity.  

 

You will probs need to be able to defend a few huge things. The first is why you should uniquely be able to access politics of the past. Second, You need to be able to prove that your aff is somehow uniquely valuable today. Tbh that is really where my issues with counter-fractuals lie and i think that is where the arguments that i provided can hit you hard. Even if you didn't do anything you can't solve back for the initial historical and structural traumas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T- ???

Counterfactuals bad, cheating

A couple of Ks

maybe a da to prove abuse on t (as long as it doesn't link to the K)

These are the same thing, T-Should. (IE, should means present or future action, not past action, otherwise the resolution would have said "should have"). 

 

Some good standards 

Limits (historical affs are basically unlimited)

Ground (you lose all DA's and non-generic K's basically unless you know ahead of time what they're running and can find a PTX scenario, even then that's meh.)

Edited by SnarkosaurusRex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Functionally...

 

I know lots of people use should, but why not increase instead or in addition to should?

 

The thing is you perhaps win that they may even meet the resolution (ie should or increase or other part), but that their interpretation still should be rejected.

(ie time-travel debate is bad and unfair).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All these people keep recommending T as though the kinds of teams who read counterfactuals are actually going to not be prepared for T/FW 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaos DA sounds a lot like a "You fucked with a butterfly in the past and that somehow tanked species diversity 70 years later and we dedz" type of argument 

 

Old politics scenario is basically the politics DA in the past. You should research what big bills were passed from the time your plan gets implemented and answer the specific agenda items that were pushed.

 

The Chaos DA is just right if it goes like that. Chaos theory indicates that predictions are legit super bunk and that means that counterfactuals are also pretty much just magical what if scenarios that you use to intellectual masturbate to a world that never was 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're still dead set on a counterfactual aff, and you shouldn't be, because no, only do it if you find some really good articles written in the sense of the counterfactual argument. Like an article specifically about what would have happened if your policy past.

 

Or just don't read counterfactuals. That too. 

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...