Jump to content
EyeOfSauron

Debating un-inherent affs

Recommended Posts

So say there is an un-inherent aff out there, say bulk data or something.(I know that the NSA won't give a crap and still do it, but theoritically its not inherent). How would you run any sort of DA that has a terminal impact like terror? Obviously we aren't extinct/nuclear war. It seems you would have to choose between a solid DA, or choose inherency.

My idea now is having a spending da on bulk data, but having the UQ be from 2014, then after reading the impact, I read a card saying that the econ sucks now. And therefore my impact is proven. But its not a very big impact.

 

How would you more advanced debaters go about this? DA or Inh? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like you could A) read the DA and inherency in the 1NC and then if they answer your disad by saying the affs not inherent so there's no impact to the disad, then conceed that argument and focus on inherency in the later speeches or if they don't make that argument than you can still go for the disad, even if its not true if the other team didn't point that out your probably fine to go for it or B) Agree that bulk collection still happens in the status quo, but argue that the reforms that have already been passed that should have ended these programs prove the aff will get circumvented. You could probably do A and B together. Ideally use one of these strategies to take out most of the plans solvency (through circumvention), and then have a politics or other DA different from the one previously mentioned to outweigh the case, which would be easy in a world where the affs not inherent or doesn't solve anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering no one will vote on inherency unless they're like 70 years old...the DA

 

I agree with the idea of punishing them if they try to spike out of the DA by saying the plan already happened. 

 

You could also run T, because even if it's already passed it may or may not be topical in the first place.

 

K's don't give a crap about UQ so they're also a viable option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering no one will vote on inherency unless they're like 70 years old...the DA

 

I agree with the idea of punishing them if they try to spike out of the DA by saying the plan already happened. 

 

You could also run T, because even if it's already passed it may or may not be topical in the first place.

 

K's don't give a crap about UQ so they're also a viable option.

So you don't think a lay judge will vote on inherency? I'm going to a pretty lay tournament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering no one will vote on inherency unless they're like 70 years old...the DA

 

I agree with the idea of punishing them if they try to spike out of the DA by saying the plan already happened. 

 

You could also run T, because even if it's already passed it may or may not be topical in the first place.

 

K's don't give a crap about UQ so they're also a viable option.

 

#ShitKDebatersSay 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you don't think a lay judge will vote on inherency? I'm going to a pretty lay tournament.

My HS circuit still had lots of people reading stock issues affs. No one voted on inherency, even when it was factually correct (IE certain border infrastructure affs on the Economic Engagement topic). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, if you have evidence saying the plan specifically passed, you shouldn't have a hard time winning...

You could even throw together some kind of theory argument (just a thought) like:

 

Theory - The judge doesn't have jurisdiction to vote on non-Inherent Affirmatives.

A. Ground - We lose disad links and other offense.

B. Predictability - We had no reason to prepare a case against a plan that's passed.

C. <insert 'should is active tense'>

D. Real World - No reason to re-pass a plan.

E. Education - We should be learning about what the government should do, not did.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, if you have evidence saying the plan specifically passed, you shouldn't have a hard time winning...

You could even throw together some kind of theory argument (just a thought) like:

 

Theory - The judge doesn't have jurisdiction to vote on non-Inherent Affirmatives.

A. Ground - We lose disad links and other offense.

B. Predictability - We had no reason to prepare a case against a plan that's passed.

C. <insert 'should is active tense'>

D. Real World - No reason to re-pass a plan.

E. Education - We should be learning about what the government should do, not did.

This sounds like a good idea. However I think that saying the judge can't vote will just piss them off lol.

But thanks for the idea.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure you have a right to a DA thats unique.  But...fairness and debatability would at least suggest that.

 

Running inherent affs = boring debates. 

 

You might want to demonstrate the kinds of affs that this would justify (this helps provide the absurdity of the aff). 

For instance, doing something that was already done somewhere between 2001 and 2015 (sorry I don't have examples, but you should know what these are).

 

But....I would say:

1) Counterplan means uniqueness is less important.

2) Kritik if you understand it and your judge will buy it

3) You can also counterplan move in the opposite direction of the aff or the uniqueness/inherency issue.  You can ban to overturn that law.  That kind of strictly makes it a debate between the aff and the opposite of the aff.  This is commonly known as counterplanning for uniqueness OR counterplanning with the status quo.  (the concepts aren't exactly the same--but the principle is pretty much the same.)

4) Or impact turn or some other kind of Backflile check. (aka wipeout, nuclear malthus, etc..)

 

An example of counterplanning for uniqueness might be if the aff said "obama will pass X privacy policy in 6 months" you just counterplan to ban that action or you counterplan for obama not to do that.

 

One common way to do this with spending disads is to ban future increases in the budget.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds like a good idea. However I think that saying the judge can't vote will just piss them off lol.

But thanks for the idea.

 

Judges who would be pissed off at hearing theory about what the role of the judge should be are also the kinds who you shouldn't be reading theory in front-of in the first place...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... i have voted on inherency... More than once...

 

The best way to get judges to vote on inherency is to frame it as a theory violation with voters.  (1. No Inherency. Card. 2. Inherency is a voter. Reasons / Standards.)

 

Also, if you have implications you want to pull from the plan being non-inherent, include those.  For example: "The Aff doesn't get permutations, because the permutation is the CP/K, since that's the only difference from the SQ."

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously can't believe I read a thread where people are advocating reading inheritance as some sort of theory argument.

 

Inherency is considered "weak" because it's defensive - it's a reason why the aff might not be as good and at 100% effectiveness can nullify the affirmative's advantage because the aff doesn't make the status quo any better than it already is. It's hard to make it a reason to vote neg alone because all the aff would have to do is overcome presumption and show that there's a risk that voting aff would make it better and it would be better than neg's position which is the status quo.

 

What inherency is useful for though is a defensive argument to mitigate the leverage the aff has on it's impacts so that any small offense the neg can get on an off case would outweigh - it has nothing to do with theory and is a lot more than some useless stock issue that lay judges vote on.

Edited by DA MACHINE
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously can't believe I read a thread where people are advocating reading inheritance as some sort of theory argument.

 

Inherency is considered "weak" because it's defensive - it's a reason why the aff might not be as good and at 100% effectiveness can nullify the affirmative's advantage because the aff doesn't make the status quo any better than it already is. It's hard to make it a reason to vote neg alone because all the aff would have to do is overcome presumption and show that there's a risk that voting aff would make it better and it would be better than neg's position which is the status quo.

 

What inherency is useful for though is a defensive argument to mitigate the leverage the aff has on it's impacts so that any small offense the neg can get on an off case would outweigh - it has nothing to do with theory and is a lot more than some useless stock issue that lay judges vote on.

I'd upvote this but I don't think it'd make a dent...

 

Squirreloid aside, it's still really, really difficult to make judges pull the trigger on inherency (even lay judges). Regardless of whether or not this is normatively good or bad, it's a fact of life for all but the most conservative circuits. 

 

The above post definitely has the right idea. It does serve to mitigate a lot of case offense. More than that though, it also puts the aff in bit of a bind -- if they want to win a bigger risk of their aff, they have to prove why now is key. If they do that, then the magnitude of the link to the DA just went up too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd upvote this but I don't think it'd make a dent...

 

Squirreloid aside, it's still really, really difficult to make judges pull the trigger on inherency (even lay judges). Regardless of whether or not this is normatively good or bad, it's a fact of life for all but the most conservative circuits. 

 

The above post definitely has the right idea. It does serve to mitigate a lot of case offense. More than that though, it also puts the aff in bit of a bind -- if they want to win a bigger risk of their aff, they have to prove why now is key. If they do that, then the magnitude of the link to the DA just went up too. 

 

That's because inheritance alone isn't a reason to vote neg. This has nothing to do with lay or not lay - inheritance has the same effect as a solvency issue would have. It's a case argument that mitigates the affirmative's advantage and no judge that isn't brain dead is going to discount the argument because it becomes a part of impact calculus at the end of the round.

 

Also the rep system used to be pretty hilarious before the site changed to show the actual integer values. No wonder this site died.

Edited by DA MACHINE
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The space topic at the NSDA national tournament final round, the neg went for inherency theory.  It really honestly depends on what circuit you have, my circuit is still very much vested in inherency as a voting issue.  Doesn't mean that it's a good go to every time, but when there's a clear violation, a team would go for it.  Squirrelliod and Rnivium are spot on.  Framing non-inherent affs as outside of the judges jurisdiction is very similar to topicality standards that are commonly read  You'll only make them mad if they specifically told absolutely no theory or you keep yelling at them they can't do it, because then they may just want to do it any way (big red buttons are hard to resist).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The space topic at the NSDA national tournament final round, the neg went for inherency theory.  It really honestly depends on what circuit you have, my circuit is still very much vested in inherency as a voting issue.  Doesn't mean that it's a good go to every time, but when there's a clear violation, a team would go for it.  Squirrelliod and Rnivium are spot on.  Framing non-inherent affs as outside of the judges jurisdiction is very similar to topicality standards that are commonly read  You'll only make them mad if they specifically told absolutely no theory or you keep yelling at them they can't do it, because then they may just want to do it any way (big red buttons are hard to resist).

 

The judge votes for who, in their opinion, debated better in the round. There's no such thing as "outside the judge's jurisdiction". The entire round, barring something that violates tournament/ethical rules, is within the judge's jurisdiction. You can get judge fucked with a judge who can't speak English much less be qualified to judge a debate and the judge's decision would most likely still stand.

 

There also isn't any good argument for why it's unfair or uneducational. The affirmative might as well claim a fairness advantage with how easy it should be for the neg to win this round. They have no impact to their aff because they don't make a significant change from the stqo. If the case is within the resolution there's no reason it's not predictable. If the aff passed the neg should be expectedd to cut evidence saying so to argue inherency as part of the case not as a procedural. There's no way you're going to convince anyone keeping up with current events related to the resolution isn't something the neg should be obligated to do. You also aren't debating something in the past - the aff is proposing a policy. The only unusual thing is that the aff's advocacy policy has already been passed, but there's no reason why it would be a logical impossibility to repass a plan that's already been passed and the debate would be about whether repassing this plan is a good idea or not which is still a policy proposal.

Edited by DA MACHINE
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The judge votes for who, in their opinion, debated better in the round. There's no such thing as "outside the judge's jurisdiction". The entire round, barring something that violates tournament/ethical rules, is within the judge's jurisdiction. You can get judge fucked with a judge who can't speak English much less be qualified to judge a debate and the judge's decision would most likely still stand.

 

There also isn't any good argument for why it's unfair or uneducational. The affirmative might as well claim a fairness advantage with how easy it should be for the neg to win this round. They have no impact to their aff because they don't make a significant change from the stqo. If the case is within the resolution there's no reason it's not predictable. If the aff passed the neg should be expectedd to cut evidence saying so to argue inherency as part of the case not as a procedural. There's no way you're going to convince anyone keeping up with current events related to the resolution isn't something the neg should be obligated to do. You also aren't debating something in the past - the aff is proposing a policy. The only unusual thing is that the aff's advocacy policy has already been passed, but there's no reason why it would be a logical impossibility to repass a plan that's already been passed and the debate would be about whether repassing this plan is a good idea or not which is still a policy proposal.

Wouldn't you agree that the Aff still has to win that the resolution is good? Just because I give an eloquent speech about arctic animals and "do the better debating," why should I win? And if I must affirm the resolution, why am I not bound by the word "should"?
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't you agree that the Aff still has to win that the resolution is good? Just because I give an eloquent speech about arctic animals and "do the better debating," why should I win? And if I must affirm the resolution, why am I not bound by the word "should"?

 

Barring any framework argument that says otherwise then by default yes, the aff has to prove the resolution is good. An un-inherent aff is still proving the resolution. The aff is advocating to re-pass a plan that has already passed and your job as the negative is to say why repassing the plan is a stupid idea. The affirmitive is still saying the USFG should do something. The fact that the plan is stupid since the status quo solves isn't a theory argument as to why it's abusive.

Edited by Kratos_99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DA MACHINE is it really necessary to downvote everybody's posts that you don't agree with? 

That's not really the point of the rep system.

 

There's a point to the rep system? I mean feel free to downvote me if you think it matters.

Edited by DA MACHINE
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DA MACHINE is it really necessary to downvote everybody's posts that you don't agree with? 

That's not really the point of the rep system.

Look at his/her/it's/their reputation. Do you think he/she/it/they care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because inheritance alone isn't a reason to vote neg. This has nothing to do with lay or not lay - inheritance has the same effect as a solvency issue would have. It's a case argument that mitigates the affirmative's advantage and no judge that isn't brain dead is going to discount the argument because it becomes a part of impact calculus at the end of the round.

 

Also the rep system used to be pretty hilarious before the site changed to show the actual integer values. No wonder this site died.

 

Inherency is not defense.  

 

If plan has already happened, then you can't do it.  There is zero risk doing the affirmative improves things, because those things are already happening in the status quo.

 

Status quo is negative ground.  If the aff doesn't have inherency, then the aff is the status quo, and therefore a reason to vote negative.  Aff has failed in its prima facia burden.  And "do plan" is the same as "don't do plan".

Edited by Squirrelloid

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...