Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So I was looking through the V-debates and I came across a debate around a Guam Aff claiming they were contextual because one of their authors relate between Chinese and Guam policy. My question is: Can this Aff be seriously treated as topical under the China topic?

 

Hitting this Aff, I'd probably run a strong, realistic T and a K so I could give the judge a reasonable voter as well as a fully-played out critical advocacy. Considering the Aff isn't topical (or at least at the far limits of the resolution) the team would almost definitely have flushed out ten pages of T blocks (which they did if you see the 2AC). Considering this, I'd probably go down the line-by-line and spend a lot of time on reasonability and limits.

 

(Asking anyone reading this post) What would your perspective be towards a Guam Aff and what would expect the Negative to say in order for you to vote on Topicality here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think that if it's some sketchy argument like Guam = China, then I would vote on T. However, if it's something like, "The US and China should cooperatively bring renewable energy to Guam", I think it would depend on the round. Kind of a squirelly move over all, if you ask me. I don't think affs like this were the framer's intent. QPQs, I think it depends on the situation. Like, I feel like the framer's intent was "Engage China on X issue", which means a QPQ could work (Remove US military presence in return for less human rights abuses, for example), but some I feel as if are pushing it (Increase trade with China in return for less Chinese military presence in Guam, for example)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I was looking through the V-debates and I came across a debate around a Guam Aff claiming they were contextual because one of their authors relate between Chinese and Guam policy. My question is: Can this Aff be seriously treated as topical under the China topic?

 

Hitting this Aff, I'd probably run a strong, realistic T and a K so I could give the judge a reasonable voter as well as a fully-played out critical advocacy. Considering the Aff isn't topical (or at least at the far limits of the resolution) the team would almost definitely have flushed out ten pages of T blocks (which they did if you see the 2AC). Considering this, I'd probably go down the line-by-line and spend a lot of time on reasonability and limits.

 

(Asking anyone reading this post) What would your perspective be towards a Guam Aff and what would expect the Negative to say in order for you to vote on Topicality here?

What vdebate is this from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think that if it's some sketchy argument like Guam = China, then I would vote on T. However, if it's something like, "The US and China should cooperatively bring renewable energy to Guam", I think it would depend on the round. Kind of a squirelly move over all, if you ask me. I don't think affs like this were the framer's intent. QPQs, I think it depends on the situation. Like, I feel like the framer's intent was "Engage China on X issue", which means a QPQ could work (Remove US military presence in return for less human rights abuses, for example), but some I feel as if are pushing it (Increase trade with China in return for less Chinese military presence in Guam, for example)

Topic:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China.

I don't think this satisfies the "with" part of the resolution. Now, obviously there are some definitions of "with" that can be used to justify the Guam aff, but the way that the resolution has used the word is as follows from Merriam Webster:
 
b —used as a function word to indicate the object of attention, behavior, or feeling <get tough with him> <angry with her>

Now the affirmative team will obviously counter define "with" if they don't suck, and may even make a predictability counter standard. Here's where the limits debate comes in. Using the word like this:

  • —used to say that two or more people or things are doing something together or are involved in something

Justifies having the US and China co-operate with literally any other third (or even fourth or fifth or etc.) party. This explodes limits and turns their predictability standards (especially because there's lit for basically any area of the world where the US and China both happen to be, which is everywhere). Teams could read Mexico/Latin America/South America affs (like the China SOI good bad debate on the Latin America topic), teams could read Africa affs (from the China SOI debate on the college Military Presence topic), teams could read Middle East affs (again from the Military presence topic), Artic affs, and so on and so forth. 

Clearly one definition of the word "with" is better for debate than the other. Here's where you'd provide a caselist of affs that you allow (basically all the normal affs on the topic). "These are better for debate because they have a predictable literature base, link to all common topic DA's, etc. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Topic:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China.

I don't think this satisfies the "with" part of the resolution. Now, obviously there are some definitions of "with" that can be used to justify the Guam aff, but the way that the resolution has used the word is as follows from Merriam Webster:

 

b —used as a function word to indicate the object of attention, behavior, or feeling <get tough with him> <angry with her>[/size]

Now the affirmative team will obviously counter define "with" if they don't suck, and may even make a predictability counter standard. Here's where the limits debate comes in. Using the word like this:

 

  • —used to say that two or more people or things are doing something together or are involved in something

Justifies having the US and China co-operate with literally any other third (or even fourth or fifth or etc.) party. This explodes limits and turns their predictability standards (especially because there's lit for basically any area of the world where the US and China both happen to be, which is everywhere). Teams could read Mexico/Latin America/South America affs (like the China SOI good bad debate on the Latin America topic), teams could read Africa affs (from the China SOI debate on the college Military Presence topic), teams could read Middle East affs (again from the Military presence topic), Artic affs, and so on and so forth. 

Clearly one definition of the word "with" is better for debate than the other. Here's where you'd provide a caselist of affs that you allow (basically all the normal affs on the topic). "These are better for debate because they have a predictable literature base, link to all common topic DA's, etc.

I agree. I argued this on a vdebate with vman saying TPP is moe than just bilateralism. I think the "engagement is not just cooperation" debate is crucial to limits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I was looking through the V-debates and I came across a debate around a Guam Aff claiming they were contextual because one of their authors relate between Chinese and Guam policy. My question is: Can this Aff be seriously treated as topical under the China topic?

 

Hitting this Aff, I'd probably run a strong, realistic T and a K so I could give the judge a reasonable voter as well as a fully-played out critical advocacy. Considering the Aff isn't topical (or at least at the far limits of the resolution) the team would almost definitely have flushed out ten pages of T blocks (which they did if you see the 2AC). Considering this, I'd probably go down the line-by-line and spend a lot of time on reasonability and limits.

 

(Asking anyone reading this post) What would your perspective be towards a Guam Aff and what would expect the Negative to say in order for you to vote on Topicality here?

That Guam aff lowkey could be fire militarism aff . Just be like demilitarize guam being the aff - increases chinese diplomatic relations and theirfor is topical route for it .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Guam aff could be a good militarism aff. Demilitarize Guam would be the aff - it increases chinese diplomatic relations and therefore is topical.

That's effects T. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's effects T.

 

Literally first thought in my head even when i made it-

 

Straight upon decol'ing Guam to please China is FX t, effects of plan don't engage with china as an object or cooperative partner, would be untopical in context of really any "with China" args

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Topic:

Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially increase its economic and/or diplomatic engagement with the People’s Republic of China.

I don't think this satisfies the "with" part of the resolution. Now, obviously there are some definitions of "with" that can be used to justify the Guam aff, but the way that the resolution has used the word is as follows from Merriam Webster:
 
b —used as a function word to indicate the object of attention, behavior, or feeling <get tough with him> <angry with her>

Now the affirmative team will obviously counter define "with" if they don't suck, and may even make a predictability counter standard. Here's where the limits debate comes in. Using the word like this:

  • —used to say that two or more people or things are doing something together or are involved in something

Justifies having the US and China co-operate with literally any other third (or even fourth or fifth or etc.) party. This explodes limits and turns their predictability standards (especially because there's lit for basically any area of the world where the US and China both happen to be, which is everywhere). Teams could read Mexico/Latin America/South America affs (like the China SOI good bad debate on the Latin America topic), teams could read Africa affs (from the China SOI debate on the college Military Presence topic), teams could read Middle East affs (again from the Military presence topic), Artic affs, and so on and so forth. 

Clearly one definition of the word "with" is better for debate than the other. Here's where you'd provide a caselist of affs that you allow (basically all the normal affs on the topic). "These are better for debate because they have a predictable literature base, link to all common topic DA's, etc. 

I don't know if Rvinium or Native wrote this, but I recall one of blocks reading as: "The neg's interpretation limits out plans involving Europe and Africa" which seems kind of the point I would defend.

 

Like you said, the "with" interpretation seems easily countered and I would probably have trouble proving that "with" is defined as two parties. Of course you could spend quite of bit of time on the "prefer our interpretation" debate, but the problem is that the word "with" is so open to interpretation that asking the judge to define all rounds by that standard is unreasonable. I totally agree with your strategy, except I would probably base the T off of engagement. I've cut a couple cards that imply engagement is only between two parties and the only way to avoid this would be for the Aff to claim Quam and the US is a in itself a party, which sounds really sketchy.

 

Thanks for the comments and I now realize, like DickDB8 said, that judging the round would depend wholly on the specificities of the Plan Text as well as Cross-X.

Edited by LeKritiker

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...