Jump to content

Recommended Posts

There are multitude of term in LD that get me caught off guard, and with no clear understanding of many of the terms it is difficult to participate in a theory/kritick debate. I have heard terms such as COI, RVI, FIAT, and ROB; without the understanding of these terms it is near impossible to combat them while not looking like a fool. Thus, it would be complementary if someone could provide as many terms and analysis of these terms as possible. Also, Im well familiar with terms in substance (traditional) debate so you can steer clear of them if you want. Thanks before hand :D .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

COI - Maybe a counter interp that you can use on theory/topicality debates? (Dont really now so dont trust me)

RVI - reverse voter issue, its like if the neg runs a T/Theory and aff wins on that flow the judge should vote the negative down for it (Pretty BS, very few Judges buy it in policy but I think more LD judges buy it)

Fiat - its like that the plan will be implemented no matter what, its just used in CX and LD to debate about the impacts of the hypothetical action instead of about gridlock and whether it would pass or not.

ROB - is Roll of the Ballot, like what the ballot should do - common ones are like the role of the ballot is to vote for the team that solves extinciton/gratuitous violence/ etc. Pretty big issue imo, always respond to it, also really helpful to make your own.

 

idk any other LD terms , you might wanna look into the LD subreddit, they could probably help you out there. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tbh rvis are not bs in ld

Edited by Miro
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tbh rvis are not bs in ld

 

people like you are why this shit continues. 

 

I think we need to make LD great again™

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tbh rvis are not bs in ld

Eh, thats debatable, but occasionally RVI's are legit thats why some judges by them. Definitely more judges in LD buy them than they do in policy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, thats debatable, but occasionally RVI's are legit thats why some judges by them. Definitely more judges in LD buy them than they do in policy.

 

I remember somebody read 5 different theory shells against my CP in CX, and I tried to go for an RVI on time skew. Judges didn't buy it by a long-shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, thats debatable, but occasionally RVI's are legit thats why some judges by them. Definitely more judges in LD buy them than they do in policy. 

 

RVI's are solid arguments in policy debate being that without them, their wouldn't be good theory debate. If someone runs a word-for-word pick of the Plan then I'm sure as hell going to run theory.

Also, what are COI's, counter interpretation sounds plausible but where's the O?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

think op was referring to "oci's"

 

offensive counterinterps are an attempt to rvi without linking to every ld'ers 9-point "rvi bad" block

 

take a response to consult cp's bad:

normal counterinterp: the NEG can read consult CP's.

offensive counterinterp: the AFF must not prohibit the NEG from reading consult CP's

 

basically it's an attempt to reframe offensive reasons to prefer the counterinterp as offense - it's usually badly done because it's hard to win DA's to reading bad theory, i.e., every reason why rvi'ing is contrived

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RVI's are solid arguments in policy debate being that without them, their wouldn't be good theory debate. If someone runs a word-for-word pick of the Plan then I'm sure as hell going to run theory.

Also, what are COI's, counter interpretation sounds plausible but where's the O?

that's just theory, not an RVI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i feel like RVIS are warranted in LD just because of the shorter debates:

there's less time to develop arguments, so interp v CI debate doesnt get fleshed out- args dont really get resolved all that well

same goes for we-meet debates

then the standards debate becomes muddled very quickly in all but a select few debates

if the 1nc reads a shell, likely the 1AR will read a shell as well then the whole debate collapses down to theory and unless there's a good weighing or LBL job done by somebody judges are left to wade through the flows and will render a decision that leaves somebody unhappy

point is I think they are justified in LD but not in policy- there's more time to develop arguments and actually resolve issues and standards- somebody will be come out on top of an issue nearly 100% of the time

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RVI's are solid arguments in policy debate being that without them, their wouldn't be good theory debate. If someone runs a word-for-word pick of the Plan then I'm sure as hell going to run theory.

Also, what are COI's, counter interpretation sounds plausible but where's the O?

 

COunter Interpretation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RVI's are solid arguments in policy debate being that without them, their wouldn't be good theory debate. If someone runs a word-for-word pick of the Plan then I'm sure as hell going to run theory.

Also, what are COI's, counter interpretation sounds plausible but where's the O?

 

Sry one more thing:

 

What u mean you would RVI word pics? Just run pic theory. Or word pic theory. Or condo. 

 

99% of the time you don't want to RVI in policy. And don't RVI T. We all cringe. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sry one more thing:

 

What u mean you would RVI word pics? Just run pic theory. Or word pic theory. Or condo. 

 

99% of the time you don't want to RVI in policy. And don't RVI T. We all cringe. 

 

 

that's just theory, not an RVI.

 

Okay now I'm confused. I thought RVI's were just Affirmative voters on arguments where the Negative is asking for a voter, like Topicality.

 

This is a bad example: If the Neg reads "Vote Negative Because the Plan isn't topical," then the Affirmative reads "Devolving Action to Symantical Argumentation Bad (Imagine It's a BLM Aff)." 

 

That's what I thought RVI's were. Also, theory usually includes RVI's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RVIs are read against the team that initiates theory. If the neg initiates theory (e.g. topicality), an RVI from the aff is "vote for us on T". If the aff initiates theory (e.g. conditionality bad), an RVI from the neg is "vote for us on condo". 

Make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't lecture people until you get it right yourself.

 

RVIs are read against the team that initiates theory. If the neg initiates theory (e.g. topicality), an RVI from the aff is "vote for us on T". If the aff initiates theory (e.g. conditionality bad), an RVI from the neg is "vote for us on condo". 

Make sense?

 

That is not an RVI...who the hell says "vote for us on condo," unless you're trying to OCI. Attempting to make theory not-conditional is an offensive counterinterp that some people outlined above. An RVI doesn't even necessitate winning a better counterinterp - even a base reasonability claim along with DA's to their original interp is sufficient. An RVI doesn't say "vote for us on condo" but rather "vote for us because their condo shell is frivolous <substance crowdout DA, no in-round abuse applications of theory -> theory proliferation DA, etc.>

 

The distinction is actually pretty significant to high-level LD, and bastardizing it is sad to watch.

  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Snarf's defense, someone was confused. Snarf is simplifying, not bastardizing.

Don't lecture people until you get it right yourself.

Edit: And if you want to discuss "high-level" LD theory, don't do it on a CX forum with a post by a confused debater. Edited by Rnivium
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't lecture people until you get it right yourself.

 

 

 

That is not an RVI...who the hell says "vote for us on condo," unless you're trying to OCI. Attempting to make theory not-conditional is an offensive counterinterp that some people outlined above. An RVI doesn't even necessitate winning a better counterinterp - even a base reasonability claim along with DA's to their original interp is sufficient. An RVI doesn't say "vote for us on condo" but rather "vote for us because their condo shell is frivolous <substance crowdout DA, no in-round abuse applications of theory -> theory proliferation DA, etc.>

 

The distinction is actually pretty significant to high-level LD, and bastardizing it is sad to watch.

Snarf is right. It's an RVI.

 

An RVI is when the team that gets hit by a theory argument and responds by turning it into a voting issue for them. The only other time one can legitimately win on things like "condo good" is when there is no other arguments for the judge to evaluate.

 

I don't think you understand the RVI too well.

Edited by Raj
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Snarf is right. It's an RVI.

 

An RVI is when the team that gets hit by a theory argument and responds by turning it into a voting issue for them. The only other time one can legitimately win on things like "condo good" is when there is no other arguments for the judge to evaluate.

 

I don't think you understand the RVI too well.

 

you and snarf are incorrect, but it's not as big of a deal as wildersonian is making it sound

 

i think something that would clear up the discussion is the distinction between offensive vs. defense rvi's. offensive rvi's say that the initial theory shell actively hurts debate, i.e., what snarf is trying to allude to. it's not a "condo good" claim, but rather that imposing the "must be unconditional" interp harms debate for xyz reasons. defensive rvi's are what wildersonian cited - i.e., triggered through winning the we-meet or terminal defense to their standards to prove that the shell is frivolous.

 

wildersonian is also wrong. winning "condo good" indicates a bidirectional theory debate, but isn't an OCI in of itself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you and snarf are incorrect, but it's not as big of a deal as wildersonian is making it sound

 

i think something that would clear up the discussion is the distinction between offensive vs. defense rvi's. offensive rvi's say that the initial theory shell actively hurts debate, i.e., what snarf is trying to allude to. it's not a "condo good" claim, but rather that imposing the "must be unconditional" interp harms debate for xyz reasons. defensive rvi's are what wildersonian cited - i.e., triggered through winning the we-meet or terminal defense to their standards to prove that the shell is frivolous.

 

wildersonian is also wrong. winning "condo good" indicates a bidirectional theory debate, but isn't an OCI in of itself

Although it seemed like I was referring to condo good as an RVI, I was not. I was implying condo good was the only position the neg could take in that debate, and I was merely stating that if they won that condo is good, and if there was nothing else to evaluate the round, then the net would win without even saying the words "reverse voting issue".

 

Also, if the "must be unconditional" interp is bad in any way, then the judge defaults to their "can be conditional" interp which means that the neg would win on their condo good interp,because their interpretation was superior. I was advocating that the neg would naturally say condo good, and turning that into an RVI means that they would win on that interp. Proving that one interp is bad isn't enough, one has to offer a better interp to evaluate the round with.

 

Edit-

 

Why are defensive RVIs necessary? You said that it would be triggered through winning w/m or terminal defense on the standards. If either of those things were won, then there would be no reason to evaluate the procedural in the first place.

Edited by Raj
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An RVI doesn't say "vote for us on condo" but rather "vote for us because their condo shell is frivolous <substance crowdout DA, no in-round abuse applications of theory -> theory proliferation DA, etc.>

"Vote for us on condo" is verbal shorthand for all the reasons outlined. You'd say that's voting for you "on condo," because theory regularly gets its own sheet of paper in policy and a judge who resolves a debate by a decision relating to condo does so by voting on that flow (in the same way you'd say "I voted on the K" as shorthand for "the aff concedes epistemology first").

 

I used the simpler phrasing because (as Raj and Rnivium note), the two-sentence post was written to be simple and accessible.

 

The distinction between offensive and defensive RVIs seems to be a distinction without a difference. Evaluating an "offensive RVI" requires reaching the substance of the theory shell (if condo is good, debate isn't harmed and the offensive RVI is wrong) in the exact same way that defensive RVIs do (if condo is good, the shell isn't frivolous and the defensive RVI is wrong). Both also warrant a win if you win the RVI, so calling it "defensive" is incorrect. 

 

I'm generally skeptical of theory innovations in LD that result from taking policy debate terms and misusing them (e.g. LDers saying "perm do the aff" to mean "the aff solves/is a pre-req to the K"). This seems like another case of that. That the distinction is highly discussed in LD (even in higher rounds) says little, because I've never met a single debater who thinks the state of LD theory debate is defensible. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The distinction between offensive and defensive RVIs seems to be a distinction without a difference. Evaluating an "offensive RVI" requires reaching the substance of the theory shell (if condo is good, debate isn't harmed and the offensive RVI is wrong) in the exact same way that defensive RVIs do (if condo is good, the shell isn't frivolous and the defensive RVI is wrong). Both also warrant a win if you win the RVI, so calling it "defensive" is incorrect. 

 

I was originally thinking from the way they presented it  that they were trying to say that if the neg did an offensive RVI they would say that the aff interp of condo bad harms debate, and the defensive RVI would prove that the condo bad shell is frivolous. However, I don't think the latter is necessarily defensive because someone can spin that into an offensive time skew arg. Both RVIs say that the original theory shell is bad for some reason or another, so I can't really see the difference either.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The distinction between offensive and defensive RVIs seems to be a distinction without a difference. Evaluating an "offensive RVI" requires reaching the substance of the theory shell (if condo is good, debate isn't harmed and the offensive RVI is wrong) in the exact same way that defensive RVIs do (if condo is good, the shell isn't frivolous and the defensive RVI is wrong). Both also warrant a win if you win the RVI, so calling it "defensive" is incorrect. 

 

I was originally thinking from the way they presented it  that they were trying to say that if the neg did an offensive RVI they would say that the aff interp of condo bad harms debate, and the defensive RVI would prove that the condo bad shell is frivolous. However, I don't think the latter is necessarily defensive because someone can spin that into an offensive time skew arg. Both RVIs say that the original theory shell is bad for some reason or another, so I can't really see the difference either.

 

Yeah. I guess I just don't see how you prove "condo bad is frivolous" ('defensive') without substantively winning condo good, which is the definition of "condo as a standard harms debate" ('offensive').

 

LDers should stop making up empty theory terms.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×