Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Well, it really depends on what your focus is. Let me ask you, does every critique debater throw out their cap file every year and start from scratch? No. It just requires updating. In the same way, you can develop a very robust collection of case files. Its not as if debate impacts really change from year to year. It's a huge hurdle if you start from scratch. It's not a huge hurdle if you started that way from the beginning.

 

And you are right - judges don't typically vote for inherency... or solvency. They don't because they belong to a school of thought which is intellectually void of all logic and reason. Debate has shifted to off case because of an obsession with "new" shiny objects - nerd sex appeal. It didn't shift that way because they are better arguments. I can assure you that the link "your plan uses the USFG; this upsets federalism" is not a better argument. A touch hyperbole, I know, but you get the point

 

Quite frankly, I've said it a hundred times and I'll say it once more - if a judge is unwilling or even openly unlikely to vote for inherency, then he or she has no more business judging debate than a judge who won't vote for a critique.

I think that at the least many of the judges who wouldn't vote on inherency if you called it a 'stock issue' may be willing to vote on it if you made it a theory argument sort of like T (IE not being inherent is bad because it means we can't have a proper debate). I think part of the problem is that in the stock issues debates I've judged people just say "it's a stock issue" and stop there. That might have worked 30 years ago but policy has changed -- more precisely there seems to be more room to debate the "rules" of debate (or lack thereof). You'll see older judges who refuse to vote on performance debates because it's 'against the rules' (even if they don't say it that way), but with the younger crowd that attitude doesn't really exist. If stock issues teams got more meta, then they might see better success in front of judges that default to offense/defense paradigms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, it really depends on what your focus is. Let me ask you, does every critique debater throw out their cap file every year and start from scratch? No. It just requires updating. In the same way, you can develop a very robust collection of case files. Its not as if debate impacts really change from year to year. It's a huge hurdle if you start from scratch. It's not a huge hurdle if you started that way from the beginning.

 

And you are right - judges don't typically vote for inherency... or solvency. They don't because they belong to a school of thought which is intellectually void of all logic and reason. Debate has shifted to off case because of an obsession with "new" shiny objects - nerd sex appeal. It didn't shift that way because they are better arguments. I can assure you that the link "your plan uses the USFG; this upsets federalism" is not a better argument. A touch hyperbole, I know, but you get the point

 

Quite frankly, I've said it a hundred times and I'll say it once more - if a judge is unwilling or even openly unlikely to vote for inherency, then he or she has no more business judging debate than a judge who won't vote for a critique.

 

The problem is that Aff Plans today are so unique. Like you said on the other forum, you would have a much easier time creating case negatives using the internet, but when you run a K, you only have to cut one or two cards for link stories. This season's topic is GIGANTIC. Seriously, I read an article discussing how the topic essentially states: The USFG should substantially increase its engagement with the PRC. According to one somewhat sketchy author, anything up to "posting on their facebook feed" counts as engagement. Sure, there's topicality, but as you can see on this site, people will still prep out T and run a Quam Aff.

 

Running generic k's, da's, and cp's is soooo much easier, and there is still education involved, just a lot less TOPIC-oriented stuff. 

 

Also, yeah there are old files and back-files, but like I said, backfiles take a huge amount of manpower to create (bigger teams) unless you're just using freely-distributed camp files. Also, backfiles are generic at best and only go so far in case debates. It's just that quality, researched evidence is unrealistic.

 

Actually, technology has sort-of paradoxically transformed debate :/ 

 

SPECULATION: --> In the age of paper debate, the manpower required to produce evidence is TRIPLE what it is today, which meant small schools had to resort to generic off-case arguments (Cited: Resolved, Rocket Science :P). In contemporary debate, any team has easy access to tons of evidence. Two implications: First, you would expect the quality of evidence to INCREASE as cards are picked based on their quality. Note: I don't understand why this isn't the case, but it has to be something more than laziness. Second, every school, however small, has the ability to debate because now all it takes is an understanding of debate instead of large squads to create evidence. In other words, anyone has the ability to debate, and that means there are a lot more Plans in circulation, however sketchy or specific. Note: Are there less debate teams nowadays? Because if so, I HAVE NO IDEA.

 

In actuality, I don't know why evidence quality hasn't gotten better in correlation with advances in technology, but I still think it has to be attributed to something more than laziness.

Edited by LeKritiker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that Aff Plans today are so unique. Like you said on the other forum, you would have a much easier time creating case negatives using the internet, but when you run a K, you only have to cut one or two cards for link stories. This season's topic is GIGANTIC. Seriously, I read an article discussing how the topic essentially states: The USFG should substantially increase its engagement with the PRC. According to one somewhat sketchy author, anything up to "posting on their facebook feed" counts as engagement. Sure, there's topicality, but as you can see on this site, people will still prep out T and run a Quam Aff.

 

Running generic k's, da's, and cp's is soooo much easier, and there is still education involved, just a lot less TOPIC-oriented stuff. 

 

Also, yeah there are old files and back-files, but like I said, backfiles take a huge amount of manpower to create (bigger teams) unless you're just using freely-distributed camp files. Also, backfiles are generic at best and only go so far in case debates. It's just that quality, researched evidence is unrealistic.

 

Actually, technology has sort-of paradoxically transformed debate :/ 

 

SPECULATION: --> In the age of paper debate, the manpower required to produce evidence is TRIPLE what it is today, which meant small schools had to resort to generic off-case arguments (Cited: Resolved, Rocket Science :P). In contemporary debate, any team has easy access to tons of evidence. Two implications: First, you would expect the quality of evidence to INCREASE as cards are picked based on their quality. Note: I don't understand why this isn't the case, but it has to be something more than laziness. Second, every school, however small, has the ability to debate because now all it takes is an understanding of debate instead of large squads to create evidence. In other words, anyone has the ability to debate, and that means there are a lot more Plans in circulation, however sketchy or specific. Note: Are there less debate teams nowadays? Because if so, I HAVE NO IDEA.

 

In actuality, I don't know why evidence quality hasn't gotten better in correlation with advances in technology, but I still think it has to be attributed to something more than laziness.

Because people don't know what they're reading and therefore don't know how to research - For example, when you're reading a Politics DA, all you have to do before a tournament is cut some new uniqueness evidence, nothing difficult about that. When it comes to other arguments, like critiques for example, debaters at the high school level don't really understand what X philosopher or theorist is saying - all they have is a loose interpretation of what X person was saying directed to them by a lab leader who sardonically communicates the information onto them. I never attended one of those expensive debate camps but from what I saw on YouTube, a lot of the "K Labs" were focused more on explaining to debaters how they should read, for example, Wilderson in debate and how to deploy him strategically - it was never about what Wilderson was saying and even if they did explain it then it would be very superficial. 

 

Then that leaves an absence of information which can lead to one of two things; either the debaters start to read the literature and become more accustomed with X (which is never usually the case - only the top teams in the Country do this) or they just put a bunch of random keywords into google and cut whatever it is that sounds remotely similar to what they were just introduced into. This is why you have people reading Security K's that have cards that are each concerned with different aspects of securitization and/or defend other viewpoints of how the world works. In short, debaters cut evidence completely out of context; but nobody ever calls them out on it so then they just keep reading the same shitty evidence because it's working for them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am going to keep this short and sweet (by my incredibly poor word economy standards) mostly because I really don't have the time and I am just reiterating things at this point....

 

... I don't expect people to believe me that a functionally 100% case specific response is not as difficult as it is often portrayed to be. I assure you, and others, it's not - as long as you start out that way. Think of all the time you spend writing front lines, and preempts, and trying to learn fifteen different critique authors writing such dense incomprehensible prose, practicing speed drills, and developing strategy, learning what arguments to kick and theory. You don't need any of it for a case juggernaut.

 

It's hard to conceptualize something which you can't fathom. Perhaps I lack the ability to describe the method or effectiveness... but I promise - it CAN be done, done well, and in less time than debaters think it will take... it just requires an emphasis on such methodology across all 4 years. It is not something which pays immediate dividends and the initial burden IS high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because people don't know what they're reading and therefore don't know how to research - For example, when you're reading a Politics DA, all you have to do before a tournament is cut some new uniqueness evidence, nothing difficult about that. When it comes to other arguments, like critiques for example, debaters at the high school level don't really understand what X philosopher or theorist is saying - all they have is a loose interpretation of what X person was saying directed to them by a lab leader who sardonically communicates the information onto them. I never attended one of those expensive debate camps but from what I saw on YouTube, a lot of the "K Labs" were focused more on explaining to debaters how they should read, for example, Wilderson in debate and how to deploy him strategically - it was never about what Wilderson was saying and even if they did explain it then it would be very superficial. 

 

Then that leaves an absence of information which can lead to one of two things; either the debaters start to read the literature and become more accustomed with X (which is never usually the case - only the top teams in the Country do this) or they just put a bunch of random keywords into google and cut whatever it is that sounds remotely similar to what they were just introduced into. This is why you have people reading Security K's that have cards that are each concerned with different aspects of securitization and/or defend other viewpoints of how the world works. In short, debaters cut evidence completely out of context; but nobody ever calls them out on it so then they just keep reading the same shitty evidence because it's working for them. 

 

Sorry, I should have been more specific, but the increase of evidence quality was describing case arguments specifically, not Kritik's. The claim was that debaters often resort to offensive arguments and off-case instead of inherency and solvency/ good case debates.

 

On a side note, I don't think reading the literature is too necessary depending on the Kritik. For instance, if you've got an ethic professor in the back and you stand up and read DnG or Foucault, you better know what the hell you're talking about. However, K's like Marxism and Borders only require a basic understanding of the idea/ philosophy. Any person who's read Animal Farm (yeah, I know it's counter-intuitive) and understands the late-Marx's terminology concerning the bourgeoisie and state has the ability to run the K, maybe not well, but with enough understanding to convince the judge.

Edited by LeKritiker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SPECULATION: --> In the age of paper debate, the manpower required to produce evidence is TRIPLE what it is today, which meant small schools had to resort to generic off-case arguments (Cited: Resolved, Rocket Science  :P). In contemporary debate, any team has easy access to tons of evidence. Two implications: First, you would expect the quality of evidence to INCREASE as cards are picked based on their quality. Note: I don't understand why this isn't the case, but it has to be something more than laziness. Second, every school, however small, has the ability to debate because now all it takes is an understanding of debate instead of large squads to create evidence. In other words, anyone has the ability to debate, and that means there are a lot more Plans in circulation, however sketchy or specific. Note: Are there less debate teams nowadays? Because if so, I HAVE NO IDEA.

 

In actuality, I don't know why evidence quality hasn't gotten better in correlation with advances in technology, but I still think it has to be attributed to something more than laziness.

 

I think part of the story is that technology has increased the number of small affirmative cases, which increases the incentive of negative teams to read generic arguments that link to anything. First there was whole rez debate, in which the negative needed solvency evidence for only one main idea. Then there was hypothesis testing. Then there was plan oriented debate during the time when T substantial was still a viable argument. Now there is plan oriented debate in a time when T substantial is almost a joke. As technology has increased, we've seen cases become smaller and smaller.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because people don't know what they're reading and therefore don't know how to research - For example, when you're reading a Politics DA, all you have to do before a tournament is cut some new uniqueness evidence, nothing difficult about that. When it comes to other arguments, like critiques for example, debaters at the high school level don't really understand what X philosopher or theorist is saying - all they have is a loose interpretation of what X person was saying directed to them by a lab leader who sardonically communicates the information onto them. I never attended one of those expensive debate camps but from what I saw on YouTube, a lot of the "K Labs" were focused more on explaining to debaters how they should read, for example, Wilderson in debate and how to deploy him strategically - it was never about what Wilderson was saying and even if they did explain it then it would be very superficial. 

 

Then that leaves an absence of information which can lead to one of two things; either the debaters start to read the literature and become more accustomed with X (which is never usually the case - only the top teams in the Country do this) or they just put a bunch of random keywords into google and cut whatever it is that sounds remotely similar to what they were just introduced into. This is why you have people reading Security K's that have cards that are each concerned with different aspects of securitization and/or defend other viewpoints of how the world works. In short, debaters cut evidence completely out of context; but nobody ever calls them out on it so then they just keep reading the same shitty evidence because it's working for them. 

 

That's because winning is more important than education. Yup, even in those tear jerking K rounds. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think part of the story is that technology has increased the number of small affirmative cases, which increases the incentive of negative teams to read generic arguments that link to anything. First there was whole rez debate, in which the negative needed solvency evidence for only one main idea. Then there was hypothesis testing. Then there was plan oriented debate during the time when T substantial was still a viable argument. Now there is plan oriented debate in a time when T substantial is almost a joke. As technology has increased, we've seen cases become smaller and smaller.

 

100% correct. 

 

"If you don't like to politics or spending than your not substantial" 

 

Which is known to be BS but in a world where that's not the case than hope the aff wasn't smart and found some tiny ass plan that totally 100% does not link to any of that shit. It's pretty awk even if you're good trying to take a 30 million dollar aff plan and pretend that Nuclear war will ever happen from it. 

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

×