Jump to content
SirAravis

Old School Theory

Recommended Posts

So I've been encountering a lot of weird stuff (multiple plan texts, perms on disads, opportunity costs etc...), and I was wondering if anyone had some resources to learn about all the argumentative and theoretical trends that have shaped policy debate to become what it is now. 

 

I think I would learn a lot from seeing what contentions the debate community initially had with the arguments that have become so popular today, and what arguments have fallen out of fashion (and is it possible to resuscitate them?).

 

I envision something like a history book tracing the development of policy debate as an activity.

 

EDIT: Found this dank thread: https://www.cross-x.com/topic/38487-retro-theory/

Edited by SirAravis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a big fan of old school theory. I don't have any actual resources but I will tell you I had a lecture at camp this summer about perms on disads. It was really cool. And speaking of bringing back old thoery, I think we should all be trying to resuscitate no neg fiat.

Edited by Nonegfiat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^^

I'm a big fan of old school theory. I don't have any actual resources but I will tell you I had a lecture at camp this summer about perms on disads. It was really cool. And speaking of bringing back old thoery, I think we should all be trying to resuscitate no neg fiat.

You don't say.

 

I have some old school theory books my coach has had for years, I can upload them if ya'll like. Its got a bunch of stuff. No neg fiat, no Ptx Das, the classics. 

 

Can someone explain to me how you perm a DA? I'm really intrigued.

Edited by AQuackDebater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't say.

 

I have some old school theory books my coach has had for years, I can upload them if ya'll like. Its got a bunch of stuff. No neg fiat, no Ptx Das, the classics. 

 

Can someone explain to me how you perm a DA? I'm really intrigued.

 

A book with no neg fiat? Yes please.

 

So perming disads. I've never actually tried this in a round because it sounds like such BS nowadays, but basically it's a way to test the intrinsicness of disads, the same way counterplans are meant to test the instrinsicness of advantages. So instead of "permutation-- do both", you could say something like "permutation-- the disad is not germane. We can have TPP and do the plan"

 

In my mind its a way to separate disads that are just causal side-effects of the plan from disads that are actual, true disadvantages to the mandated action of the plan. The only brightline I can think of for this is link specificity. For example, my partner and I read AIIB. If the neg reads a dollar heg DA, that's very different from a Japan relations disad. Our relationship with Japan is large and multifaceted, so there's definitely a way we can and realistically would join the AIIB without making Japan think we don't care about them, so when it comes to the discussion of whether or not the plan is a good idea, the disad is not a reason to reject the plan b/c it's not intrinsic. Dollar heg however, could be different. There might not be a way that we can join the AIIB and avoid helping the yuan against the dollar. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A book with no neg fiat? Yes please.

 

So perming disads. I've never actually tried this in a round because it sounds like such BS nowadays, but basically it's a way to test the intrinsicness of disads, the same way counterplans are meant to test the instrinsicness of advantages. So instead of "permutation-- do both", you could say something like "permutation-- the disad is not germane. We can have TPP and do the plan"

 

In my mind its a way to separate disads that are just causal side-effects of the plan from disads that are actual, true disadvantages to the mandated action of the plan. The only brightline I can think of for this is link specificity. For example, my partner and I read AIIB. If the neg reads a dollar heg DA, that's very different from a Japan relations disad. Our relationship with Japan is large and multifaceted, so there's definitely a way we can and realistically would join the AIIB without making Japan think we don't care about them, so when it comes to the discussion of whether or not the plan is a good idea, the disad is not a reason to reject the plan b/c it's not intrinsic. Dollar heg however, could be different. There might not be a way that we can join the AIIB and avoid helping the yuan against the dollar. 

So basically it's just a very odd way of saying "The link debate is trash." Do I have it right? And I'll upload the books asap

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically it's just a very odd way of saying "The link debate is trash." Do I have it right? And I'll upload the books asap

Yeah that sounds right. Keep in mind though, this is not something I do, so I'm not an expert. It's basically asking the judge to throw out an argument because you find it illogical and I think that's stupid. I'd rather just read link defense. Edited by Nonegfiat

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...