Jump to content
StephenR

Concede that your plan isn't topical?

Recommended Posts

 For this example lets assume T is a voting issue.

If you are aff, and the neg doesn't read any topicality violations in the 1NC, can you concede that your plan isn't topical to win no link on a disad? Or is that an automatic loss since you've conceded topicality?

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, StephenR said:

 For this example lets assume T is a voting issue.

If you are aff, and the neg doesn't read any topicality violations in the 1NC, can you concede that your plan isn't topical to win no link on a disad? Or is that an automatic loss since you've conceded topicality?

Thanks.

Its an auto loss.... but like just say you are topical and even if you aren’t that neg gave no reason that being non topical is an issue. Also the disad can still link (would need to see the flow to tell if it can) even if you aren’t topical! Remember a disad is saying your plan is doing something bad and will cause a terrible thing to happen, so by that logic just cause you say your plan is not part of this years topic does not mean it still doesn’t do the bad thing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, StephenR said:

 For this example lets assume T is a voting issue.

If you are aff, and the neg doesn't read any topicality violations in the 1NC, can you concede that your plan isn't topical to win no link on a disad? Or is that an automatic loss since you've conceded topicality?

Thanks.

Depends entirely on the judge and they way they framed T. Generally you probably shouldn't concede T in the 2AC because they can feasibly, and probably not abusively, run a violation in the 2NC. You would, for most judges, have to make an argument why not having a violation means that their T shell doesn't matter in the debate. This is risky because it isn't easy to win, and if you lose it, then you almost certainly lose the debate. However, if you know the DA is likely going to win them the round, either because you aren't prepped out for it or some other reason, this can be a possible strategy. 

 

It also depends on whether or not the judge has inherent biases about the function of T in the debate space. If it's the 1AR and you concede T and also use that to beat the link to the disad, you need to win that total topicality doesn't change/affect the merits of the aff. 

 

A specific example would be the classic T substantial + politics DA with a link story based on your aff being a "substantial" shift from the status quo (something to this effect was run in CFL Finals in 2017, iirc). Generally if you want to make this strategic decision, you should do it in the 1AR, passed the point where they can add another link to the DA or run a violation. But yeah, I think in front of the right judge with an actually logical, solid argument about why the violation's lack of existence makes the T shell defunct and if you are doing reasonably will in the standards debate, you should have a decent chance of winning T and that DA.

~OutKTheK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, AnthonyUwU said:

Its an auto loss.... but like just say you are topical and even if you aren’t that neg gave no reason that being non topical is an issue. Also the disad can still link (would need to see the flow to tell if it can) even if you aren’t topical! Remember a disad is saying your plan is doing something bad and will cause a terrible thing to happen, so by that logic just cause you say your plan is not part of this years topic does not mean it still doesn’t do the bad thing.

It's definitely not an auto-loss unless you've got an awful stock-issues only judge, but it probably won't help you that much in most situations unless your aff is super outside of the topic, and there's a risk they can read T in the block.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2019 at 1:28 AM, StephenR said:

 For this example lets assume T is a voting issue.

If you are aff, and the neg doesn't read any topicality violations in the 1NC, can you concede that your plan isn't topical to win no link on a disad? Or is that an automatic loss since you've conceded topicality?

Thanks.

I'd say don't BLATANTLY concede you're not topical... but you can make your no link argument anyways. If they haven't read T in the 1NC, they're unlikely to read it in the neg block -- and if they do, you can make the argument that that's unfair. Be aware of that though -- some judges could vote for a new 2NC T violation.

It's also a question of knowing your judge. If they care a lot about stock issues, they may be more convinced by new T arguments in the block if your aff isn't topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/22/2019 at 3:05 AM, AnthonyUwU said:

Its an auto loss.... but like just say you are topical and even if you aren’t that neg gave no reason that being non topical is an issue. Also the disad can still link (would need to see the flow to tell if it can) even if you aren’t topical! Remember a disad is saying your plan is doing something bad and will cause a terrible thing to happen, so by that logic just cause you say your plan is not part of this years topic does not mean it still doesn’t do the bad thing.

I agree with the above. To add on, if you concede that you're not topical, the neg can read a bunch of standards maybe additional cards about why the aff being off topical kills debate, etc etc. Then they'll likely extend their previous arguments. A lot of judges vote on T so conceding topicality isn't a good idea unless you're well prepped to argue why topicality arguments are bad/don't matter or you could play off the concession as conceding to their interp but offer a counterinterp that you don't break and prove why your counterinterp is better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick question, if the other team read a T argument against you in the 1nc that said it would be abusive to make that no link argument, wouldn't you still make a counter interp argument that would justify that interp? 

Like if you read a single weapon system aff, a team would read substantial reduce T and say that you could no link a relations DA because your aff is too small to link. You would clearly read a counter interp saying that your single weapon system aff would be a substantial reduction, which would justify those kinds of no link arguments.

My point is that T isn't static and you should have an interpretation of T that justifies those kinds of arguments. THEREFORE, if they don't say you're untopical or have an interpretation that would make you untopical, why would you say you're untopical? There hasn't been an interp in the debate saying you're outside of the topic. When the neg doesn't question your aff's topicality, then presume the aff is unquestionably T. Make the no link arg, don't say that it makes you untopical. 

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...