Jump to content

Recommended Posts

as I judge, I would highly encourage this... if you don't like feeling the competing interps game on the Aff throw the neg a curveball and watch them scramble a little...

 

on the UN topic, my partner and I ran a gender aff, and when they inevitably T'ed us, we busted out the good old 'T = rape silencing.' Not really a round winner, but there's a 50/50 they'll waste much too much time on T in the block.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

seriously. this is almost as bad as the bell hooks argument that making one be topical is using the language of the oppressor. remind me again, what language they write in and what language the resolution in and why they endorse it?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seriously. this is almost as bad as the bell hooks argument that making one be topical is using the language of the oppressor. remind me again, what language they write in and what language the resolution in and why they endorse it?

 

 

 

:eek:

You honestly believe Bell Hooks made that as an argument? (you'll be able to answer this one w/out a post in response).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as I judge, I would highly encourage this... if you don't like feeling the competing interps game on the Aff throw the neg a curveball and watch them scramble a little...

 

on the UN topic, my partner and I ran a gender aff, and when they inevitably T'ed us, we busted out the good old 'T = rape silencing.' Not really a round winner, but there's a 50/50 they'll waste much too much time on T in the block.

OR . . .

 

 

You could just answer T... and not waste extra time running the impact turn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as I judge, I would highly encourage this... if you don't like feeling the competing interps game on the Aff throw the neg a curveball and watch them scramble a little...

 

on the UN topic, my partner and I ran a gender aff, and when they inevitably T'ed us, we busted out the good old 'T = rape silencing.' Not really a round winner, but there's a 50/50 they'll waste much too much time on T in the block.

 

What is your impact turn? FAIRNESS Bad? oh, yea, that's a winning argument. Untopical affirmative's ACTUALLY destroy debate. Maybe some t-violations are dumb, but the affirmative should be able to out debate those violations. Competing interpretations is the only check on abuse, because if I can do one untopical thing because its not "really abusive" then it sets a precedent for other untopical actions. This creates a slippery slope that will inevitably destroy debate, just look to college debate. I've heard first hand accounts of how out rounds at the NDT are won on arguments like "no link, we don't defend the implementation of our plan text, only the advocacy of it., NONE OF YOUR ARGUMENTS LINK" Without topicality the affirmative could stand up and say "Racism is bad, reject racism" and sit down. The negative would always lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree... I'm not necessarily saying that impact turns on T are a round-winner, but conceptually I think they're alot more interesting to debate than competing interps. T is more or less the same debate every round, and there's no reason not to spice things up. I've done this and seen more teams waste an extra 45 seconds explaining away the impact turn so they could kick T in the block, and it certainly doesn't take more than an extra 20 to read it in the 2ac.

 

 

Beyond that, all of this argumentation seems to reject the idea that there could actually be warrants to these kinds of impact turns. While competing interps is an effective check on abuse, we all know that this isn't what its universal application is. There are plenty of rounds where T becomes the deal breaker for the Aff and there's clearly no abuse in the round... it's just an extension of the definition comparison. Round like this where T is unnecessary but has strategic utility are always going to trade off with in-depth debates on substantive issues. If people running impact turns on T deter negs from running frivolous topicalities, I can't see it as being a bad thing... and if they lead to a deeper discussion of the implications of the words we use and the impact on our framing of language on the rest of the world, I can only conclude that impact turns on T will make debate more entertaining and educational.

 

In short, what's so bad about these kinds of arguments, excluding all the previous argumentation in this thread (which essentially breaks down to "these arguments are stupid, answer T in a conventional fashion!") Warrants, people. Impact Turns on T are at least as genuine and warranted as any kritik that gets run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additional note - Essariel asked what the impact turn might be... there are as many as there are aff cases, but as to a specific example... If the case deals with feminism and solving for rape and is clearly reasonable enough to provide the neg some ground, then an act of Topicality which makes an unqualified rejection of the 1ac discourse is an act of rape silencing; it replicates the patriarchial power structures of the status quo that lead to additional victimization of rape victims, and a good reason to reject the negative for compounding and expanding the impacts of the 1ac.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Additional note - Essariel asked what the impact turn might be... there are as many as there are aff cases, but as to a specific example... If the case deals with feminism and solving for rape and is clearly reasonable enough to provide the neg some ground, then an act of Topicality which makes an unqualified rejection of the 1ac discourse is an act of rape silencing; it replicates the patriarchial power structures of the status quo that lead to additional victimization of rape victims, and a good reason to reject the negative for compounding and expanding the impacts of the 1ac.

 

Topicality does not silence your discourse. Topicality is a rejection of the team, not the argument. We say that the rape discourse of the 1AC should be our ground, and that therefore if the plan is a good idea then you vote negative because it is outside the resolution. While I realize there are a variety of impact turns to T, none of them (such as this one) that I have ever heard actually apply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree... I'm not necessarily saying that impact turns on T are a round-winner, but conceptually I think they're alot more interesting to debate than competing interps. T is more or less the same debate every round, and there's no reason not to spice things up. I've done this and seen more teams waste an extra 45 seconds explaining away the impact turn so they could kick T in the block, and it certainly doesn't take more than an extra 20 to read it in the 2ac.

 

 

Beyond that, all of this argumentation seems to reject the idea that there could actually be warrants to these kinds of impact turns. While competing interps is an effective check on abuse, we all know that this isn't what its universal application is. There are plenty of rounds where T becomes the deal breaker for the Aff and there's clearly no abuse in the round... it's just an extension of the definition comparison. Round like this where T is unnecessary but has strategic utility are always going to trade off with in-depth debates on substantive issues. If people running impact turns on T deter negs from running frivolous topicalities, I can't see it as being a bad thing... and if they lead to a deeper discussion of the implications of the words we use and the impact on our framing of language on the rest of the world, I can only conclude that impact turns on T will make debate more entertaining and educational.

 

In short, what's so bad about these kinds of arguments, excluding all the previous argumentation in this thread (which essentially breaks down to "these arguments are stupid, answer T in a conventional fashion!") Warrants, people. Impact Turns on T are at least as genuine and warranted as any kritik that gets run.

 

My argument is not that these are unstrategic arguments. I always through them out in the 2AC if they apply, (and have seen rounds won on them, gotten my novice out of imposible rounds on rediculous T impact turns, etc.) My argument is that competing interpretation's is probably a more convincing argument, and probably better for education than the alternative:

1. You say "there's clearly no in round abuse." I don't think you can set that standard. I think to claim objectivity in terms of abuse is just a nice way of saying "I personally didn't think there was abuse." I think the very act of being able to run supposedly "frivolous" topicality violations is part of negative ground. The time skew and strat skew created by it is key to check aff side bias.

2. T debates are just as valuable as substantive education. They allow for a discussion of language, definitions, etc. which in my oppinion is just as educational as discussing rape. A thorough understanding of language is a prerequisite to have these invaluable discussions about rape.

3. Switch Sides Debate solves all your offense- Rather than having an untopical "pdd 1325" (assume its untopical, that's not the point) affirmative that solves for rape, run patriarchy disads and a pdd 1325 c/p. The negative team can bring up these issues and in our framework you can, which means you're voice is really being silenced.

4. Its not what you do, its what you justify- If you can take one untopical action, then someone else can take another untopical action. At which point does something untopical become abusive? There's no brightline. The college debate circuit proves that a disregard for topicality and competing interpretations DESTROYS debate. Nothing personal, but I don't want to have to debate the WGLF affirmative, and that's what you justify.

5. Fairness first- your interpetation of debate justifies standing up and saying "racism bad, reject racism", and then reading narratives for racism or advocating a blatently untopical plan to solve for racism. Its impossible for the negative to win in this situation because the only ground we have is racism good.

6. Turns all your offense- In your world I quit debate because I can never win and every round the aff just says "rape bad, racism bad, etc." I QUIT DEBATE so no one ever hears them and their movement dies. Competing interpetations is the only way to preserve the debate community, and that outweights all other impacts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Impact turning T doesn't necessarily imply arguing that fairness is bad, because that is dumb. However, a promising way to go about it is looking at he intricacies of the argument. Find out what ground they claim you destroy, and you can show why those arguments themselves are abusive and destructive to fairness. For example, if they argue that using the courts is bad because they can't get politics links, you can argue why politics disads are bad (such as: encourage barrel rolling, spoils system, and other forms of corrupt government by evaluating political considerations rather than merits of policies). etc. But I'm not saying you can do this all the time, because certain ground is pretty fair and arguing they're bad is pretty dumb. You could also argue that certain education that they claim you ruin is bad for debate and people and that by limiting out that kind of education we're doing them a favor. For example, they claim you ruin education about JC from N'Sync (extreme example, but just to prove a point) and you would argue "Well duh, we're here to learn about substantive issues of national significance, such as detaining immigrant children.That's more important than some pop star. So therefore we concede the violation, but we have a positive impact to doing so."

 

It's treating T like a disad. I saw iola and andrews do this in outrounds at berkeley. I think they were impact turning the neg's T violation in this way, but I'm not sure. But i remember them using terms like uniqueness, link, and impact on the T debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was a little confused by the thread...Are you saying make the arguement and ALSO have a w/m and a counterinterp? Or instead of substansively answering their arguments, just go for a straight turn on T?

 

I mean, I actually think this is a good argument. Because if they ran a T violation that said, for last years topic "T=support is directed at males only" and you ran gender mainstreaming, then you could say under the aff's interp we'd never talk about the horrible abuses that are directed at women during the genocide and whatnot.

 

But I think that you should taylor this strategy. Like, what if the aff just steps up and says "we don't silencing rape, we just think your one case is bad." What if they said that your case was untopical, but mentioned another case that was topical that could have a fem advantage? Then you'd just have wasted a bunch of time saying it and, if you didn't have a counterinterp/w/m, you'd have virtually dropped T. And you'd lose. However, if, for example, you said "under the affs interpretation, we would not be able to talk about any case that had a feminism is bad, and this is bad b/c it silences rape." Or, if your a big K hack, you could say "Their discourse is patriarchal. Signing the ballot neg says that women's suffering is not important as men's suffering. BUT RAPE IS THE WORST ATROCITY GOING ON IN THE WORLD RIGHT NOW. Here are my reasons." This makes the neg have to defend their discourse, which, coupled with a counter-interp and a w/m, could be quite effective. But, like I said, you can't just run this every time, b/c they could run a definition that allowed for all of this shit.

 

I don't see why we should refuse to debate competing interps altogether when it is what, most of the time, judges like to hear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just remember not to link turn, too. Just read the link turn and don't read uniqueness, that way it won't get confusing. Also, don't read impact defense too, because maybe then they could kick out of T.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1...The time skew and strat skew created by it is key to check aff side bias.
No such side bias exists. Furthermore, "right to run stupid arguments is essential" doesn't really have the sound of a round-winner to me... ;)
2. T debates are just as valuable as substantive education.
Well, a GOOD topicality discussion CAN be educational, yeah. The kinds of responses you are recommending don't seem likely to generate such education, though. Besides, education is a silly standard to use to defend a theory position. Sets the bar far too low...
3. Switch Sides Debate solves all your offense
You're kidding, right? "My ridiculous argument in this round should be accepted because my opponent will get a turn to make ridiculous arguments in some other round later..."??? Anyone find that "logic" persuasive? ;)
4. Its not what you do, its what you justify
What my teams say in rounds against you does NOT set any precedents (unfortunately). Even if we clean your clock in THIS round, no other judge or team is bound by that outcome. If we win the theory argument HERE, we still have to defend ourselves against every other opponent we meet, and convince every other judge or panel we draw. Now, if winning THIS debate doesn't even give US a leg up in those upcoming rounds, how on earth can a rational human being argue that a win for us here "justifies" things that OTHER teams might say in THEIR rounds, or how other judges will evaluate those claims?

 

Enough? You don't REALLY want me to answer No. 5 and No. 6, do you? :D

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No such side bias exists. Furthermore, "right to run stupid arguments is essential" doesn't really have the sound of a round-winner to me... ;)Well, a GOOD topicality discussion CAN be educational, yeah. The kinds of responses you are recommending don't seem likely to generate such education, though. Besides, education is a silly standard to use to defend a theory position. Sets the bar far too low...You're kidding, right? "My ridiculous argument in this round should be accepted because my opponent will get a turn to make ridiculous arguments in some other round later..."??? Anyone find that "logic" persuasive? ;)What my teams say in rounds against you does NOT set any precedents (unfortunately). Even if we clean your clock in THIS round, no other judge or team is bound by that outcome. If we win the theory argument HERE, we still have to defend ourselves against every other opponent we meet, and convince every other judge or panel we draw. Now, if winning THIS debate doesn't even give US a leg up in those upcoming rounds, how on earth can a rational human being argue that a win for us here "justifies" things that OTHER teams might say in THEIR rounds, or how other judges will evaluate those claims?

 

Enough? You don't REALLY want me to answer No. 5 and No. 6, do you? :D

 

God damn, every one of your posts is meticulously warranted, seriously <3 tshu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Merkin
I've seen people run Spanos affs and impact turn topicality pretty effectively by making the argument that T= genocidal logic.

I used this with my genocide prevention aff last year, never lost a round going for the K of T in the 2ar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No such side bias exists. Furthermore, "right to run stupid arguments is essential" doesn't really have the sound of a round-winner to me... ;)Well, a GOOD topicality discussion CAN be educational, yeah. The kinds of responses you are recommending don't seem likely to generate such education, though. Besides, education is a silly standard to use to defend a theory position. Sets the bar far too low...You're kidding, right? "My ridiculous argument in this round should be accepted because my opponent will get a turn to make ridiculous arguments in some other round later..."??? Anyone find that "logic" persuasive? ;)What my teams say in rounds against you does NOT set any precedents (unfortunately). Even if we clean your clock in THIS round, no other judge or team is bound by that outcome. If we win the theory argument HERE, we still have to defend ourselves against every other opponent we meet, and convince every other judge or panel we draw. Now, if winning THIS debate doesn't even give US a leg up in those upcoming rounds, how on earth can a rational human being argue that a win for us here "justifies" things that OTHER teams might say in THEIR rounds, or how other judges will evaluate those claims?

 

Enough? You don't REALLY want me to answer No. 5 and No. 6, do you? :D

 

It would be interesting to read, but suit yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

does anyone think it's theoretically inconsistent to answer T conventionally and tack the impact turns on the end? Granted to really make them effective, the time tradeoff won't serve you very well, but that's irrelevant. Does it constitute a link turn on the impacts to answer T within a competing interps framework?

 

I don't think so; you can argue that any definition you choose that justifies your case doesn't limit out the discourse you claim to be essential. In fact, I feel like doing this also allows you to perm out any offense the neg has on your impact turns and maybe utilize some changing the system from within ev... same kind of stuff you read on K perms, rorty, shiva, SE, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I used this with my genocide prevention aff last year, never lost a round going for the K of T in the 2ar.

 

Out of curiousity what type of genocide prevention aff did you run?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just curious...Why is it called an impact turn? What's the impact that's being turned? An impact turn would be if THE NEG stepped up and said "Silencing rape is good." The impact to topicality is voting negative b/c of jurisdiction, thus an impact turn would be something like vote aff, or an RVI. But this is different than an RVI in the sense that it's discursive as opposed to theoretical.

 

And another thing...How would you link turn topicality? What's the link? They violate? So a link turn would be they...don't violate?

 

All this terminology being used makes T look like a disad. IT'S NOT!!! Topicality is a theoretical argument made by the negative that can be answered with framework arguments by the affirmative. Maybe we should start talking about it like that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T is completely a disad. The neg interp establishes the uniqueness, the wording of the aff is the link, and all the reasons to vote are impacts. Evaluating and arguing T as if it were a disad makes for more dynamic T debates, and they're much less dry.

 

The impact being turned is this - you can concede the 'link' that you do conceptualize the resolution in this manner; the neg impact to this is fairness, ground, etc, all reasons to reject the aff. The aff's impact turn is that their framing of the resolution is uniquely good for X reasons, which may or may not directly turn the negative impacts for T, they may subsume them, or it may just require impact comparison; what's more important, fairness in debate or spreading awareness about genocide?

 

Theory and framework debates in and of themselves can be debated in a manner traditionally associated with disads, and I don't really think it's a bad thing. It gets debaters thinking about the implications of these 'fairness' and 'education' arguments they make on theories flows, instead of just spitting them out as if they were the be all and end all. It gets people thinking about types of education, different elements of fairness, and a plethora of other things, intricacies in the implications of these theory arguments that would never be discussed if they're debated in the old fashioned theory style.

 

I think any good judge will tell you they look at T like a disad. It has an impact that can be weighed against other impacts. Gateway issue though it may be, I think if people would let go if this stiff conceptualization of T, T debates would be more fun And more educational.

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...