Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Go aahead and view it as a disad. In the end, T "impacts" come down to Neg ground which stems off of predictability, and as long as you can come up with good enough reasons (even though I don't believe those reasons exist) as to why screwing their ground is a good thing, then go ahead and impact turn it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

also not true. T impacts extend beyond neg ground, unless you're just not very good on the T flow. Impact turning T isn't just as 2 dimensional as saying neg ground is bad; you can argue that the ground they provide is bad for X reasons, or that the ground you provide is uniquely good for x reasons.

 

Beyond that, other T impacts distinct from neg ground -

 

Education. You can always argue that your education is more germane to the topic or more important for whatever reason, which is substantially different from the ground debate.

 

External case impacts - While it won't turn existing neg T impacts, these pre-fiat voting issues attached to the case can always be weighed out on the T flow. You don't have to argue that the negative having ground is bad, just that discussing your issue is more important than giving the negative the ground they want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
also not true. T impacts extend beyond neg ground, unless you're just not very good on the T flow. Impact turning T isn't just as 2 dimensional as saying neg ground is bad; you can argue that the ground they provide is bad for X reasons, or that the ground you provide is uniquely good for x reasons.

 

Beyond that, other T impacts distinct from neg ground -

 

Education. You can always argue that your education is more germane to the topic or more important for whatever reason, which is substantially different from the ground debate.

 

External case impacts - While it won't turn existing neg T impacts, these pre-fiat voting issues attached to the case can always be weighed out on the T flow. You don't have to argue that the negative having ground is bad, just that discussing your issue is more important than giving the negative the ground they want.

 

A good neg T debater would probably be able to win that education stems from fair division of ground and the external case impacts scenario you spoke of is just a fancy way of saying we outweigh T which every good neg T debater will have a block to. It all comes back to who is the better T debater in the round. If you are better, then go ahead and you'll probably be able to pull it off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone please explain to me how running T on a case excludes w/e it is that they want to discuss from the round...and then I will call you an idiot and prove that you are wrong. Yea, that includes you WGLF or WLGF....whatever your name is on here. Peace

 

Forrest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ethanopium

There is a fundamental flaw. "impact turns" on T don't require an aff ballot. You can discuss whatever you want, and still be wrong. They aren't excluding your 1AC, but saying that, well, you cheated. You can still be an activist and lose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to answer Forrest, by running a topicality argument on a case, you make the argument that whatever the Aff is saying doesn't fall within the bounds of the resolution and thus shouldn't be discussed within the round or throughout the year; your running of that T has the implicit message that you believe whatever the Aff case is shouldn't be discussed, thus you attempt to exclude their discourse. Whether or not that is because you believe it isn't resolutional is irrelevant.

 

And to answer ethanopium, you will win unless they're also running case takouts on pre-fiat activism impacts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
to answer Forrest, by running a topicality argument on a case, you make the argument that whatever the Aff is saying doesn't fall within the bounds of the resolution and thus shouldn't be discussed within the round or throughout the year; your running of that T has the implicit message that you believe whatever the Aff case is shouldn't be discussed, thus you attempt to exclude their discourse. Whether or not that is because you believe it isn't resolutional is irrelevant.

 

And to answer ethanopium, you will win unless they're also running case takouts on pre-fiat activism impacts.

 

Ummmm, lets try......no. By saying that the affirmatives plan should be rejected due to it not being an example of the res does not equate to them saying that the topic of the affirmative cannot be discussed in the round, or even that the affirmative shouldnt run the plan. It very well could be that I endorse you running your affirmative every round, I just say that you shouldnt be able to get a win from it. If the the fundamental grounding of the affirmative is so important a message that it must be discussed, then the idea of the win or lost would be arbitrary to the affirmative because all they would really want is for people to listen.

 

Furthermore, it would be just as easy for me to read evidence about why the affirmative conceding is better for their discourse. For many moral philosophers, they recognize that only things worth "sacraficing" for is "intrinsically good", because if that were to be false, then no rational being would make a "sacrafice". Following this logic, your resistance to your rejection could be said to prove that your discourse is not in accord with perpetuating the deconstruction of whatever problem you are isolating, but rather you using your discourse for alterior purposes. It would then be said that the use of the affirmative is in turn bad, and ought be rejected.

 

Besides that, by destroying the fundamental basis of the forum (i.e. the resolution), your justification becomes counter intuitive.

1. It could be said that the resolution is good in itself, and thus any moral implications of it is being silenced through your deconstruction of it. It seems kind of arbitrary for one to deem the exclusion of the affirmatives discussion as being more significant then exclusion of the resolutions implications. Any topical affirmative would serve as offense to why VOTING for the affirmative is intrinsically bad.

 

2. Deconstructing the forum in which you hope to spread your "message" in turns destroys the forum that allows you to spread your message. If your affirmative serves to speak outside of the resolution, then it is implied that you consider "traditional" debate to be flawed, and thus should be reformed in order to include those discussions currently excluded. Assuming a world in which you achieve this goal, policy debate would not functionally exist. It would turn into some other form of debate (I dont know what it is called....maybe LD...but one can even say it would turn into a speech event instead of a debate event). In that case, "policy debate" no longers exist, and you will be forced to move on to your next forum of discussion. Thus your goal being counter intuitive of itself. Please dont say you do not wish to change the debate forum....because then you would just be a hypocritical moron.

 

Never the less, I agree that there are things supposedly "excluded" from the resolution that should be discussed. But debate in itself, does not exclude you from being able to goto a receptive forum, or from you speaking about the "message" in this forum as long as it is not with the intentions of winning. If one were to say that winning is key to the message, then it would be like saying "The rules to this game is dumb, yet it is important to me to win the game". I dont know....that just doesnt sound too convincing to me. I could go on for years about this, but I got to get to my pragmatism class...til later moments, Peace.

 

Forrest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
your running of that T has the implicit message that you believe whatever the Aff case is shouldn't be discussed, thus you attempt to exclude their discourse.

If the neg just read t against the aff case, this claim might be true. However, the fact of the matter is that the neg usually EXPLICITLY engages the aff in a substantive debate as well as a t debate. So, your claim is untrue.

 

At the very least, the aff bites this "implicit message" just as badly: by asserting that no other issues besides the kritikal advantage should be discussed, they engage in exclusionary discourse of any other major social issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you will win unless they're also running case takouts on pre-fiat activism impacts.

 

um no not necessarily. you can make the argument that you can be topical and be an activist while simultaneously winning any kind offense on their real world solvency argument/advocacy. you don't have to accomplish something real world in order to be topical, but it you do it can be topical. it is external to t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The aff isn't arguing that exclusion is bad, but that excluding the particuliar subject they wish to discuss is bad.

 

The neg isn't excluding the subject, just the case. For example, on last years topic, you could run fem OR you could run congo with a rape advantage. So they say support is money (i'm not actually familiar with fem, it might meet that interp, but assume it doesn't if it des) and you say "YOUR INTERP SILENCES RAPE!" And then the neg says "No we don't, here's a that gives money to the congo and there's a rape advantage because women don't have money and are sold into sex slavery. We aren't silencing rape, we're just saying that the neg shouldn't be allowed to run untopical cases just becuase they talk about something interesting" Now, if you think the neg runs an interp that actually prohibits cases about your issue, then perhaps you have a strong argument, an argument that would make your counterinterp very convincing. Under the aff interpretation we'd talk about rape as opposed to the neg, which silence rape. But, iono, maybe ask in cross-x if we would talk about rape and/or genocide under the neg interp. I don't see why this argument should be run by itself. Or maybe I'm just missing something. Whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just as expected...yet another mindless post.

 

Actually I'd tend to agree with WGLF, this is getting pretty vacuous. I personally think it'd be better if you say the affirmatives logic is the same as that used by nazis to carry out the holocaust, genocide outweighs procedurals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just as expected...yet another mindless post.

 

WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT IF WE ACTUALLY HAD THE TIME OR FELT LIKE ARGUING WITH YOU, YOU'D ACTUALLY PREVAIL?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I once tried arguing with the WGLF...they messed me up so bad I can't even remember what happened.

YA SAME HURR DOG... I LEARNED THAT FUCKIN SPORTS WERE BAD AND THATS ALL I REMEMBER...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think alot of the earlier posters at least really get how to even impact t in a logical way.

 

One approach would be to Kritik it, but i think that the framework debate is going to tend to go to the negative, T is key to fairness witch is key to the survival of debate which is key to alot more discourse and edu.

 

A smarter impact turn would be to add cards to the voters. Say a voter is education, say that edu is key to the econ and econ growth is bad. Or similar things for everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT IF WE ACTUALLY HAD THE TIME OR FELT LIKE ARGUING WITH YOU, YOU'D ACTUALLY PREVAIL?

 

I dont know...the fact you sound like a dumb ass. Funny how you can get a bunch of HS debaters to ride your jock because they are complacent with being inferior. How about you post a response instead of your usless jibberish. Peace

 

 

Forrest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont think alot of the earlier posters at least really get how to even impact t in a logical way.

 

One approach would be to Kritik it, but i think that the framework debate is going to tend to go to the negative, T is key to fairness witch is key to the survival of debate which is key to alot more discourse and edu.

 

A smarter impact turn would be to add cards to the voters. Say a voter is education, say that edu is key to the econ and econ growth is bad. Or similar things for everything

 

Hmmm...nothing like policy impacts on a theory debate. Gotta love CX...this post is almost as atrocious as everything WGLF says. Peace

 

Forrest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont know...the fact you sound like a dumb ass. Funny how you can get a bunch of HS debaters to ride your jock because they are complacent with being inferior. How about you post a response instead of your usless jibberish. Peace

 

 

Forrest

 

DURKA DURKA DURKA DURKA DURKA DURKA DURKA

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
to answer Forrest, by running a topicality argument on a case, you make the argument that whatever the Aff is saying doesn't fall within the bounds of the resolution and thus shouldn't be discussed within the round or throughout the year; your running of that T has the implicit message that you believe whatever the Aff case is shouldn't be discussed, thus you attempt to exclude their discourse. Whether or not that is because you believe it isn't resolutional is irrelevant.

 

And to answer ethanopium, you will win unless they're also running case takouts on pre-fiat activism impacts.

 

I kritiked T about 80-85% of my aff rounds last year. So i really do know one or two things about 'impact turning' topicality. First, your interp. of why/how teams run topicality is just wrong. We aren't running T to exclude your aff and prevent discussion of this aff; our argument is that you are just in the wrong forum. A common mistake that alot of teams make against kritikal aff's is that they don't run T in the proper framework. Your interp is fine against those 'i solve nuke war in 45 ways so vote for me' aff's, but agianst more kritikal and moral aff's, the T framework needs to more of a 'kritik of your discourse;the way you are presenting your aff is in the wrong forum'. To make this easier to understand, we must go back to novice debate 101: we have a subject to talk about. We can create different ways of talking about this subject, but this subject we talk about must always be of presence in the forum of our discussion. While racism may be a horrible crime against humanity (or genocide,biopower,capitalism, the Real, whatever your specific aff is kritiking ) it doesn't mean we have the authority to talk about this. Essentailly, you are trying to play soccer during a baseball game. Yes, they are both sports, and yes, they both involve balls, rules, etc. Playing a soccer game during a baseball game is not only illegal uder the Rules of Baseball, but makes soccer look dumb because you assum that whatever you say goes. Well sorry dear, it doesn't. Just because you bring up the discussion of Racism, doesn't mean that you are in the right forum for it and in fact, by making debate a unfair game, youd defeat your OWN project before it is even walking. The neg isn't saying that you are bad, just that you should do it in a way that is topical.

  • Upvote 1

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.

could you post the t = rape silencing card

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...