Jump to content

User_name?_A_What?

Member
  • Content Count

    41
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

17 Good

About User_name?_A_What?

  • Rank
    Longtime Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Name
    John
  • School
    Round Rock
  1. Central Asia would be the best topic ever. I, for one, think domesticly minded topics (civil liberties, national service, mental health care, to some extent oceans) are boring as hell. Central Asia opens debate up to something that it hasn't had in a long time: credible nuclear war scenarios. Not like, your plan costs political capital, jacks india deal, but good specific evidence. Why? Because central asia is on of the most important places in the world and yet recieves very little attention. Now, some of you will freak out at me. "What about africa?" "What about the middle east?" Africa is important only because it has so many problems (a lot of which are the US's fault, but that's kind of true everywhere). On face, you might think that'd set up a great debate but there aren't very many things that could actually solve any of Africa's problems. How do you undo that much imperial meddling or cure AIDS? Africa is a great topic for small, systematic impacts like poverty, but not much else. I see that degenerating into an indignant aff team asking "how can you let people die of AIDS?" while the neg tries to explain that the plan doesn't help enough to make it worth a risk of nuclear war. The Middle East isn't something the US can really fix either. No matter what sort of trade policy we adopt towards Iran, for example, they're still going to hate jews. If the last couple of years have shown us anything, I think its that the impact of a mideast war is really overstated. I mean, shouldn't all of those escalation scenarios have happened by now? Central asia, on the other hand, is hotly contested by major powers in the mideast and by Russia and China. If you get tired of that angle, you can always talk about pipeline developement, the movement of soviet era missile, small arm (or even nuclear arms) through the region. Those debates are the most fun i've ever had. They have giant impacts, decent probability and great timeframes. Even if you want to debate a different sort of impact, there are genocides in that region that our press won't even admit exist, democratic revolutions that are simmering and, given the US's cold war history, I'd bet there is a lot of critical ground concerning our treatment of that region. The only thing that would make this resolution problematic is the inclusion of the term "foreign assistance." That's not as clear as I'd like (can that mean troops? If so, my old georgia aff is coming back...) and probably links you to kritiks. Not that you wouldn't link to them anyway if you had most of the advantages I see being good on that topic. I am convinced that, in the future, the world will pay much more attention to central asia and I hope the topic selection reflects that. Regardless of what is chosen, these are the best topics i've seen in a while. The whole resolution selecting process has redeemed itself in my eyes (albeit a bit late).
  2. Perhaps I overstated my point. Looking at the responses to the thread, I concluded that the consensus was trending away from the two resolutions. If I have misread the public opinion, I apologize. This isn't particularly relevant. The "we can all agree" applied mostly to the problems w/ the original resolution (or was intended to - I wouldn't be surpized if I messed it up). Secondly, can we stop the personal attacks? There is nothing the "Hell wrong with me" and I'll continue going for T subs as long as it keeps winning rounds. I have a hard time understanding why other people don't run such an easy T violation to win on. I am under no delusions as to its real world merits -it's possibly the worst T violation ever- but it's easy to win on. Besides, I don't go for this argument every round. Actually, I don't go for it most rounds. The obvious limit isn't so obvious to me. I guess that's what the hell is wrong with me. This resolution clearly mandates FX b/c you can't fiat increased participation. Nothing in the resolution says it has to be a direct consequence - just that the policy has to be intended to increase participation. First striking Iran would be topical if you could read evidence saying people would enlist if we did it. More probably, faking a terrorist attack on the US would increase enlistment (ev that says this is abundant) and the intent of the policy would be increasing participation. There is no difference between that and an aff that runs an ad campaign - both try to persuade ppl to join the military/service institution. On a side note, I reread the posts I think you're referencing, which was somewhat difficult b/c you use the author's real name. Unless I'm missing something, your answer to the FX argument is the first one. That's why I said the consensus was against both topics - FX is pretty damning. I did read the post and answered it. The aff specificity is moot if the negative is gaurenteed specific links by the topic. Sweet, you do X specific proposal. If you read a single card of link offense, you're not T. How can you have specific link turns to increasing participation in X agency bad? Your offense is either "we externally solve" or "specific" mpx turns. Neither is a great strat. The UN and privacy examples are also answered in my post. On this topic, a lot of people don't link to rights bad arguments. Next year, if you don't link, you're not T. Under any proposed wording changes, the link isn't mandatory, so you could have a creative aff that links out. The PIC's and case specific disads would be unaffected and the aff flex would be largely the same. Finally, it is true that the probability of a new wording is low. That kinda misses the point. Did the people who argued about T subs online seriously expect the argument to go away if they made it look stupid online?
  3. Damn, calm down. I'm just throwing out ideas that would remove the problems people seem to have with this resolution. I think we can agree that this is the right direction for the discussion to move in - there is no credible defense of the original topic or this one. Frankly, I think any of my resolutions, even the change one, provides less aff ground than the new resolution. The new resolution obviously mandates FX because you can't fiat increased participation in any of those programs. As far as T goes, you can't prove the aff isn't topical if they read an increased participation advantage. A de-dev aff could argue that economic decline empirically leads to increased enlistment. Second, I don't think I did a very good job explaining my argument about the case debate. I'm not a big fan of random squirrely cases. Equally, I hate the idea of disads that you have to link to to be topical. The resolution states that you must increase participation in one of those six organizations. I see huge schools ignoring the 1ac and spewing 12 two to three card generic disads that you have to concede the link to in order to be topical. I also agree that the change resolution is hopelessly vague. The support or expand resolutions arguably allow for new programs in those 6 case areas, which seems to be something people wanted, while stopping the FX stuff. I think a resolution should be set up to support a decent T debate - support might allow new programs, but it might just mean propping up existing programs. Thanks for the response. This is the debate we should be having - lets come up with an alternative to the resolution. Propose such an alternative. I disagree that support or expand are too vague. Support is probably my favorite term and it was in the PKO topic. That topic, arguably, had 16 ish case areas. I also agree that the 6 case areas are kinda extreme. Maybe we could go with the armed forces, peace corp and one other? Sohin - The topics as written are extremely vague and border on meaningless. I don't think any good T violation exists on the new resolution to check stupid affs and the success of T subs this year makes me frightened of the word "comprehensive". My ground argument is explained better above. Its not that the same advantages will be run every round, its that you have to link to generic disads to be T. I don't think the expand or support resolutions are vulnerable to the ground argument explained above. There are nuanced ways of supporting that doesn't link to a "you add X ppl to the org" disads. Also, i don't think there are any solvency advocates for programs that affect, for example, both the Senior corps and the army. If there are, the topic probably needs the extra limiting. You also bring up an interesting point - maybe we could just vet the original resolution? Remove the word "comprehensive" and such? I'm not trying to literally write a new resolution, I'm no framer. I want to kick around ideas about rewording the topic instead of declaring both versions unworkable.
  4. I think we can all agree on two things. First, the old topic sucked for the aff. The words "citizen," "mandatory" and "comprehensive" were almost impossible to defend or meet. Defining National Service is also problematic. Second, the proposed solution sucks. Two big points stand out here. First, the resolution mandates effects topicality. There is no way to fiat an increased participation in the services. Therefore, the aff can get away with anything. DADT, the draft, paying ppl in the military more, new medical policies for enlisted people or a policy that would crash the economy because went the economy goes down, people enlist are all topical. Second, the resolution mandates one of 6 advantages. This means that huge schools with tons of researchers will have more evidence on my advantages than I will. To some extent, this is always true, but this topic is insane. The solution isn't to choose one resolution or the other, it's to write a new one. I propose the USFG expanding or supporting one of the programs. Original: The United States federal government should establish a policy substantially increasing the number of persons serving in one or more of the following national service programs: AmeriCorps, Citizen Corps, Senior Corps, Peace Corps, Learn and Serve America, Armed Forces. Support: The United States federal government should establish a policy substantially increasing its support of one of the following national service programs: the AmeriCorps, Citizen Corps, Senior Corps, Peace Corps, Learn and Serve America, Armed Forces. Expand: The United States federal government should substantially expand one of the following national service programs: AmeriCorps, Citizen Corps, Senior Corps, Peace Corps, Learn and Serve America, Armed Forces. Change: The United States federal government should substantially change one of the following national service programs: AmeriCorps, Citizen Corps, Senior Corps, Peace Corps, Learn and Serve America, Armed Forces.
  5. Inherency as such isn't an argument. There is no reason to reject a plan because it is not attitudinally inherent. Most inherency arguments are really uniquess takeouts or advantage mitigators. If you win that the plan will happen eventually, all you have to do is win a disad to it happening now (like politics) and you win without having to deal with case. So, stop going for inherency as a voter. It's not. It's case defense.
  6. Empirically denied isn't an argument. People have predicted the crunch forever because its in the future and hasn't happened yet. The argument that when we get close we'll pass authoritarian birth control laws is our argument. No way these policies could get through the morass of democratic politics. Abortion/birth control will happen under authoritarian leadership. The people who violate the laws will be killed, which will solve the problem that much faster. Tech solves is the only decent argument here. Rights malthus authors also write huge cards in response to it. Nuke war and dehum can't compare with extinction. Extinction is big. Nuclear war, at best, aspires to causing extinction and dehum just doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. Now, some people have been calling me a bad person. I'm sorry, but, to the extent that normalizing laptops in the debate community contributes to it, economic oppression just isn't a very big deal. You just concede that it is inevitable, so I don't feel bad about not losing sleep over it, and you concede that there is no prestige or edge in debate gained by owning a laptop. This seems, to me, to indicate that owning a laptop is irrelevant. If you are so sensitive that the normalization of laptops as a tool of debate, whatever that means, will drive you out of the activity, I don't care.
  7. Not an argument. From the perspective of rights malthus, I am a good person because I believe in saving humans and animals from extinction. From the perspective of economic oppression, I just don't care. Economic oppression is inevitable. Rich people have access to better training, education and just better oppurtunities in general. Poor people don't. The structure of capitalism makes it inevitable that some people will have more than others. For reasons I'm not interested in reviewing, I believe that capitalism is good or at least doesn't have a viable alternative. Furthermore, I dispute your contention that a laptop is automatically a status symbol. For a long time, only bad debaters in my area used laptops. People on my squad actually began to equate laptop use with bad debating. This has changed recently, but it proves that a laptop isn't always a status symbol. I have dysgraphia. If I flow on paper, I do it slowly and poorly. For me, a laptop is the exact opposite of a status symbol - it is tool that I need in order to compete at the same level as others. Laptops have no automatic meaning and telling someone to just "type up some answers" proves nothing other than one's reliance on a laptop. Besides, being a bad person never hurt anyone. And you should never run rights malthus and a nuclear war disad. Martin writes good cards saying nuclear war --> authoritarianism and you don't have a good answer to nuclear malthus. You can't argue the crunch isn't coming or that it is morally repugnant to kill tons of people. That means you have to win that nuclear war = extinction, and that's pretty hard.
  8. My thoughts exactly. No one needs blocks to rights malthus. Why would you? It is an amazingly easy argument to beat. Make couple of analytics, maybe read a couple of malthus indicts.... And you'll lose to 13 minutes of freedom bad. What part of the rimal debate is so bad that you can just laugh at it? Most cases read links for me in the 1AC (democracy advantages) or there is good evidence saying that they stop authoritarianism (type authoritarian and korematsu into google and you'll see what I mean). Most of the time, the link debate is easy to win. Then the crunch coming issue. If you don't have cards here, and good ones, you will just lose. Neomalthusians know this is their weak point, so they go crazy writing stuff answering it. Same for the tech debate. In real life, you're probably right, but in a debate round, my Ophul and Boyan evidence is better. Finally, most people just don't carry around justifications of freedom. If you had to pull out reasons why democracy is good, what could you get from your tub right now? Some Rummel cards or Forrester? You need disads to authoritarianism that actually have warrants to win the debate. Any one crazy enough to advocate authoritarianism is crazy enough to write good cards. Your level-headed democrats just can't compete. Don't ignore an argument just because you've never had a good team run it on you.
  9. Competition: The judge evaluates the round on the basis of BPO. This means he or she votes for the team that advocates the best policy, best being defined in the course of the round. There are two methods of competition, functional and textual. Textual competition is widely acknowledged as legitimate. By textual competition, I mean that the counterplan and plan just couldn't happen if you tried to do them at the same time. You cannot ban plan and implement it, etc. Functional competition depends on net benefits. A net benefit is a disad that links to plan but not the counterplan. On face, this standard for competition is pretty low. An "end world hunger" counterplan with any random disad to case would work. This is the reason we have perms. Perms are policy options that exist as long as the negative advocates the counterplan. They include all of the plan and part of the counterplan. In the "end world hunger" example, the aff would say perm, do both. The perm solves world hunger and the aff case, so it is a preferable policy option. The best way to beat a perm is to find a reason why that course of action is a bad one. There is no reason that doing plan and ending world hunger at the same time is bad. Whatever impact the counterplan solves is also solved by the perm, so only the disads to the plan are relevant. This focuses the debate onto the disad to plan and answers your arguments as to why a BPO framework is bad. Your unpredictable counterplans that try to outweigh the aff would just get permed. This also forces a choice between the aff policy and the neg policy. I think that the forced choice exists because the judge has to vote aff or neg at the end of the round. If the judge votes aff, it is because the aff plan is a better idea than the neg's or the negative's plan isn't a reason to vote neg. Perms give the aff ample opportunity to prove that the negative plan isn't a reason to reject the aff, so I don't see the problem with forcing the judge to choose between the aff and neg plans. While it is theoretically possible to do both, if the neg wins the perm debate, it is also stupid. The judge votes for the rational option - the policy that doesn't link to the net benefit. This way of looking at things seems internally consistent and I don’t see the aff losing anything significant. There are two arguments not address above that are relevant: 1. Math – I always find your math examples to be both interesting and educational. That said, I think the framework explained above is preferable to the math analogies. First, while math is a power explanatory tool, the application of it to debate isn't very clear. How does one construct a logical statement dealing with a perm linking to a net benefit? The application of the analogy is subjective enough to bear any reasonable theory. Second, what does proving something mathematically get you? Your system is internally consistent. So is mine. Unless you can prove that my system is mathematically impossible, you have done nothing but explain why my constraints on counterplans that are not easily reflected in the math are important. In conclusion, your statement that the end homelessness counterplan and an agent counterplan are mathematically identical should cause you to doubt your application of the math and serves no purpose but to emphasize the importance of the various parts of my system. 2. Defining terms – I wrote out exactly what I think about competition and what I mean by each term to avoid this. It is true that "opportunity cost" is a term borrowed from economics that has an actual meaning in that field. It does not follow that the use of the term in debate follows the same definition or that it should. "Flowing" as debaters do it is, I'm sure, totally different from "flowing" as lawyers do it, even though we borrowed the term from them.
  10. Actually, its functionally identical. My n/u argument still applies (these PICs/arguments can be run by the aff now) and Shayan, Heck13 and The Spork have done a good job answering this. In addition, I would remind you that you default neg on T for two reasons. Generically, the 1AC is a guarenteed source of offense for the aff, but the neg has to win links off the plan. This means that negative ground hinges on the research on and predicting of the topic ahead of time. The negative needs T, so default neg. Specifically, 1AC's are set up to avoid generic offense. PSI and CSI are good examples. These cases are impossible to answer with generic stuff. The PICs the negative would run are suspetible to generic arguments, like addons that solve the impact, disads of specific exceptions for various reasons and solvency deficits to advantages like soft power. Stop whining.
  11. I think I've answered everything, but I didn't quote things and say "its above" so it may look like some stuff got ignored. Ok, I bow to your amazing knowelge of the english language. You got me, I was misusing the term "adverb phrase." I am still right. I think that the resolution could read: The USFG should, without relevant quallification, decrease its authority, etc. If subs is an adverb, like you said it was, that modifies decrease, the verb, then the decrease has to be without relevant quallifications and my interp is grammatically correct. Assuming grammatically is a word. What is the difference, grammar-wise, between my interpretation and any of yours? I don't understand what the resolution would mean if you win this grammar argument. Other words limit out cases like Liberia from last year. They do not put a limit even close to two topical cases. Again, if I win limits are good, then other words don't check because they don't provide as good a limit. This is your response to my argument that you make freeing specific prisoners topical. The warrant was my freeing Mumia example. I said there was lots of evidence saying that that case was big or to a great extent and you basically agreed with me. The main points in this debate keep moving around, so I'll repost my answers to this here. Your deterrent value argument is just wrong. I've had people, on two separate occasions, change their plan text to meet T subs when they found out they were debating me. I've changed my plan to meet stuff like T authority. The year before, my partner and I went through 3 or 4 versions of our plan before we settled on our favorite and several changes were motivated by T. On Oceans, teams on our squad lost to T establish so many times they changed their entire case. Just in case you win this argument, I will defend T as a strategic option. T debates are good for debate because they move away from stacks of evidence, often cut by coaches or poor college students, towards pure analysis by the debaters. Theory arguments are the essense of argumentation, without any pretense of a relationship to reality. The purpose of debate is teaching good analytical and argumentative skills, so theory debates are good for debate. If the judge tries to choose the interp that is the most reasonable, they are intervening because people have different opinions on what is reasonable. I think that anyone who runs generic "prolif bad" impacts is running an unreasonable impact. Other people think nuclear war scenarios are unreasonable. It varies so much from person to person that it takes the debaters out of the debate. Competing interpretations is gaining acceptance in the debate community and is increasingly the way T debates are evaluated. It is nice that debate textbooks disagree with me. I could care less. This method of thinking seems rather elitist. I don't have a coach who keeps up with debate or cuts cards. What I know about debate, I picked up in round or at camp. Does this mean that all of my opinions about the theoretical aspects of debate are wrong? There is no reason to automatically default aff on T. All of the arguments against abuse that I quoted above apply. If anything, you should default neg on T because we need the case to be topical in order to effectively research it and prepare answers to it. The above arguments are the answer to your question about challenging the aff's definition. Stop waiting, they're here. They were also here in the last post. I am not arguing that this is the only possible interp of the word, just that it is the best one for debate. Also, if you know what court case this definition came from, please tell me. I'd like to look it up. Its relevant because it limits the scope of the policy. Regardless, my second argument is responsive: So the quallifications must not be relevant to searching or detaining. You can choose what actor to use, pick your favorite half of the resolution, etc. but you can't quallify your decrease in authority. This isn't responsive to any of my arguments. Plan flaws and Spark are "bad" arguments that have won the TOC. The distinction between "bad" arguments and "good" ones exists only in their strategic value. I challenged you to provide some other way of evaluating them, and you haven't come up with one. What is a "good" argument in real life may not be a "good" argument in debate. And my partner seems pretty happy with our bid, so I think he's cool with my views on the good/bad argument distinction. On a side note, I'm happy with the direction this thread has taken. I'm going to rewrite some of my blocks in light of these arguments and I think I understand the argument better now. Specifically, "adverb phrase" is getting deleted...
  12. You're just wrong. The USFG is supposed to decrease its authority, so decrease is the verb and authority is the object. Or direct object, I forget. Anyway, decrease is obviously a verb. Substantially describes the verb, so by definition it is an adverb. "Substantially decrease" is an adverb phrase so one's decrease must be without relevant quallifications. The first argument is basically other words check. What other words set a limit on the topic that is even close to two cases? If I win that limits are good, then other words do not check. The second is nonsensical. Both of my examples demonstrate the utter lack of a limit under your interpretation. Cases on freeing specific prisoners are topical. That's thousands of cases. The negative cannot be prepared to debate all of them. Yes, under your interpretation there are thousands of topical cases with support in the literature. Under mine there are two topical cases. It is better for debate for there to be only two topical cases, so my interp is better. The problem with thousands of cases is simple: it destroys any hope of predicting the 1AC. The negative has to try to win generic links to cases set up to avoid them and has no incentive to research case specifics - people will break new affs all the time. 1. You'll still be able to argue about all of the same cases. You can read them as advantages to your plan. For example, you could run the detainment plan and read korematsu and gitmo stuff. 2. This argument is a justification of competing interpretations. If we as a community decide what is good in debates, then we do so by choosing different interpretations of the resolution, deciding what standard to evaluate them by and seeing which interp is best for that standard. 3. You're conceding my offense against reasonability. If the judge chooses a reasonable interp, they are intervening. If I judged a round, I would vote on this interp because I like really limiting ones. Someone else might think otherwise. This destroys the point of debate because it becomes about the judges and not the debaters. You take the decision making out of the round and competing interps puts it back in. Not my argument. My interp is grammatically correct and predictable, so being a common definition isn't a reason that your interps are better. Wow. The easiest way to prove you have no idea what's going on is to reference a debate textbook. Your argument made sense in the 80's, when the aff defined the resolution in their 1AC and defended the entire thing. The reason the debate community moved to competing interpretations is that it actually makes sense. One side proposes a definition and how to evaluate it, the other side proposes a counter definition and you go from there. Automatically defaulting aff on T is mindless. The impact to limits is fairness, so this argument doesn't answer mine. An unlimited topic destroys the neg's ability to effectively research affs. The argument you seem to be trying to spin here is an abuse framework. There are two problems with that: 1. You've abused us – we can't run disads to all parts of one half of the topic, so we've lost ground that was guaranteed to us by the resolution. 2. If T isn't a question of meeting our interpretation, then it is meaningless. A non-topical aff would win T debates by virtue of not linking out of disads. The non-T aff still isn't predictable and still destroys limits, so its bad. You lead to non-T affs. You're right, I haven't read the court decision. That's why I said I hadn't read the court decision and asked if anyone had found it. If you know what case this definition is from, enlighten us. I do know that Black Law's dictionary extracted the definition of Substantially, not some debater, so it must be sort of in context. First, I think it's fairly obvious that the qualification "unless they are captured on a battlefield" is relevant to the policy. Second, the qualifications on the decrease would have to be irrelevant to the authority that was being decreased. The resolution says the USFG should decrease without relevant qualification its authority to etc. This isn't a theory argument. No one ever won a round on "that's a bad argument, judge. Voter for predictability." I don't think this distinction between "good" and "bad" arguments exists outside of the strategy of debate. Plenty of examples prove my point: spark, wipeout, Aspec, Plan Flaws etc. are all "bad" arguments that have won countless rounds because they are hard to answer. To win this, you need to prove that there is such a thing as a "good" argument outside of debate strategy. Otherwise, this is an ad hom. The rest of the arguments, and a lot that I've just avoided, are either not arguments or answered other places.
  13. First vaguness - this isnt' a big issue, in my opinion. You can read evidence to prove that X thing is detainment without charge, so plan would be interpreted as banning it and evidence proving that the government doesn't consider X to be without charge. The vaguness in plan just spurs link debates. Fairness - it is true that the negative can read neg to any random thing that the aff has to defend. This argument is non-unique; the negative has to be prepared to debate all of these tiny subsets of the resolution now. We just shift the burden to the affirmative, default neg because our ground is based on winning links to the plan while the 1AC is guarenteed offense. PIC's is the more persuasive version of this argument. The negative could pull some random case neg, PIC something and read 8 minutes of offense against it. First, my n/u from above applies. These PIC's are 1AC's now. Squirrely 1AC's are built to avoid my generic neg offense while all PIC's can be answered by generic solvency deficits, disads (specific exemptions for X practice is probably negatively perceived by some country, proves you don't solve soft power, etc) and generic addon advantages that either solve the impact or outweigh. Second, its kind of sketchy to assume that you automatically get a PIC. If PIC's are so bad, you ought to destroy them on theory. I'm glad we got around to the PIC's debate. Its the best argument against this violation, so I'm interested to see what people think of it and my answers.
  14. We don't meet it. Occasionally people change their plan text so i can't go for this argument and we read disads to random cases that they have to defend. The problem is that, right now, the negative has to answer any of the tiny subsets of the resolution that the aff could advocate. So, while it'd be pretty devestating for the neg to read 8 minutes of offense against something you've never heard of, it would be worse if it happened on the aff. PSI is a good example. 8 minutes of disads to PSI could be mitigated or answered with addon advantages but a PSI 1AC is really hard to answer if you don't know its comming. The aff would be a little vague, but not horribly so. YOu'd just have to read evidence explaining why their plan did or didn't link to various case specific arguments. Its some dictionary. I think merriam websters, but i'm kinda lazy. its also just true - people say "that's immaterial" when dismissing something as irrelevant. I'm trying to find the specific case that Black Law was citing, but so far no luck. I posted on this thread because I was hoping to refine my answers to the PIC's argument. No one has taken this anywhere, so i'll restate it. PIC's make the research inevitable because the neg can PIC out of any section of the aff plan and read 8 minutes of offense against it. This moves the loss of predictability to the aff and, because there is no generic offense against PIC's, leads to a heavy neg bias. any thoughts?
  15. I have no credibility in the area of grammar. I'll admit that. I'm still right, though - subs decrease is an adverb phrase, so your arguments about decrease prove my argument. All of these definitions are awful. For one thing, not a single one of them sets any kind of limit on the topic. There is evidence calling everything "considerable in importance" or "to a great extent or degree." There would be thousands of topical cases, instead of a more reasonable number, like two. That's one reason my interp is good that also proves your interpretations are bad. Another is objectivity. What does it mean to be considerable in importance? I think freeing Mumia is pretty small, but a lot of people think it isn't. Better example: I think overturning a vacated court decision (Korematsu) is tiny, but no one else seems to agree. Judges and debaters can't define what any of your interpretations mean or agree what cases meet them. Actually, my interp is better because of things like limits and grammar. I don't care about "common definitions", mine is from a legal dictionary and that's predictable. I think of T in terms of competing interpretations, so, assuming the aff doesn't meet the neg's interp, the judge ought to vote for the interpretation with the best limits or whatever standard has been determined to be the most important. I'd like to see you justify voting for interps that are comparatively worse for debate. Sure, there are lots of possible meanings for the resolution. There are also reasons to perfer my interp of the resolution over yours. It is true that the resolution could mandate decreases of a considerable degree, but it'd be better for debate if we said it meant decreases without material quallification. Material means relevant. Subs would mean "without relevant quallification" so the aff must advocate an unquallified decrease in the USFG's authority to either search or detain. Next time you read something that seems to directly contradict the rest of the statement and makes no sense, re-read it to make sure you understood what was being said. This will save all of us time and you the embarassment of asking someone if they know what the word relevant means. The distinction between good and bad arguments seems increasingly arbitrary to me. I define good arguments as ones that are difficult to answer and bad ones as ones that are easy. This is a good argument because there are no really effective answers to it, other than PIC's. Bad arguments are things like "no neg fiat" that can be disposed of in 10 seconds or less. A technically proficient team can destroy people on this argument much more easily than they could on other T violations, so this is a "good" argument. Is it true? No. Is it hard to answer? This thread would tend to indicate that it is. So far, the only thing i've had to answer is a slew of bad c/i's, a grammar argument that just isn't true and an intresting spin on reasonability. These aren't the most compelling arguments in the world.
×
×
  • Create New...