Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'conditionality'.
Found 4 results
Hi this is my first post to cross-x.com So i wrote this theory out that basically says that conditionality past 1 K and 1 CP is bad One question i have is should i change the interp to something more restricting? Another is just literally any suggestions you have on how to improve this, it is going to be used for people who just try and out-spread and get a ton of arguments out there and hope we undercover one. Are there any standards that can shortened? how do my independent voters look? Do you think the cards are good in there? is the overview needed? what kind of answers to this theory should I look out for? i am waiting to make extensions till i have the 2AC block perfect, also if anyone is interested i am perfectly fine if you take anything from this argument here is the file: Excessive condo bad First let me give you an overview of what the negative just did They stood up, gave you a roadmap, then they talked really fast and got out as many arguments as they could. In the end they had ___ conditional advocacies. The affirmative literally only has one. The choice of strategy is the ultimate time skew and the definition of an uneducational debate. Interpretation: The negative gets one conditional kritik, one conditional counterplan and the status quo Not real world/Civic Engagement â€“ Debaters must imagine themselves as members of congress and/or other politicians, and if you roleplay as such you will never see someone just throw a ton of ideas at you and hope that one sticks and you like it like the negative does, if â€œHouse of Cardsâ€ taught me anything than it is that when they are not consistent they are commonly labeled as a â€œflip flopperâ€ and they instantly lose credibility. policy makers have to deal with the consequences of proposing an action. They canâ€™t just pretend they didnâ€™t read it if someone questions them about it. Also Role-playing is uniquely empowering --- this imagination is critical to understand how the government reaches decisions, how to hold it accountable and determine how we should act. The judge should affirm the most reasonable policy to enact Rawls â€˜99 (John, Professor Emeritus â€“ Harvard University, The Law of Peoples, p. 54-7) Developing the Law of Peoples within a liberal conception of justice, we work out the ideals and principles of the foreign policy of a reasonably just liberal people. I distinguish between the public reason of liberal peoples and the public reason of the Society of Peoples. The first is the public reason of equal citizens of domestic society debating the constitutional essentials and matters of basic justice concerning their own government; the second is the public reason of free and equal liberal peoples debating their mutual relations as peoples. The Law of Peoples with its political concepts and principles, ideals and criteria, is the content of this latter public reason. Although these two public reasons do not have the same content, the role of public reason among free and equal peoples is analogous to its role in a constitutional democratic regime among free and equal citizens. Political liberalism proposes that, in a constitutional democratic regime, comprehensive doctrines of truth or of right are to be replaced in public reason by an idea of the politically reasonable addressed to citizens as citizens. Here note the parallel: public reason is invoked by members of the Society of Peoples, and its principles are addressed to peoples as peoples. They are not expressed in terms of comprehensive doctrines of truth or of right, which may hold sway in this or that society, but in terms that can be shared by different peoples. 6.2. Ideal of Public Reason. Distinct from the idea of public reason is the ideal of public reason. In domestic society this ideal is realized, or satisfied, whenever judges, legislators, chief executives, and other government officials, as well as candidates for public office, act from and follow the idea of public reason and explain to other citizens their reasons for supporting fundamental political questions in terms of the political conception of justice that they regard as the most reasonable. In this way they fulfill what I shall call their duty of civility to one another and to other citizens. Hence whether judges, legislators, and chief executives act from and follow public reason is continually shown in their speech and conduct. How is the ideal of public reason realized by citizens who are not government officials? In a representative government, citizens vote for representatives-chief executives, legislators, and the like-not for particular laws (except at a state or local level where they may vote diÂrectly on referenda questions, which are not usually fundamental quesÂtions). To answer this question, we say that, ideally, citizens are to think of themselves as if they were legislators and ask themselves what statutes, supported by what reasons satisfying the criterion of reciprocity, they would think it most reasonable to enact.7l When firm and widespread, the disposition of citizens to view themselves as ideal legislators, and to repudiate government officials and candidates for public office who violate public reason, forms part of the political and social basis of liberal democracy and is vital for its enduring strength and vigor. Thus in domestic society citizens fulfill their duty of civility and support the idea of public reason, while doing what they can to hold government officials to it. This duty, like other political rights and duties, is an intrinsically moral duty. I emphasize that it is not a legal duty, for in that case it would be incompatible with freedom of speech. This is an independent voter for education because the only way to apply the knowledge you learn from debate to society is through civic engagement. Real Change - Our interp sparks real world change and the affects on debate their type of argumentation creates - whoever spreads the fastest wins. The most common strategy I have seen and have been told about on the national circuit. When people hear that the negative lost on this condo theory they will start to think about how they will fight this. The most common answer will be by not running multiple advocacies, that is why the negative sometimes runs unconditional advocacies, to avoid this theory. This will spread and will at least be in a step towards the right direction to bring debate back into its educational roots. Not reciprocal â€“ Conditionality kills fairness because the neg can just kick out of multiple advocacies while the affirmative is stuck with one that we have to carry through the entire debate round. Education â€“ DEPTH OVER BREADTH - Thereâ€™s an incentive for the neg to read 11 conditional advocacies and net benefits for us to undercover one and then kick out of everything else in the block. Also I am not saying it doesnâ€™t work to win rounds, but that isnâ€™t the most important thing about debate. Debate is all about education and we don't learn when you debate with multiple advocacies. The neg block is too late to try and agree with out depth over breadth argument, it needed to be in their first speech where they presented their new off. Under our interpretation the negative must go into depth about their 3 different types of arguments. [MORE GOES HERE] although depth is more important than breadth we also still appeal to breadth over depth as we allow the negative to kritik how we debate and provide an alternative policy option, covering all bases. Recent studies show that students benefit more from depth, rather than breadth Science Daily 3/10/09 (Science Daily is one of the Internetâ€™s most popular science news web sites. Since starting in 1995, the award-winning site has earned the loyalty of students, researchers, healthcare professionals, government agencies, educators and the general public around the world. http://www.sciencedaily.com/about.htm Accessed: 2/1/11) ZM A recent study reports that high school students who study fewer science topics, but study them in greater depth, have an advantage in college science classes over their peers who study more topics and spend less time on each. As a former high school teacher, I always worried about whether it was better to teach less in greater depth or more with no real depth. This study offers evidence that teaching fewer topics in greater depth is a better way to prepare students for success in college science," Tai said. "These results are based on the performance of thousands of college science students from across the United States." The 8,310 students in the study were enrolled in introductory biology, chemistry or physics in randomly selected four-year colleges and universities. Those who spent one month or more studying one major topic in-depth in high school earned higher grades in college science than their peers who studied more topics in the same period of time. The study revealed that students in courses that focused on mastering a particular topic were impacted twice as much as those in courses that touched on every major topic. The study explored differences between science disciplines, teacher decisions about classroom activities, and out-of-class projects and homework. The researchers carefully controlled for differences in student backgrounds. The study also points out that standardized testing, which seeks to measure overall knowledge in an entire discipline, may not capture a student's high level of mastery in a few key science topics. Teachers who "teach to the test" may not be optimizing their students' chance of success in college science courses, Tai noted. "President Obama has challenged the nation to become the most educated in the world by having the largest proportion of college graduates among its citizens in the coming decade," Tai said. "To meet this challenge, it is imperative that we use the research to inform our educational practice." This is an independent voter because without education debate is pointless. Time skew (long) They put me in such a tight spot where all I can literally do is prove they are abusive, answer maybe a few of their arguments, and hope that they dont drop everything I just covered, which is traditional in this kind of argumentation. Any arguments read against the cp or k can instantly go away if the neg doesnâ€™t want to go for it. This means the minute to two minutes I spend on their kritiks can become mute and they can talk about an advocacy I only had 30 seconds to cover for 13 minutes. Also They use speed wrong: It isnt the speed but they way you use the speed. All they do is brush on a bunch of topics, I didnt learn anything from their strategy, the only thing I am able to respond to it is by going in depth on why all their arguments are bad. You should use your speed to further develop 2 advocacies, not ___. Ill get to why depth is more important then breadth later in this speech Lastly if they try and drop any of their alternatives that solve for any non-unique DA's or Kritiks then their arguments become non-unique and are no longer a voting issue You must vote on this potential and In-round abuse for Education, Fairness, and Jurisdiction Education outweighs Fairness: There Is Not much Inherent Value To Fairness â€“ Debate is only value as a method of facilitating education, complaining about fairness is not as rellivent as education
Why do we disclose CP/K statuses?/Why is the aff entitled to know the potential 2nr strat? I think that conditionality, dispo, and uncondo are just labels we created to give the aff artificial theory ground. Why should the affirmative team know the likelihood of what the negative can go for? I think that 2ac time allocation definitely is not that dependent on the status, but more so on the quality of the argument. For example. you may spend more time on a conditional states cp on the TI topic than on an extremely theoretically illegitimate unconditional cp arguably like conditions. I also think that getting rid of statuses would definitely not destroy advocacy theory. I think in a world where we don't argue the status of the CP/K the theory will become how many potential worlds is ok. I don't know how big of a difference # of worlds is vs. potential 2nr option but whatever.
there are hundreds of condo threads, but not a whole ton regarding how a 1ar - extending condo - ought allocate its time obviously it's partially contingent on the round - i've heard of twenty second 1ar's blossoming into five min 2ar's, one minute, hail mary five mins - but what do y'all think is a general rule of thumb? it seems difficult to develop sufficient off/defense in a one min 1ar, but there are obviously benefits to not revealing your hand to the 2nr