Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

Justification


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 SirAravis

SirAravis

    Junior-Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
7
Okay
  • Name:Siddharth Namachivayam
  • School:La Cueva

Posted 13 February 2017 - 10:39 PM

Apparently some old school retro argument that almost became like a 6th prima facie issue. Anyone wanna explain?
  • 0

#2 NickDB8

NickDB8

    Exodus Files Forum Representative

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts
351
Excellent
  • Name:Nick
  • School:Emporia HS

Posted 14 February 2017 - 05:13 AM

It's cheeky as hell.

 

Essentially, it's a question of, "why is the resolution true". Why should we engage China? Why does the USfg have to do it? It is not a matter of, "the resolution told me to", you have to justify why your defense of it is the best defense of it.

 

Lets look at some of the affs this year, keep in mind that all of the "warrants" I'm providing are just examples, I have no idea how accurate they are:

-Space Coop

Ok, so why China? Many would argue that Russia is a bigger threat in space, plus China doesn't need us to get their space program kick-started, they're doing it already. Japan is already designing systems to deal with space debris, why not work with them? Next, why the USfg? We already have multiple private industries (things like SpaceX, etc.) who would a. probably be willing to cooperate with other nations, and b. already have the funds to cooperate, which debt levels indicate the USfg does not.

 

-Human Rights

If we want to work on human rights anywhere in the world, why China? Why not the conflicts in unstable countries in Africa? Why would we not work on our own human rights before we start becoming a model for others.

 

 

 

Way back when, people used to read other countries as CPs with Justification. This left it open to a perm, which, in turn, made the CP pretty pointless. So if you read J, read it on it's own to avoid issues with competition. They can't perm theory.


  • 0

Exodus Files - Updated 5/21! Grab our new STEM Affirmative for the upcoming education topic!

Research Tools


#3 Nonegfiat

Nonegfiat

    Agambabe

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 600 posts
398
Excellent

Posted 14 February 2017 - 05:50 AM

How is that different from just proving the plan is a good idea?

And if it's a question of why China, that seems like a pretty unfair burden, asking the aff to prove that engaging with china is more important than any other engagement we could be doing. Even if some other engagement is more important, that 1) doesnt mean that engagement with china is bad or undesirable, (unless theres a direct tradeoff, in which case just run dip cap) and 2) obviously the us should and does engage with more than one country at a time across a variety of issues. Thats just how fopo works
  • 0

DOUBLE BIND- Either the harms of the aff are true and they can't solve until they control the levers of power OR the harms are constructed and you reject them for alarmism


#4 SirAravis

SirAravis

    Junior-Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 12 posts
7
Okay
  • Name:Siddharth Namachivayam
  • School:La Cueva

Posted 14 February 2017 - 08:00 AM

Well it makes more sense looking at it from a stock issues paradigm or hypo testing more than a policymaking paradigm. 

 

Hypo-Testing: A lot of the burden gets shifted to the negative in hypo-testing, so obviously they'd need something like Justification arguments to test the truth of the resolution in its entirety.

 

Stock Issues: Imagine you are providing a solution to something that you think needs to be fixed within your community. Obviously before taking the risk of changing the status quo, you would want to make sure that your proposed plan is the best plan of action. 

 

Obviously this is kinda dumb in policy-making cause the perm blows it out of the water, but thats not how Stock Issues or Hypo-testing work cause they focus more on the resolution than on a specific policy option.


Edited by SirAravis, 14 February 2017 - 08:00 AM.

  • 0

#5 NickDB8

NickDB8

    Exodus Files Forum Representative

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts
351
Excellent
  • Name:Nick
  • School:Emporia HS

Posted 14 February 2017 - 08:30 AM

How is that different from just proving the plan is a good idea?

And if it's a question of why China, that seems like a pretty unfair burden, asking the aff to prove that engaging with china is more important than any other engagement we could be doing. Even if some other engagement is more important, that 1) doesnt mean that engagement with china is bad or undesirable, (unless theres a direct tradeoff, in which case just run dip cap) and 2) obviously the us should and does engage with more than one country at a time across a variety of issues. Thats just how fopo works

I never said it was a good argument, just one that used to happen. The idea behind it is that it is the affirmative's burden of proof to show that these actors are key.


  • 1

Exodus Files - Updated 5/21! Grab our new STEM Affirmative for the upcoming education topic!

Research Tools






Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users