Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

Need Help With Arguing Condo Bad


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 LinkItToNuclearWar

LinkItToNuclearWar

    Novice

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
1
Okay

Posted 12 January 2018 - 02:03 PM

I'm just beginning to get it to harder stuff like theory and whatnot and need help with conditionality

 

1) Should I argue it in the first place? Do judges hate that kind of thing? 

2) If so, do I need evidence or can I just explain how it's unfair and we should win, etc.

 

And just anything you could tell me about the topic would be helpful! :)


  • 1

#2 ZidaoWang

ZidaoWang

    Junior-Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 22 posts
14
Good
  • Name:Zidao Wang
  • School:Homestead High School

Posted 12 January 2018 - 07:54 PM

You probably should not read carded evidence for condo, since it's a theory violation. 

Condo is definetely arguable. Some judges feel differently about it, but in general, it should be winnable in front of judges.

Just explain the voters and why condo is bad (time skew, argumentive irresponsibility)...

I suck at condo and i've only gone for it when I knew I was gonna lose everything else, so someone else could probably help you more. 


  • 1

#3 Nonegfiat

Nonegfiat

    You know I had to do it to em

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 715 posts
527
Excellent

Posted 12 January 2018 - 08:34 PM

You probably should not read carded evidence for condo, since it's a theory violation. 

Condo is definetely arguable. Some judges feel differently about it, but in general, it should be winnable in front of judges.

Just explain the voters and why condo is bad (time skew, argumentive irresponsibility)...

I suck at condo and i've only gone for it when I knew I was gonna lose everything else, so someone else could probably help you more. 

I'm not sure why this got downvoted, I think this is pretty accurate.

 

There's variety when it comes to how judges feel about condo. Some judges are incredibly persuaded by pointing out performative contradictions, others view conditionality as a natural part of debate. In general, most judges are okay with conditional advocacies, and are also open to voting on conditionality bad. Obviously, as with any theory argument, it's best to get the judge's preference ahead of time, but throwing a condo shell into your 2AC is usually a pretty safe move. So to answer your first question, no, judges don't hate that kind of thing.

 

On your second question, ZidaoWang is right-- cards are almost never needed for theory arguments. You'll want to read an analytical shell structured like this:

 

Interpretation-- Conditionality is a voting issue

 

(The violation is implied in this case, because either you've asked them the status in cross x or it's obvious by the 1NC that the counterplans/kritiks are condo)

 

reject the team:

Fairness-- blah blah blah strat skew time skew 

Education-- blah blah blah clash bad advocates argumentative irresponsibility

 

 

Thats really all you need. Shouldn't take more than 30 seconds. So yes, you're right that you just need to be able to explain why it's bad for debate.

 

Here is a good example of someone going for condo during a camp tournament a while back. It gives a good picture of how to impact out conditionality arguments. You will always do better in theory debates by relying less on your blocks and providing analysis specific to the round, like this person is doing.

 

 

 

 

EDIT: I feel like I should mention that people generally don't go for condo in the 2AR unless at least one of the following things is true--

 

1) The block either drops it or severely mishandles it

2) The in round abuse is flagrant

3) The judge really hates condo


Edited by Nonegfiat, 12 January 2018 - 08:44 PM.

  • 6

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 jswegthefuture

jswegthefuture

    Champion

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 103 posts
81
Excellent
  • Name:jonathan lee
  • School:camas

Posted 13 January 2018 - 12:51 AM

people generally don't go for condo in the 2AR unless at least one of the following things is true--

 

1) The block either drops it or severely mishandles it

2) The in round abuse is flagrant

3) The judge really hates condo

 

4) when you're getting brutally crushed (@edina rw)


  • 3

#5 PhantomAlterEgo

PhantomAlterEgo

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 67 posts
2
Okay
  • Name:Zander
  • School:Bville

Posted 13 January 2018 - 11:24 AM

I'm not sure why this got downvoted, I think this is pretty accurate.

 

There's variety when it comes to how judges feel about condo. Some judges are incredibly persuaded by pointing out performative contradictions, others view conditionality as a natural part of debate. In general, most judges are okay with conditional advocacies, and are also open to voting on conditionality bad. Obviously, as with any theory argument, it's best to get the judge's preference ahead of time, but throwing a condo shell into your 2AC is usually a pretty safe move. So to answer your first question, no, judges don't hate that kind of thing.

 

On your second question, ZidaoWang is right-- cards are almost never needed for theory arguments. You'll want to read an analytical shell structured like this:

 

Thats really all you need. Shouldn't take more than 30 seconds. So yes, you're right that you just need to be able to explain why it's bad for debate.

 

Here is a good example of someone going for condo during a camp tournament a while back. It gives a good picture of how to impact out conditionality arguments. You will always do better in theory debates by relying less on your blocks and providing analysis specific to the round, like this person is doing.

 

 

 

 

EDIT: I feel like I should mention that people generally don't go for condo in the 2AR unless at least one of the following things is true--

 

1) The block either drops it or severely mishandles it

2) The in round abuse is flagrant

3) The judge really hates condo

What round was this?  I'm curious to see the rfd now


  • 0

#6 Lukrau

Lukrau

    Junior-Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 17 posts
4
Okay
  • Name:Lukas Krause
  • School:Archbishop Mitty

Posted 13 January 2018 - 12:43 PM

Downvote was accidental.


  • 0

#7 debategirl52

debategirl52

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 25 posts
-2
Slipping...

Posted 13 January 2018 - 03:22 PM

Conditionality is a time-skew. That being said, it is dropped sometimes. Knowing how to go for it is a good skill, but in my opinion, its a dumb arg.


  • -3

#8 Nonegfiat

Nonegfiat

    You know I had to do it to em

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 715 posts
527
Excellent

Posted 13 January 2018 - 04:31 PM

its a dumb arg.

Sometimes people read args on other flows that conflict with their kritiks, so you have to beat them back on opposite fronts. Other times people read 4 conditional counterplans. That's never fun for the aff.


Edited by Nonegfiat, 13 January 2018 - 04:32 PM.

  • 1

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


#9 debategirl52

debategirl52

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 25 posts
-2
Slipping...

Posted 13 January 2018 - 07:26 PM

I just don't like the arg. But yes, it is important and a good skill to have.... as i said.


  • 1

#10 BatailleLives

BatailleLives

    Junior-Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts
52
Excellent
  • Name:Georges
  • School:Lil Pump Academy

Posted 13 January 2018 - 08:58 PM

Conditionality is a time-skew. That being said, it is dropped sometimes. Knowing how to go for it is a good skill, but in my opinion, its a dumb arg.

 

Conditionality is commonly used just to get the neg to kick conditional advocacies, but I wouldn't say that it's a time skew because it does brings up some good points. It can be gone for if it isn't dropped, and it can be read well and legitimately won on. It's good to have debates about issues like condo to keep the debate space fair and educational, because nobody wants to answer ten cps and that probably isn't an educational and legitimate strategy anyway. It's an important argument, but it is often underutilized and most condo debates are pretty bad. 


  • 2
There was only ever one debate to be had, that of being versus becoming. This card is extremely complicated and if you even try to answer it you will lose. 

#11 TheSnowball

TheSnowball

    Hall of Fame

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,767 posts
1,148
Excellent
  • Name:Ryan

Posted 14 January 2018 - 01:30 PM

Here's some 2AC/1AR stuff if anyone doesn't have it already. I'm not saying it's particularly good, and there's lots more you can find online (Google "debate theory file" or "conditionality bad") but maybe useful if you want to see how you might run it. You'd put the 2AC block in the 2AC, and then in the 1AR you'd read the 1AR block then answer each Negative block argument. 

 

2AC Condo Bad

Interpretation: the Negative does not get conditional advocacies.

A.    1NC Strategy - conditionality necessitates cheating counter-plans - prevents thinking about argument interaction.

B.     Research - we make hyper-specific, Aff-based research a requirement and punish superficial strategies.

C.    Clash - no-risk options ruin depth by causing late-breaking debates about the least-covered strategy.

Team rejection is the only real deterrent.

 

2AC—Conditional Critique

Independently, conditional critiques are a reason to vote Negative for ethics - if they can criticize our world-view, they should be able to unconditionally defend their own – debaters should be held accountable for any ethical or subjectivity-related positions we advocate in the debate space.

 

1AR Condo Bad

Extend the interpretation: no Negative conditional advocacies.

A. 1NC Strategy - they throw everything at a wall and see what sticks - the 1NC should think about argument interaction - and, careful 1NC choice crowds out cheating CPs because the Negative actually has to defend them.

B. Research - nobody cares about Aff-specific research, background reading, or detailed strategies when they can run the cap K, the XO CP, and the politics DA in every 1NC and go for whichever 2AC block was worse.

C. Clash - risky options are key to invested debates - they re-start every debate by kicking 80% of it in the block - ruins depth and clash.

Reject the team, not the argument - endorsing our model of debate requires the ballot as a competitive deterrent to the Negative.

 

1AR Conditional Critique

And, conditional critiques are a voting issue for ethics—if they can criticize the underlying assumptions of the Affirmative, they shouldn’t be able to abandon that criticism—it’s key to accountability in the debate space.


Edited by TheSnowball, 14 January 2018 - 01:32 PM.

  • 0

Daily Evidence Card!
Exodus Files!

This cross-ex is taking too long.

Kafka 25 (Franz, Novelist, Translated by David Wyllie, "The Trial", 1925) //Snowball

K. was informed by telephone that there would be a small hearing concerning his case the following Sunday. He was made aware that these cross examinations would follow one another regularly, perhaps not every week but quite frequently. On the one hand it was in everyone’s interest to bring proceedings quickly to their conclusion, but on the other hand every aspect of the examinations had to be carried out thoroughly without lasting too long because of the associated stress. For these reasons, it had been decided to hold a series of brief examinations following on one after another. Sunday had been chosen as the day for the hearings so that K. would not be disturbed in his professional work. It was assumed that he would be in agreement with this, but if he wished for another date then, as far as possible, he would be accommodated. Cross-examinations could even be held in the night, for instance, but K. would probably not be fresh enough at that time. Anyway, as long as K. made no objection, the hearing would be left on Sundays. It was a matter of course that he would have to appear without fail, there was probably no need to point this out to him. He would be given the number of the building where he was to present himself, which was in a street in a suburb well away from the city centre which K. had never been to before.


#12 Austinkiihnl

Austinkiihnl

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 36 posts
3
Okay
  • Name:Austin Kiihnl
  • School:Caddo Magnet

Posted 14 January 2018 - 08:12 PM

I'm not sure why this got downvoted, I think this is pretty accurate.
 
There's variety when it comes to how judges feel about condo. Some judges are incredibly persuaded by pointing out performative contradictions, others view conditionality as a natural part of debate. In general, most judges are okay with conditional advocacies, and are also open to voting on conditionality bad. Obviously, as with any theory argument, it's best to get the judge's preference ahead of time, but throwing a condo shell into your 2AC is usually a pretty safe move. So to answer your first question, no, judges don't hate that kind of thing.
 
On your second question, ZidaoWang is right-- cards are almost never needed for theory arguments. You'll want to read an analytical shell structured like this:
 

Thats really all you need. Shouldn't take more than 30 seconds. So yes, you're right that you just need to be able to explain why it's bad for debate.
 
Here is a good example of someone going for condo during a camp tournament a while back. It gives a good picture of how to impact out conditionality arguments. You will always do better in theory debates by relying less on your blocks and providing analysis specific to the round, like this person is doing.
 
https://www.youtube....h?v=sXFFQ69g180
 
 
 
EDIT: I feel like I should mention that people generally don't go for condo in the 2AR unless at least one of the following things is true--
 
1) The block either drops it or severely mishandles it
2) The in round abuse is flagrant
3) The judge really hates condo

I really don’t think that it’s a bad argument at all and can only be gone for when mishandled. I’m the 1A but my partner has gone for condo bad in her 2AR multiple times, beating people like Isidore Newman AL and taking a ballot from Lindale DW in Octos of UH when Condo was covered fairly well in both rounds. It’s a very good argument that with the right judges and the right implementation, can be a downright killer.
  • 0





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users