Jump to content

- - - - -

Proximate Causes

  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 debategirl52



  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 34 posts

Posted 13 January 2018 - 03:20 PM

I have been exploring the idea of solving for proximate causes within an Affirmative-- rather than claiming a root cause/claiming to solve the ADVG 100%.  I have noticed that coaches and judges have varying opinions on it.

The AFF I am referring to contains many internal links which we claim are caused by 1 element of schooling. However, we say this element is just one of many causes of the internal link & impact. 
So, I have a couple questions. First, what do you think of this type of AFF? Do you think it is legitimate? Second, what is the best way to deal with solvency on an AFF like this? 
Please only answer if you know what ur talking about. THANKS !!

  • 1

#2 BatailleLives



  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Name:Georges
  • School:Lil Pump Academy

Posted 13 January 2018 - 08:51 PM

Most affs can't solve any impact 100%, and claims that they do are usually pretty ridiculous. I think framing the aff as something that is at least able to resolve most of an issue or saying that the aff solves better than anything else can be effective, because it's more true and a better argument. I think that solving for some causes of an issue is a good thing, but people will inevitably read alt cause arguments against this and you need good answers, such as that the aff is the most important cause. How you approach this issue depends on your aff and you should talk to a coach about how your aff interacts with these arguments. Saying that the aff only solves one cause of the impact could put you at a disadvantage in a debate round, because it doesn't frame the aff as important to actually solving the issue and means that you can easily lose to a cp that solves one of the other causes and avoids the net benefit. 


I think that this aff could be effective with really good framing, but you need a reason why your aff in particular is key to solving issues or you'll lose to alt causes and alt cause cps. Its a legitimate aff and its probably more true, but not very advantageous. It loses a lot of solvency because other issues can always overwhelm and the aff isn't uniquely key. I'd say that you should have a reason why your aff in particular is important to solving. In the end, you should just have fun working on this aff and learning about issues, then going through the process of improving and refining the aff so that it will perform better. 

  • 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. 

#3 Chaos


    Mare Incognitum

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,231 posts

Posted 15 January 2018 - 10:14 PM

This is unlikely to be strategic. You're better off making overbold claims and then collapsing down to partial solvency if forced to than you are starting the debate on the back foot. The exception would be if you make framing arguments to prevent your opponent from accessing certain types of overly ambitious offense, wagering that being off-balance will hurt them more than you, but generally defense of this form is not persuasive if they are already winning the particulars of their arguments, and if you're capable of defeating the particulars of their arguments it usually makes more sense to do that without adding unnecessarily fancy evaluation schema. This is the sort of argument that only helps somewhat or sometimes, if you are on the verge of losing, and it generally will not be worth the concession and time investment. If you come across some specific extremely strong card about how we should be humble policymakers who only try to make partial or marginal improvements, this could be viable, but it is probably not the most promising option for research unless you've already found such evidence. Even after finding such a card you might want to hesitate. A greedy search strategy for arguments seems the most justified unless you're specifically trying to inhabit a niche, and the value of niche strategies is the ability to deflect common arguments rather than have to defeat their particulars. This likely does little to provide such deflection capabilities, in my opinion, and will be difficult to find sufficiently high quality evidence on besides, so I think you should pass.

I approve of looking for niches in general, though. Just don't fall in love with a niche solely because you've noticed its theoretical existence. You can afford more demanding standards than that.

Edited by Chaos, 15 January 2018 - 10:21 PM.

  • 1

There are no differences but differences of degree between different degrees of difference and no difference.

Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users