Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

what does "vote neg to vote aff" mean?


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 JeanLucPicard

JeanLucPicard

    Starfleet Captain

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 189 posts
25
Good
  • Name:Captain Picard

Posted 12 February 2018 - 01:40 PM

I run a k aff, and I've seen this arg run against me many times usually paired with an accusation of performing the 1AC for the ballot. What does "vote neg to vote aff" mean exactly, and how should I answer it?


  • 0

I suppose you wanna see something swaggy...

Spoiler

#2 DavidGriffith

DavidGriffith

    Junior-Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts
7
Okay
  • Name:David Griffith
  • School:Oak Park River Forest

Posted 12 February 2018 - 02:59 PM

In the context of productivity bad affs, the idea is that voting aff is affirming an advocacy to do something. Whether that advocacy is disrupting productivity through poems or embracing hyper-conformity, an aff ballot affirms what the judge feels is the best course of action. Thus, in the context of this argument, voting neg truly affirms not being productive since you're not endorsing a new line of action, you're just endorsing maintaining the status quo and not doing anything.

In terms of answering this argument, you should say something about how your methodology is key to solvency. If you're trying to disrupt a system, you need to endorse that disruption to solve the impacts. Ignoring that line of action leaves the system in tact, even if it is counter productive.

Edited by DavidGriffith, 12 February 2018 - 03:01 PM.

  • 4

#3 TheSnowball

TheSnowball

    Hall of Fame

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,022 posts
1,367
Excellent
  • Name:Ryan

Posted 12 February 2018 - 05:35 PM

Yeah it's saying if the claims of the 1AC are true, the judge should vote Negative.

If we should really refuse education as a telos, we shouldn't debate for the purpose of winning.
  • 1

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.


#4 Nonegfiat

Nonegfiat

    You know I had to do it to em

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 790 posts
616
Excellent

Posted 12 February 2018 - 10:17 PM

its a meme of an argument


  • 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


#5 Ausar

Ausar

    Wulverine

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 157 posts
40
Good
  • Name:Green Corn
  • School:Mapatatata High School

Posted 13 February 2018 - 11:17 AM

Yeah it's saying if the claims of the 1AC are true, the judge should vote Negative.

If we should really refuse education as a telos, we shouldn't debate for the purpose of winning.

I find the hypothetical meritorious, but the first statement sounds like "We should win because they shouldn't be trying to win to begin with." 

 

On what merit should the judge uniquely default to the negative? I mean, this doesn't necessarily equate to "voting neg accomplishes whatever x purpose aff seeks to accomplish." It is just that I feel the negative hasn't proven any issue showing why it deserves the ballot over the affirmative, even if the affirmative shouldn't be trying to win the round.


Edited by Ausar, 13 February 2018 - 11:18 AM.

  • 0

#6 TheSnowball

TheSnowball

    Hall of Fame

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,022 posts
1,367
Excellent
  • Name:Ryan

Posted 13 February 2018 - 11:27 AM

"We should win because they shouldn't be trying to win to begin with." 


It's more like, from the Negative "we should win because THEY shouldn't want to win if they honestly believe productive education is bad."
  • 3

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.


#7 Ausar

Ausar

    Wulverine

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 157 posts
40
Good
  • Name:Green Corn
  • School:Mapatatata High School

Posted 13 February 2018 - 04:11 PM

Ah that clear things up


  • 0

#8 kissmyafff

kissmyafff

    Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 30 posts
2
Okay
  • Name:Don

Posted 13 February 2018 - 11:41 PM

I find it less to be about “they shouldn’t want to win” more than “the fact that they want to win is a solvency deficit”. Like for instance, if you run a k aff with an identity based performance, the ballot itself makes your strategy toxic and artificial. This isn’t to say identity politics are toxic, but the tying of that to rewards is bad. For impact level, it usually ties into some suffering reps bad arg (specifically to rewards) like Baudrillard 94 or maybe Berlant. Solves the aff bc you’re not rejecting their performance or reps, you’re rejecting the aff ballot.
  • -2

#9 MrEragonSaph

MrEragonSaph

    The Posthuman

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 228 posts
210
Excellent
  • Name:Jacob Smith
  • School:Jenks / OU

Posted 14 February 2018 - 01:57 PM

I think the easiest answer is that the ballot is just a site of libidinal investment in which the judge chooses to invest in certain modes of politics/non-politics/theoretical orientations. Value as a concept is inevitably to some degree, but the ballot really just indicative of an investment in the aff or neg's orientation or a divestment from certain ideologies.So in the instance you have a method thats beyond just "Unproductivity good" , you can just answer this argument with a defense of your solvency mechanism. All speech is performance and to say that the negs speech isn't performative and done for a ballot also seems just as arbitrary. 


  • 0





Similar Topics Collapse

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users