T, and why judges love it (my mistake).

[properwinston]

As if I haven't had enough trouble with my previous diatribe concerning T, I still have more to say. At APU, I once again came across the T impact that went something like this: if we don't have T, then the resolutions become irrelevent. The adjudicator, who happened to be a coach of a local school, nodded his head in approval when the debater recited this impact. Why do coaches find so much comfort in the "nightmare scenario" impact? I'll venture to answer this question by arguing that resolutions are a main source of power for tournament administrators, who are almost always coaches. When students decide that they don't have to debate affirmitive action twice during the same tournament, the tournament directors lose the dictatorial power of choosing the topic of debate. Also, most coaches, say besides John Meany, have been teaching T in the exact same manner for the past 35 years. When a student stands up in a debate round and argue that T is invalid, coaches become defensive.

[UCSDanny]

Hi,

so correct me if I'm wrong, but you are saying then the resolutions do not matter? That a legitimate answer to a Topicality position is that well, who cares if we're under the "topic" (resolution) because who cares about the topic in the first place?

I've heard some strange answers on topicality but this one is by far the worst. I would argue that without a topic debate would really cease to be 1) educational and 2) fun. Part of debate is helping to guide discussion. If Gov teams were able to debate anything they wanted any round do you REALLY think teams would ever stray from their ONE or TWO strong cases? We already see this occuring now WITH resolutions and I would argue topicality is a strong check against this trend. Without topics at least helping to guide debates into certain areas I think we'd have a pretty boring activity beyond a few rounds. Furthermore, I'd say topics are good (and following them) because they often force you to take sides you'd rather not have. If debate serves for anything I'd say having to argue against your beliefs is one of the greatest aspects of debate. Without resolutions I don't see why we'd ever have to do that.

Basically, topicality and resolutions exist for a reason. Both to check abuse and allow for interesting and DIFFERENT debates. One thing I really like about parli is going in and having different debates each round. Maybe two resolutions were similar but they weren't the same res. You definitely could have had different debates.

And on your contention that resolutions are for power hungry tournament administrators, do you really believe that? When it's up to the Gov to define and the Opp to bring up T arguments I don't see how tournament administrators have any say whatsoever what actually happens in round. Last time I checked Konrad didn't go into any rounds and answer a T argument. Students really have all the power they want over the resolution. Administrators can't get teams to run T. We do it on our own and judges buy the arguments. Furthermore, I'd argue you are confusing administrators, coaches and judges - who are often 3 distinct groups. I mean, even audrey mink from long beach was a judge in the Semi-final round for JV... was she upholding the dictorial powers of tournament administrators in listening to a T violation?

Lastly, why do judges hate T? If anything, I think your post is why judges love T and why they hate your position on T as unimportant. Maybe there's a reason behind this belief in a topicality position that you are overlooking. I hate an appeal to tradition/authority but I really wonder if you've thought this out.

we obviously disagree on topicality and the importance of resolutions. Have you tried having rounds without one? I really doubt you'd have much fun or stay in the activity.


-danny

[properwinston]

I sincerely appreciate your cogent arguments in favor of T. Here are some responses:

-If a team were to run a canned case or two ever round, then everyone else would catch on and easily defeat the case after its first tournament or two. All of the best teams prepare cases ahead of time. I don't understand what is wrong with taking the time to thoroughly researching a case prior to running it? If anything, I think the worst rounds come from a lack of knowledge and not an abundance of it. Secondly, the concept of a canned case assumes that such things exist as non-canned cases. All cases involve pre-tournament knowledge, whether or not they are constructed within the 15 minutes of prep. Therefore, you are arguing that the value of preparing a case within fifteen minutes outweighs the problems of teams debating subjects they know nothing about. And don't tell me that it will hurt opp teams. Statistically and anecdotally, we all know that opp teams already have too much ground for debate.

-Call me an extremist, but I don't understand why current events, philosophical questions or political problems that I find interesting are less important to talk about than what Konrad Hack thinks is important. Resolutions are only good for forcing the prop team to provide a link to their case. This requires creative thinking, a type of thinking that the world of parli currently lacks.

-I completely agree that a great part of debate involves arguing against something you believe in, but how will dictated subject matters increase the occurance of this. The very existence of the opposition role will inevitably force debaters to argue from the opposite side of their actual beliefs.

-Regarding the dictatorial nature of resolutions, I still believe that the writers of the resolutions (whether they are the director, a committee, administrators, judges or coaches) relish the power of choosing the topic. At APU, before Konrad announced the topic he stated that "some people may hate it and some people may love it." This demonstrates that he thought that he was picking the topic for the debate. And personally, I thought that the "concrete" resolutions at APU adressed rather banal topics, or at the very least, topics that were no better than what I would run without a resolution. Palestine was cool, but the Greenspan resolution and the two affirimitive action resolutions were rather boring.

In you arguments in favor of T, you are still relying on the assumption that a nightmare scenario would insue if the parli community disregarded T arguments. Isn't this the same rational that is used to condone authoritarian regimes? "Don't let the people decide what is best for them because they are to stupid to do so." I'm sorry, but debate is for students and not for coaches, most of whom are effete anyway. Besides John Meany, I've yet to hear any coach say anything of interest regarding T since I've been debating.

[Western Amy]

Well then, for opp fairness, if you're going to run a non-topical case, I encourage you to follow the actions of CSU-Fullerton's CEDA team and publish your case online. Takes away all those "predictablity" and "ground" voters. But then, they're doing it for ACTUAL education, not a strategic advantage.

[UCSDanny]

Hey,

interesting post... let's see...

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> ... running canned cases every tournament ... [/quote]

Or, teams could just as easily come up with 1 or 2 cases PER tournament, run those till they are used up and then come up with a few more. You've misunderstood my point as I am all in favor of having, as they were greatly referred to as, "responsibly constructed cases" or something like that. However, WITH resolutions, and WITH a legitimacy of topicality, this forces a wide range of pre constructed cases at a tournament thus ensuring a wide range of cases are ready to go or are at least researched and developed before the tournament. My partner and I have a list of about 80-90 cases we've gone through and discussed and feel comfortable running. Are those all written out and prepped? No. They are just case ideas we've run through. Resolutions REQUIRE us to have a breadth of knowledge no resolution or no T would not. We could get by throughout the whole year probably running maybe 5 or 6 different cases? I mean I'd feel fine running the same case against a different team. The same team - maybe, we could adjust it according to the last debate against them. So in essence, I think having resolutions actually helps solve for this problem. So no, I'm not arguing in favor of teams debating nothing they know about. IF ANYTHING, no resolutions would allow teams to go and research the most extreme cases that no body knows about and would lead to debating subjects people know nothing about. Resolutions, and T since it holds people to it, actually help this by allowing some Prep before tournaments. We, for instance, usually go thru topic lists and make sure we have cases on those issues. And yes, I do think it would hurt opp teams, and if what you are advocating became the norm I bet people would be debating the GOV advantange.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> Call me an extremist, but I don't understand why current events, philosophical questions or political problems that I find interesting are less important to talk about than what Konrad Hack thinks is important. [/quote]

1) I don't see how the two are necessarily mutually exclusive. You and the tournament administrator have none of the same issues in common? Furthermore, how could most of those issues not have been debated on the many metaphorical topics usually offered during a tournament? I'll answer your arguments later, but I still think it's up to the Opp team to challenge your definitions anyways, so it's really them that are saying it's less important. If, as on the divorice rate resolution, the Opp is happy to debate term limits, then the tournament admin. really has no say in what we debate.

2) While maybe <strong>your</strong> areas truly are interesting, and maybe they would allow for significant fun debate, however I think <strong>many</strong> teams would simply go for the easiest way out and not choose areas which are favorable to debating. Instead they'd go for, as others have argued, the simple or extreme cases which leave the opp no ground.

3) If you think you can come up with more interesting resolutions, instead of complaining against T, why not suggest resolution to upcoming tournament directors? That way your ideas would be the resolutions.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> ... Arguing against your beliefs as Opp [/quote]

Yes, you're right here. however, it would not force you to argue against your beliefs as the government. Most times when I've been amazed I've said what I've said since it's so different then my personal beliefs has been because the RES dictated a certain action and I was gov. For example, I think Greenspan is doing a fine job yet had to argue for him to be removed. As Opp even if I thought he should be removed I would not be forced to argue this for a few reasons. First, the Gov could be nontopical and be debating privatize nasa not forcing me to debate the issue in the resolution. Second, I could, as Opp, Kritik the team, dissolve the Gov't or something and avoid the issue. If we both believe this is important I think having resolutions and legitimate T are the best way to ensure this.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> ... dictatorial nature of resolutions ... [/quote]

1) But you ignore my analysis on how the students, In the round, get to decide whether they will debate the issue. In round 2 we decided we'd ban horse racing on "trump the race card" which was arguably not what Dictator Konrad had in mind during framing of resolution for round 2. However, the Opp decided not to run T and accepted our definitions. Thus, Konrad's control was completely ignored.

2) For this to be legitimate I think on T debates "framers intent" would have to carry water, and I have yet to see a round won on this issue. I think everyone understands when the topic is announced and it leaves the room it's up to the individual debaters.

3) even concrete resolutions do not face this, per se. Teams have always been creative in interpreting words and as long as judges won't vote on T when it's not argued we have a easy solution to check the powers or the framers.

4) I think most framers of resolutions are pretty smart people. I don't necessarily believe their choice in resolutions are "that bad" and if you disagree I suggest not going to their tournaments. I liked the resolutions at APU and felt the represented the broad range of issues available to debate.

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr> advocating for T = advocating for authoritarian regimes [/quote]

If this was a POI I would say NO and move on. I think you are comparing apples and oranges and confusing my point without answering that it's really up to the "people" to decide anyway. When Tournament Administrators are able to enter rooms and give the loss to teams which don't fit what they tought the topic was supposed to be then I'll buy your analysis. Yet, when it's up to the Gov to define, and the Opp to decide to run T, then no, I don't buy your analogy. The "people" are deciding in this case. And as to calling coaches "effete" I didn't know that word until now, but if m-w.com is correct I'd disagree with you on that point. I think many coaches are innovative and I think it's not necessarily the coaches who are responsible. Teams, made up of students, decide to run T. Coaches can teach but in the round students ultimately decide if they want to run it. If that's true then you're placing the blame on the wrong shoulders.

And as to interesting T advocacy, just refer back to the earlier thread ... I think lots of great arguments made in favor of it were there without the need to rehash them. Furthermore, I think their are plenty of answers here. Lastly, I'd say in round discussion is the best place for T debates - let's have a debate sometime and hash it out there. I think one of the great aspects of T is there are so few "rules" and it requires teams to argue it well.

thanks,
-danny
ucsd

[zacariasla]

My question is what did T ever do to you. I would never assume T is an indispensible line of argumentation but the sad thing is that it is. Without voting on T or the respect judges give to T, people would run whatever they want. Let's just only give the give the gov prep time or better yet, lets just do CEDA. I am really sorry that you haven't had T weighed well for you in round but I assure you, if you keep being non topical youll learn to respect T and the power it has to make you lose. Im sorry if that sounds cynical. On the whole debate is for students. I agree but don't be selfish, if someone who is not a student wants to help people learn or do debate then by all means let them. Or as another option there is always APDA.

zack

[Samopolis]

<blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Isn't this the same rational that is used to condone authoritarian regimes? "Don't let the people decide what is best for them because they are to stupid to do so." [/quote]
I'll take "False Analogies" for $400, Alex.

If you're going to use a political analogy, you should reconsider your definitions. I believe that authoritarianism in this sense would be a situation in which the tournament staff comes into the round and tells the debaters exactly what they are to argue for a given resolution. What you're advocating (the elimination of any check on Gov's right to define) is, of course, the opposite- anarchy. (I can see the libertarianism angle coming at this point, but I think APDA's loose-link has a much stronger analgous claim to it).

The favorable system of government (IMHO, at least) seems to be one which protects individual freedoms while upholding collective responsibility (e.g. Western democracy). Likewise, an ideal topicality paradigm would be one which allows the Government to define ground to their liking while still providing an accountability mechanism.

Hence the status quo...

[properwinston]

I completely agree that T is interesting and should be debated in the rounds. However, I have found that judges tend to be overwhelmingly against creative anti-T arguments. Maybe it is because I don't run them well or maybe because they are rarely run, but I feel like I'm swimming upstream when I run them.

The APDA example is a bit troubling to my line of argumentation. I would obviously never want NPDA to become APDA. But I feel that NPDA is highly resistant to any serious debate about T. Also, there just isn't enough time in debate round to run excellent anti-T arguments. Of course, I would love to have an entire round about T. But someone would probably run T on me if I tried to do so!

One last thing. The only reason you were able to run the horse racing case was because the opp didn't run T on you.

[zacariasla]

I think the problem might be something ive run into quite often in my debate career. Often when analysis I think is clever is heard by others, it is thought of as crap. Those judging us for the most part have seen more rounds than weve been in so maybe they just see our "creative" arguments as a pile of unprepared off the cuff knee jerk reactions to something we can't answer straight up.
zack

[pattybar]

Hello,

Quite the little "T" discussion so far...

As for the "resolution = coach power so judges like it"... In the words of Dan Giersdorf....huh?

Generally, as both a coach and a judge... by the third or fourth round we are ready to go home, eat lunch or generally not listen to y'all debate -- and the fact that by the third or fourth round the tournament is generally 45 minutes or so behind does not make us happier with those in charge and willing to support their dictatorial demands....besides, we know that the resolutions were probably written by non-competing students anyway and were likely chosen at the last minute.. so assisting fellow coaches on some sort of power trip isn't what we think about when we hear T arguments... trust me.

What we do think about, generally, is "if I vote for case, am I also voting for the resolution?" This is the ONLY impact I need for a T violation... namely that a vote for case is not a vote for the resolution... anything else is simply rhetoric. The fact that opp prep was a waste of time, that your grandma makes the best cookies in her retirement village or that the resolution is intended to reduce your research burden are all completely irrelevant and I don't find them to be plausible or persuasive impacts.... if this makes me an interventionist on T, then fine.

As for creative T arguments.... why feel the need to be creative on opp T?? If it mostly fits under the resolution, then let it be. Use your creativity for good.... come up with good arguments against case itself. The reason your judge's eyes glaze over is either they have seen that "creative" T many times or they see that you are just using whatever occured to you in prep without having heard the case.... then they wonder why you bothered to come in at the end of the 15 minute gov prep when you could have had 7 more quiet minutes in the hall during the PMC.

Patty

[Dan6814]

In my experience, it's not the fact that we're directed to discuss a particular topic that creates topicality debates, but rather the tricky wording of resolutions. When Government is forced to find a topic that adheres to three or four different and significant qualifiers, finding an a) resolutional and b) significant case becomes much, much harder. That also tends to be when gov teams say "screw it" and link out to something. With less restrictive topics, cases occur immediately to the debaters, with less of a perceived need to move outside the so-called "center" of the motion.

What that in mind, what would everyone think about, if not simplified motions, then just topic areas for debate? If Konrad this past weekend had stood on the second floor and yelled out something like: "affirmative action -- gov's against it -- go!" that seems to eliminate the trickiness of resolutions that creates cases begging for T, and also keeps the debate within the bounds of a specific policy area.

Dan

[pattybar]

While the image of Konrad starting a stampede of debaters by yelling "War in Iraq...gov supports it" is a great image, I'm not so sure I like the overall concept.

I do think it is an important aspect of parli that it is very easy for novice teams to access. This is because they have some level of control over what topics they debate, and metaphorical resolutions give that to them. When we say "THW increase safety", it gives a novice team the flexibility to do something to make the world more safe... what that specifically is, is up to the team.

Granted, tricky resolutions are icky... but judges and opp teams should allow some reasonable flexibility on the part of gov case selection and only run T when the logic of the resolution is violated.

Patty

[truthisjust]

umm... so if I coach my kids to run that t is not legit, isn't that dictoral at some level too?

[stannard67]

Perhaps a couple of things from parli-L would be relevant here. Please note that I don't claim to be the final arbiter of the appropriateness of any argument. In fact, there is no final arbiter, and that's good.

First, I cross-posted a fantastic e-debate discussion, and it can be found at:
archive.debateaddict.com/...0337.shtml (http://archive.debateaddict.com/parli/current/0337.shtml)

Second, here is what I recently said about the value of topicality. The most important part of that post was the following claim:

"competitive equity is functionally necessary to sustain long-term participation in the activity"

But I said a bunch of other things too, and maybe they aren't too laughable...at any rate, here's the post:

I have said on this list in the past that (1) topicality is a legitimate strategy, and (more controversially) that (2) topicality is an interesting debate in itself, and to call it tangential begs the question; some critics enjoy a
good topicality debate, others tolerate it objectively if the opp thinks it's called for. I make no apology for strategy; if the judge doesn't want us to do it, hopefully she'll tell us beforehand. :)

But here's an often-ignored aspect of the issue: (3) Topicality is an informative and useful debate FOR UNDERSTANDING AND PARTICIPATING IN PUBLIC
FORUM DEBATE, because it deals with issues of fairness, participatory norms, shared meanings, and the objections thereto. Dare we say it's an issue of
ethics? When we abandon the search for fairness, or the notion of fairness as a participatory norm, we don't display a very positive model of the public sphere. I could refer to many concurring opinions on this from
Habermas and Marx to Aristotle to socialist/feminist Allison Jagger to communication scholars ad infinitum. Denials of such shared norms (often coming from respectable poststructuralist critics, other times coming from conservatives who sound eerily poststructuralist) may work for some fields (deconstruct shared norms in science, medicine, religion, etc) but don't work as well when applied to either debate (where competitive equity is functionally necessary to sustain long-term participation in the activity) or the real public sphere (where the denial of accessibility or equity is a
matter of life and death, especially for underrepresented classes or groups). As an argumentation teacher, I find topicality as pedagogically useful as any other argument in debate, and there are great critical and foundational arguments on both sides of any topicality debate.

Although I personally believe all of what I said in the above paragraph, everything I said is, of course, debatable. Parliamentary debate is ideally (?) a balance of competitive, strategic excellence and preparation for
communicative participation in the public sphere. The teams I saw last weekend at Claremont often epitomized that sythesis of excellence. Sometimes topicality was called for, sometimes not; sometimes a straight-up counterplan with a net benefit made perfect sense; other times, a philosophical discussion about, say, the effects of religion on society made
for the superior debate. (The religion discussion occurred on-case with little concern for substructure or debate lingo; yet at every moment on that debate I was aware of the opposing arguments and their ultimate impacts).

(snip)

I am not looking to start a month-long thread on whether "T is great..." I just think we should be careful about banishing, ridiculing, or polemicizing against arguments. If you want to make MORE arguments about how those arguments are inconsistent, bad strategy, or whatever, fine. Especially now that we don't have inherency to kick around anymore (that was a joke,
folks). Have a good weekend everybody.

stannard

[HRPuffNStuff]

Properwinston...I like your style... When I have some time I throw in my 2 cents.

(BTW...I DO think evolution is a tool of Satan :)

[pattybar]

Stannard,

I'd like you to explain what is interesting about a good T debate. What separates it from a bad T debate?

My actual problem with most T is that a really good T debate story about the meanings of words takes about 2 or 3 lectures in Philosophy of Language understand... and that's for grad students who have done their reading. The stuff about indeterminacy of translation combined with deep philosophy of language about the meanings of words and the differences between words and propositions is where I think things are interesting... a little Searle about the meaning of meaning and some basic Russell and Wittgenstein as a support for Quine's argument about the analytic/synthetic distinction in Two Dogmas makes T debate fun... but takes about a week of solid reading on all of our parts to pull off....

In other words, there is not enough time to develop interesting T about the words, on the other hand, interesting T about the logic underlying the resolution can and should be run if there is a clear violation.

One way or the other, the only interesting T impact is that a vote for case does not equal a vote for the resolution.... all else is irrelevant.

Patty

[joecool12321]

I would love to have a good Quine debate in-round. ::sigh::

Quine argues statements are not independently verifiable. For example, in Philosophy of Logic he argues that no observation counts for or against any specific theory as a whole, but for or against the entire collected body of propositions. He pursues, though, a "maxim of minimum mutilation" -- if theory and observation do not correspond, one should not reject the entire body, but only those propositions most closely related to the observation.

For example, if I understand Quine correctly*, one could argue that the earth is the center of the universe. The mathematics would be a bit hairy, but it's possible to do, even if it is not easy to do.

From this, it follows that no translation of words is correct. For example, in translating from German to English, there is a body of shared experience common to the German culture that is not identical to the shared experience of the English culture. Here an analogy may prove useful. Pretend there's a river and stepping-stones to move across that river.

http://www.bubbs.biola.edu/~Joseph.R.Mavity/river-condition.jpg

Now, pretend the stream represents the "human condition" and each stone represents a word or idea in a culture. Say the reddish stones are "American culture" and the tan stones are "French culture". A French person communicates an idea (indicated by the red line below). How is an English translator supposed to move across the stream? Should she try to stay as near the rocks as possible, and forsake the stylistic choices (green)? Or should she move a little off-stream (remember, the river is huge - she's not violating the passage) and try to stay near the form (yellow)?

http://www.bubbs.biola.edu/~Joseph.R.Mavity/river-crossing.jpg

Now, I've traveld a bit off course here, but Quine points out that speaking of one stone in isolation is meaningless. It's the whole path, from one side to the other, which gives words a collective meaning. So a better illustration might indicate how often people have used that path in the two different cultures. If it's highly entrenched, it might be a good idea to use a similarly entrenched image in one's own society.

All this matter to T because it begs the question of whether or not the resolution writer, four debaters, and lone judge have similar enough contexts to understand the 'path' in the same way. I would contend that, on the whole, they do.

--Joey

*I'm not certain I understand Quine completely. I'd love any feedback on whether or not I'm 'getting' him.

[pattybar]

Joey,

I'd never thought of the indeterminacy of translation in terms of stones on a river -- and although Quine would reject just about any metaphor as imprecise, I think it is a good one. Keep in mind that he also rejects the possibility to translate intra-personally when he says that if someone is bi-lingual they cannot provide an accurate translation for themselves....

As for the argument about the Earth as the center of the universe... he likely would say that as long as you are willing to bend your beliefs about mathematics in the necessary way, belief that the Earth is the center would be rational.

The idea is that experiences inform our beliefs and then those beliefs form a context against which we then judge later experiences. If an experience is one that presents a contradiction, we will either reject the experience or change the context radically enough to accept the experience as coherent.

The problem with this kind of set-up is that it is quite possible for two people to have completely coherent systems of belief and still produce contradictory statements. At this point, which of those statements should be accepted?

Another problem with Quine's basic theory is that a person can easily hold contradictory beliefs without knowing it...

Patty

[DreinCali]

Grant...I believe Chris Klimmek and someone else from Berkeley has a high-profile out round last year in which their gov case was "T is not a voter"...lots of philosophy, etc...I'd love to see you try that sometime! Think about it...they can't run T on that case because that's what the whole round's about..so if you win case, you also can't be dropped on T for it...I thought that was so neat.

Dre

[truthisjust]

Dre, the round in question was a sems round at Santa Rosa against Sally and Sarah from UOP and Chris and Jake from Cal. Good round (and in a split decision, UOP won).

Everyone Else, FYI: If you ever have me as a judge just be aware that even though I am pro-t debate, I have voted on RVIs on T. I think t debate is interesting but that does not mean I don't buy creative anti-t arguments. Most of the time I think the debate over whether it is a voter or not is more interesting that the specific arguments about the definitions.

[properwinston]

While judging novices and juniors for my team this weekend at Pasadena city college, I came to realize that my accusation of the dictatorial feelings among judges was if anything, understated. Given, there are a many excellent and fair judges out there, but my God, there are some truly horrific people judging our fellow debaters. I've never seen such interventionist attitudes among judges. As far as I am concerned, it isn't the judges job to make up rules for debate, even if they are judging novices. Us students spend too much time arguing about our actions and not enough time criticizing the archaic and egotistical judging community.

My experience this weekend confirmed my suspicion that judges tend to adore T because it upholds their normative concept of parli debate. During the rounds that I judged, I could feel myself gravitating towards the arguments that I would normally posit while debating. If I weren't conscientious, these feelings would have led me to incorrect decisions.

[pattybar]

Properwinston,

You seem to be generalizing from self in assuming judges like T because of some sort of power trip.

Granted, some BAD judges will pre-judge the resolution by deciding what they would have run... they also make decisions on cases based on how they (or their favorite team) would have run it or whether or not it is a proper topic for debate (perhaps I fell into this category when i dropped a team who advocated cannibalism...but it seemed justified)...

There is another category of BAD judges who will simply ignore large areas of argumentation because they, for example, "don't like or understand all that philosophy stuff"... (direct quote, NPDA 2000)

There is a final category of BAD judges that makes decisions on rounds based on school reputation, sexual attaction, clothing and whether that team's coach dropped their team etc...

None of these are acceptable, so don't decide that all judges are in this vein.

Patty

[joecool12321]

<img src=http://www.net-benefits.net/emoticons/hearhear.gif ALT=":hear">

[properwinston]

I completely agree with you.

[pattybar]

Ok, Proper -- I'm a bit confused now... you said that you had those inclinations as a judge in JV... are you saying you were in the category of bad judge??

I hope not, perhaps inexperienced judge??

Patty

[Eagle of Meaux]

Paul and I had an excellent debate against the Mikes from NAU in our 6th round at NPTE. We ran a case that tenuously linked, and they ran 7 minutes of T. We responded with a linguistic critique of T and the notion of language as static etc. and it turned out to be one of the best rounds we'd had all year. My suggestion is that this strategy be tried more often in instances where topicality becomes the central focus of the debate. Note that I don’t necessarily advocate the idea of T being illegit, in fact I think it is absolutely key to preserving fairness. What’s to stop a team from running a universal disarmament or world peace case if we don’t have T? I do think that the above example is a fair demonstration of how a T debate can be good. And Patty, I think that while you may be right, we need some hardcore scholarly backing to argue this correctly, I think the same can be said for just about anything including International Affairs cases, cases regarding the supreme court, cases regarding any kind of scientific, economic metaphysical or ethical theory, etc. I don’t think it ought be a reason to set this debate aside, to the contrary I think it’s all the more reason to engage it as we obviously have much to learn in many cases.

Keith

[pattybar]

Keith,

The problem with some/many philosophy cases and philosophical T responses is that to explain the hardcore philosophy takes time, even when all involved are familiar with the topics.

If you were giving a Quine T argument to myself and two members of my latest Quine class (heck, there were only three of us there at all... this is Quine, you know...) it would still take you quite a while to simply lay out the argument and translate it into debate-speak.

The problem is that when you do that, you are costing yourself time that could and should be spent on the case.... to do otherwise is to short-change the arguments themselves.

I'd love to see more philosophical arguments, but the other problem is that either a) students are scared to run them for me... thinking that if they get it a little wrong, they are down... or b) they don't know how to run them because a large percentage of the judges will either ignore/not understand them anyway....

Patty

[properwinston]

How does my agreement with your bad judge typology have anything to do with how I judge? If you read my comments, you would know that I was honorable enough to not act upon such inclinations.

[pattybar]

Proper,

If I mis-understood, I'm sorry... but it seemed to me that you were supporting your earlier statements by saying that the resolution = power trip was appealing to you... and that seems to be against what would be in the nature of a good judge...

I'm glad you didn't act on them and perhaps after you've had a few more ballots that urge will go away completely... I know I've been judging for about 6 years now, and I have no instinct that inspires me to somehow defend the resolution writers.

Patty

[properwinston]

My complete agreement was in what I thought was your condemnation of bad judges.

[PancreasMatt]

well, my personal opinion is that T is fun, and its an important part of debate. Its also just part of the big game of debate. when you run T its just another weapon you have in your arsenal, especially if you're trying to freak someone out to the point where they spend too much time on the T and not enough on case. Alot of people think that T itself is a waste on time, and at the first level i would contend that it isnt, but that even if it is, that time wasting is an important part of negative strategy. i think there is too much focus on the idea of nontopical cases being run in every round as a danger, and not enough on the strategic implications of t. an awful lot of strategies would be incomplete without it- for example, at Claremont brendo and i ran a kritik against a case that didnt bite it b/c it was extra topical. so we ran extra t, got the judge to sever that plank of plan, and then pushed them into the K. it was really fun, and just wouldnt have been as neat of a round without all the intricacies of T, including Extra T, Effects-t or just good old regular t. btw, thanks for judging again grant, hope me and brendo get to debate you @ northridge! good times.
matt c.

[joecool12321]

It's because of people like Matt that there are RVIs on T :D

--Joey

[pattybar]

Matt,

You bring up an interesting dichotomy... debate about the form of the arguments vs debate about the content of the arguments.

I honestly think that there should be less of a dichotomy than most see in parli. A good debate about the ideas can be both techincal and content driven, but most debaters look at it as one or the other and as such, they run arguments against one case that can easily be run against any other.

Patty

[Gavin499]

Frankly, I think RVIs on T are primarily ridiculous. Gov doesn't get a ballot BECAUSE they're topical. Just like any other arguement, it's part of the whole. Gov doesn't get a ballot if they beat back a harms press either do they? Nope, just a piece of the puzzle...

Having said that, I think rhetoric similar (if not identical) to that expressed by Matt in a previous post is condemning those of us who run T when it fits to a lifetime of judges who are sick of hearing it. First of all, the example given is not a bad example of T. If the plan was actually Extra-T then by all means run Extra-T (I personally love T as an arguement). However by claiming that one would run T even when the team is absolutely topical just to "waste their time" is frankly disgusting. It sours the mood of the whole community toward what I think are some of the most entertaining debates I've seen. I also think it's sad that while some might be willing to acknowledge that T can/is run for purposes of time wasting, I would highly doubt anybody would be willing to say that in round.

My standard is this, if somebody can ask you, "Are you really making this argument?" And you have to answer sheepishly, "Well, I wanted you to screw around at the top of case and hopefully not cover my DA's..." That's bad. Just my 2 cents...

Gavin

[joecool12321]

Gavin, maybe you're used to seeing RVIs run differently than I am (but I doubt it). What exactly is wrong with saying, "Look, judge, this resolution reads, 'The US should militarily engage Iraq.' We meet this definition by every standard presented, even the opps standards. Something funny is going on here. Oh! I know, they want me to spend 4 minutes on bad T so I don't get to their bad DAs. Don't let them get away with this crap. Vote against them on bad T (reasons, impacts to round and community, etc.)." It hardly says, "we're topical, we win." It says, "They're running bad T, and that's a bad thing to do, so we win."

--Joey

[glueboy1]

well, maybe the opposition shouldn't pay any negative price for your terrible strategic decision to spend 4 minutes on T and drop the disads. Just that damn strategery popping up again.

[joecool12321]

See my post in "Voting Issues" about typical parli responses. It doesn't matter how long you spend, bad T (like bad Ks) are a time suck, and have detrimental effects to the debate community.

--Joey

[glueboy1]

yeah, and bad solvency presses and bad disads with big impacts and bad inherency answers and whatever, just fucking answer the argument if its bad it shouldn't really be that hard.

[stannard67]

Watch out man...you're displaying a little too much common sense here. You might offend those who want to turn NPDA into a moulin rouge of RVIs, punishment paradigms, and syruppy glorifications of some mythical "public forum."

sheesh.

stannard

[tutakai]

Joecool,

Please tell me what the objective standard is that is to be used to differentiate "bad" T (which is harmful to the community and justification for judge intervention) and "good" T.

I have found that most of the time "bad T" is what a debater says about a T argument when they are Gov and "good T" is what a debater says about a T argument when they are Opp.

[joecool12321]

glueboy1:
Yeah, and part of answering the argument may include a turn. I don't see why you're opposed to RVIs.

Matt:
Yeah, I think I agree totally. But isn't there a place for self-aggrandizement within the game of debate?

tutakai:
I think terms like "good" and "bad" should be debated in-round. I just don't see why RVIs should be considered an <em>a priori</em> invalid response.

"I have found that most of the time "bad T" is what a debater says about a T argument when they are Gov and "good T" is what a debater says about a T argument when they are Opp."

That doesn't demonstrate that the arguments are wrong, unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

--Joey

[glueboy1]

yes, all of the arguments I name could be conceivably be turned. Probably my problem with your argument arises from that fact that your "time-suck" argument could be used to "turn" any of them, and is the only argument that could possibly "turn" some of them. For example:

"I answered this terrible disad for four minutes so they should lose"

"I answered this inherency press for four minutes so they should lose"

"I answered this solvency mitigator for four minutes so they should lose"

"I answered a complete non-sequiter for four minutes, they should lose"

Do you see a pattern here? The problem isn't the position that they run, its that you spent too much time asnwering it. Bad time allocation is a reason you should lose, not the other team.

Also, I have no idea how you could turn some of the arguments I named without using the "oops I fucked up so they should lose" analysis you espouse. How do you "turn" an inherency argument? How do you "turn" solvency mitigation?

Last, topicality can be turned. For instance if the linguistic exclusion made by the opposition team is one linked historically to oppression that may be a discursive reason to reject them. As an example, if a resolution was, "this house would preserve civilization" and the government ran a case to end the Congolese war only to have the opposition counter that since Africans aren't civilized, the government's case doesn't "preserve civilization," an argument could be made that this is a reason to reject the opposition. Now, these sort of linguistic turns may not be great arguments, but they are arguments that bear with some specificity on the argument at hand, and seem to reflect some thought about the issue being discussed. This would make them arguments as opposed to generic assertions about arguments which seems to be more your style.

[joecool12321]

I think you're arguing against something I didn't say. The argument is, "they want me to spend 4 minutes on bad T." The impact comes off the fact that T is a priori, and so I have to answer it, and answer it well, because I could loose if there's even a shred of opp case standing.

But DAs aren't a priori voter issues. In fact, I could possibly grant every DA story, and outweigh on solvency and still pick up the ballot. Ultimately, though, RVIs are used by gov perhaps for the same reason T is used by the opp: if I attach an a priori voter, you have to spend time here. It stops the "kick out of T" issue.

--Joey

[glueboy1]

Well Joe, I guess I don't agree that I'm arguing against a my own creations.

1.) I don't think you should need to spend four minutes on a "bad" t argument (I assume "bad" to mean warrantless, terribly articulated, logically flawed, offensive or shitty in some other way). Hell Joe, I don't think you should ever spend four minutes on ANY t argument. That's half of your speech, a part of effective debate is effectively allocating time. I also don't think the gov has to defeat t in the crushing absolute way you do. I don't think that most competent judges vote opp because there is still a shred of doubt in their mind about whether case is topical, I think that in general the opposition must win some sort of compelling violation and impact. In front of shitty judges that may change, adapt as you think best to shitty judges. I hear it may be best to watch for the head to start nodding emphatically or some similar indication you have won the argument.

2.) I think your "t is a-priori" distinction is artificial and incoherent. Look a-priori just means that it's evaluated prior to other arguments, but almost any of the arguments from my last post can be totalizing at the impact level.

What if the opp runs a terrible disadvantage that outwieghs case by several levels of magnitude. Isn't this the same as situation you describe on t? Isn't it "a-priori insofar as much the risk of the much larger impact has to be evaluated before the risk of case? If you lose the da, you lose the round. Indeed, it seems judges would be more likely to vote for a bad disad with impacts that were much larger than the aff if mitigated then a mitigated topicality argument.

Inherency, which I referenced above, is an a-priori issue in the same way as topicality. It's a stock issue Juuudge. What if a team makes an incoherent inherency argument? Do you answer that for four minutes and then wail for a ballot because you dropped shit?

A critical argument will usually have an impact that is prior to yours, for instance a discursive or framework impact. Does this not function the same as topicality's "a-priori" impacts? Are you somehow obligated to spend an enormous amount of time on the position?

I guess I just don't understand the special voodoo powers of topicality arguments. Shitty arguments are shitty arguments, a good strategy is to spend the time on arguments that require extensive logical refutation, and if you pursue bad strategies you will probably lose. Topicality could require such extensive argumentation, but then it wouldn't be a bad t, it would be a good one. If opponents frequently run really good topicality arguments on you then maybe you should start running topical shit.

[pattybar]

<img src=http://www.net-benefits.net/emoticons/yougo.gif ALT=":yougo"> Glue!!!!!

Poor time allocation is no more basis for an RVI than is non-specific, specific knowledge...

By the way, non shitty judges also nod their heads when you have said enough on the argument... I've seen you do it, Glue....

Patty

[PancreasMatt]

Hello everyone, its been a while since i posted, but i had a tournament, so i just got back on today.

Quick response to Gavins post- I never claimed to speak for anyone but myself, so the claim about souring the "communities" mood towards T is both offensive and ridiculous. As for the implied noble cause of T, i really doubt that anyone runs T only when another team has unwittingly torn a hole in the fabric of the debate communities integrity. People run T cause they can win on it. Also, i wasnt only implying running "bad" T is a good way to suck time, but the fact is, you choose issues in the rebuttals based on what the reponses by the other team are. Not every single argument gets extended through the rebuttals, so there is an imperative towards issue selection. Likewise, i dont think its fair to say that T as a timesuck is necessarily bad, since plenty of arguments are run that people dont intend on going for. This is why most people dont just run one really good DA, but advocate a myriad of other offcase positions. Also, just in case anyone reading this decides they want to attribute this view to Gavin or anyone else, please dont. They would get very angry and actually might have a point to saying that my discussion "sours the community", and the statement wouldn't be so pompous and asinine.

as far as gluboy goes with the T RVIs, i think its pretty neat to go all Kritiky on T, especially with stuff like "consumption of texts", deconstructing T, and running Feminism "silence Bad" answers under it. Plus, when people run T on you for not killing people when the res says "invade so and so country", i think there are really good "dont force us into a murderous colonialist box, you bad bad neg!"

matt c.

[properwinston]

Matt,

Can you post some pomo kritiks of T shells. I've been hunting for some of these arguments but I haven't had time to flush them out.