Debate Theory Wiki

[Tiny]

Test DA's? What are you talking about?

[Alan]

I think she means DAs that you later kick.

[Tiny]

There is nothing wrong with that. If there was I'd of lost so many rounds this weekend. Issue selection is smart strategy and efficient debate.

[Vassar]

Hey Kathleen,

I'm going to offer a few thoughts before answering your question directly...

Originally posted by kathleen_B
I have been playing around with this argument, which obviously comes out of the MOC...

I'd be careful here. If you make new arguments in the opp block, it means the PMR gets entirely new responses in the final rebuttal. You won't get a chance to respond to PMR arguments, which means that if they put a turn on any of your positions, you're basically screwed.

I'd urge you to consider putting the limitations on counterplan argumentation/perms in the LOC. Preempt perms that you feel to be illegit so you won't be scrambling to do the legwork in the block.

Originally posted by kathleen_B
What I would like to see is a concise answer to why perming counterplans as a test is a abusive.

Well, I won't lie and pretend that I'm a concise individual, but I will tell you how I'd run this position (if I were to run it). First, I'd strongly caution you that you are going against most people's default assumptions in a debate round, so be prepared for an uphill battle. You may win this, especially if you are more technically savvy than your opponents, but it will be hard.

Here are a few args that come off the top of my head, though, if you were to run that perms as a test are illegit. I'd suggest that you make your counterplan unconditional (i.e., you will advocate the counterplan throughout the debate round and will not kick it no matter what happens later on in the debate round) so as to avoid a big fat performative contradiction.

"Test" perm illegit/If used, perm becomes GOV advocacy

1. Reciprocity. From the LOC until the end of the debate, our counterplan will maintain unconditional status. We will continue to argue for our counterplan and will not kick it in favor of the status quo. Since we have agreed to take only one policy action, the GOV team should not be allowed to debate both the world of the perm(s) AND the world of the GOV plan alone. Just like we're choosing a single policy action for the entire debate round, they should only be allowed one advocacy; make them choose to advocate a single perm or else the GOV plan text alone.
   
2. Time skew. The GOV team gets the final speech in the debate round. If the GOV team is allowed to advocate multiple permutations AND the GOV plan alone, it would mean that the OPP team would have to use all of its four minute rebuttal speech covering ALL the permutation possibilities AND the GOV plan alone. The GOV can then choose only one of these worlds to cover in the PMR and use all five minutes on one of the issues we had to cover superficially. This creates a massively unfair burden on the opposition since they can concentrate all of their time on a single issue.
   
3. Education. Having both teams stick to one consistent advocacy throughout the entire debate round will create the greatest depth of education. When we are forced to spend our very limited speech time debating multiple worlds superficially, it harms the critical thinking skills of debaters as they can only touch each issue in a very blippy, unwarranted fashion.
   
4. Moving target. If the GOV team is allowed to advocate multiple perms AND the plan text alone, it means that the GOV team can effectively spike out of all of our disadvantages through one or more of its permutations. This creates a muddled, incoherent debate round where the OPP will never have a chance at winning.

[Seoulman]

Other pages that would be fun to add:

1) Style

2) POIs

3) Put a resolution list up here

4) Links to other helpful sites

5) Variations on Policy case Structure

6) Same with value cases

7) Rebuttals

Some of this might seem like general weirdness--but with me bouncing between teaching novices and the heavily experienced--I'm probably looking at all of this through much different eyes then ya'll.

-Dan in Seoul

[Euphrates]

Originally posted by Seoulman
5) Variations on Policy case Structure

Great idea! I've heard at least two new ways to structure a case this year.

[Alan]

Updated the Wiki with the requested pages. Though for right now, only resolutions has any info on it. Feel free to help out.

Also alphabetized the page to make things easier to find.

Also, we already had an external links page. It's at the bottom.

Edit - Added to the "policy structure - variations" page

[Alan]

Due to some recent vandalism (wholesale deletion of several pages) I've restricted editing functions of the wiki. Anyone can view, but I'm going to keep who can edit limited.

Sorry,
Alan

[carrollpadwon]

Can we get some theory shells on the theory wiki? I realize for some this would sacrifice competitive edge, but hopefully it would make for much better debate. PIC's bad, PIC's good, dispo good, dispo bad kind of stuff. That would be really helpful.

[syphos]

For this to be useful and evolving, we need people to continue to contribute...so I hope that you signed up and will add to the space...If so, others (like myself), would be more willing to add to the knowledge base (since we no longer need a competitive edge).

[Alan]

Mike,

I've approved your request to join.

Alan

[carrollpadwon]

Thanks Mike. Good point. There's tons of debaters like you who graduated and would love to see the activity evolve and produce better debates.

[neesen]

Here is some information about thoery and also a basic debate book like thing for policy. Most of it applies for parli

here is the thory blocks:

http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/jbr...RY_BLOCKS.HTML


and the books:

http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/jbr...bate_bible.htm

http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/jbr..._academic_.htm

hope these help,

[syphos]

Reorganized the front page a little fo reasier navigation.

[syphos]

Started a working capitalism page for any one to help on, since the argument has so many facets, answers, and other components, I figured it would be a good thing to have multiple individuals look at and work on.

[patio11]

It appears that the Wiki has been deleted. Boo.

Patrick McKenzie

[Alan]

It has not been deleted. The Wikispaces folks changed their top-level domain from .org to .com. The wiki is now located here:

http://debatetheory.wikispaces.com/

I will change the first post to reflect this.

[Forrest L]

All the links inside of the Cap K are dead. Have they always been that way?