![]() Under planism there is no non-kritik way to impact topicality. By contrast, Resolutionism has the same strong foundation no matter what. It is flabbergasted by value or fact debates (for example, the resolution of the round has now become the aff's value-centric case the neg decides to run an affirmative application-centric case to counter it). Planism means that the burden of the negative changes every round based on what their opponents decide. There's a lot to be said about Planism and this response is already getting lengthy. Fairness and arbitrary shape-shifting burdens are sad substitutes for robust logical competition. It is contrarianism masquerading as counterpoint.Īnd the attempts to fix that problem are all woefully inadequate. If you back away from that, yes, it is possible to have disagreement, but you lose the ability to have cases that are meaningful logical syllogisms building toward a conclusion. Why does this matter? Because of this, therefore that, therefore the resolution is true or false. ![]() Perhaps most exciting, you can track the impact stream from every argument back to the resolution. Within that structure, all other arguments have a place and a meaning. The negative case does the opposite, it is a logical syllogism concluding that the resolution is false. The entire reason for the existence of the affirmative case is as a form of proof for the resolution. Since the resolution falls outside, it needs the affirmative team to provide proof in the form of a logical syllogism, AKA a debate case. If you make a positive statement that falls outside common knowledge, it needs proof. In the resolutionist model, everything is evaluated in terms of the burden of proof. That said, I have a very strong preference for resolutionism because coherent debate is impossible without it. You can throw out some models for being incoherent or unfair, but at the end of the day, when you do pick a model, you have to say, I choose this because it produces the best debates. So whether you use resolutionism or planism or parametrics or something else, it is ultimately an arbitrary decision. You can't prove anything because all of it rests on this. At this level, it is impossible to say something is definitively correct. First, this conversation strikes at the most fundamental level of debate theory. (This is assuming that the two team’s plans are mutually exclusive, of course.) Coach Joseph By that logic, the neg isn’t upholding the Aff advocacy by running a topical CP, they are changing their advocacy from the SQ to an alternate plan that solves the problems proposed by the Aff in a more effective way. For the purpose of playing devil’s advocate/exploring theory ideas, what do you think of the argument in defense of topical CPs that the resolution of the year is not the same as the resolution of the round? More specifically, that the neg doesn’t have to disprove that The USFG should considerably decrease its military commitments, they only have to show that the Aff plan should not be passed. So: no, barring once-in-a-lifetime scenarios (like the judge opening their judging philosophy by demanding the neg affirm the res), it is never a viable strategy to run a topical counterplan. It winds up being more like a series of platform speeches.Įverything comes back to the resolution. If there are two pro-resolution teams in the round, you can create the illusion of disagreement, but it's all flash and no substance. And people MUST be assigned positions on that resolution. To have a series of rounds in a tournament where people prepare in advance, and then are matched against each other, and give a series of speeches testing their ideas against each other, there MUST be a resolution. But that is only possible because you were lucky enough to find someone who disagreed with you and was willing to debate you. You can still have informal debate, like when you get into a political argument with a friend. If you take that away, formal debate collapses. ![]() Resolutionism: the theory that an affirmative ballot supports the resolution, and a negative ballot negates it. Resolution: a true/false statement that is evaluated by a vote. ![]() Good question! These two definitions are at the heart of debate theory: Do you think they can ever be justified? Coach Joseph Thank you so much for the wonderful camp! I am curious to hear your opinion on topical CPs (you touched on them very briefly yesterday). Here's a transcript from a recent conversation in the Ace Peak Society.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |