Upload
justin-victor-rice
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Disadvantage
Provides an added measure to vote against the affirmative plan and vote for
the present system.
The Disadvantage• Uniqueness: States the condition of the status quo,
should show that the status quo is in fine condition. • Brink/threshold: better explains the condition of
the status quo as being close to a bad consequence.• Link: Shows how the affirmative plan disrupts the
state of the status quo• Internal Link: Shows the causal step between the
plan and the Impact.• Impact: Defines the implications or consequences of
that disruption.
Uniqueness: DA’s inherency• Arguments against and stemming from uniqueness– Non-unique: provides a warrant as to why the DA is not
unique to case… but rather common to the status quo.– Impacts Denied: The impacts have not happened though
a balance system was already interrupted.– Status Quo Links: Proves that there are added harms to
staying with the present system– “OR” Uniqueness overwhelms the Link – DA
Circumvention!– Contradicts Inherency Arguments – Their Inherency
arguments claim that there is plan action in the status quo, were this true the DA wouldn’t be unique.
Link: “My plan Does What?”
• Common Link arguments– No-Link: the plan just doesn’t do what you say… with
evidence of course– Link Turn: Explains that the plan in fact overcomes the
link and prevents/solves the impact.– Link proves Solvency: If the DA is dependent on PMN
(harms being solved) then it can be argued that solvency must happen before the DA.
– No Brink/threshold: The plan is not a big enough disruption to cause the impact.
Impact: “A world without nuclear weapons would be less stable and more dangerous for all of us.” - Margaret Thatcher
• Intervention – Claims that mechanisms inherent in the status quo, independent from the Aff’s agent will intervene to stop the claimed Impact.
• Impact turn – Claims the impact is a good thing and that causing it acts as an advantage.
DO NOT LINK TURN AND IMPACT TURN!!
Impact Calculus 101• Magnitude – Claims one impact outweighs
the other based on damage done. (Utilitarianism)
• Timeframe – Claims one impact outweighs another based on which one would happen first. (Exigency and Salience)
• Probability – Weighing model that claims one impact is more likely to happen… (realism; disambiguous)
How to weigh impacts in round…
• Inclusively: World war is inclusive of a US-Korean War.
• Reversibility: Destroying Human rights is reversible, Death is not…
• A Turns Y: One impact causes another, specifically your opponents.
• Internal Link Short Circuiting: One impact prevents a good impact from happening.
• Pre Vs. Post Fiat: It can be claimed that something real is worse than something imagined…
Impact Calculus APImpact Calculus 101
A Notion of Fiat
• Fiat: Latin Term meaning “let it be done.”
• Fiat is an agreement that “policy debate” should not be about Plan Probability but rather should be about Plan Desirability.
• This agreement is that the debate is not about what “will” be adopted but what “should” be adopted.
A Topical Proposition
• Case must be related to the resolution• Must prove that the need-solution can only
be obtained by adopting the topic• Jurisdictional Argument – means that the
affirmative's proposal must fall under the judges jurisdiction to decide the round.
• Topicality standards come down to education and fairness.
Proper Shell• Interpretation - determines what words/phrases in
the resolution the Aff violates (definition)• Violation – Warrants how the Aff violates those
words/phrases• Standards – Provides a weighing mechanism by
which the judge can determine if the aff is topical based on competing interpretations.
• Voters – Gives a reason as to why the judge should vote on the particular violation sited above.
Common Standards• Grammar – The resolution provides certain grammatical
standards by which an aff interpretation must follow.• Field Context – provides a use of the interpretation based on
expert’s uses in their particular field. (hopefully on the topic some how.)
• Each word has a meaning – It means that one word or phrase cannot be so defined as to make another word or phrase meaningless. (Goes good with intent)
• Debatablilty – Must fairly divide ground between the AFF and NEG.
• Limits – In order to be fair the interpretation must limit the affirmatives choice of policy positions.
• Intent – The people who wrote the topic had something in mind.
Common Voters
• Jurisdiction – Voting for topicality a jurisdictional matter and must be exercised
• Education- By allowing a one sided debate we are not educated on the topic.
• Fairness – To be equitable topicality must be a voter.
• A priori- Topicality comes first in the debate, must rule here before the case.
Extra Topicality
• Claims that added un-topical plan provisions go above and beyond what is “topical” as claimed by the interpretation.
• Can be expressed as an interpretation or as a resolutional analysis.
• If the affirmative team claims added justification through either the PMN story or through advantages then there is abuse of jurisdiction. (Africa Topic: vote for us cause we save whales)
Effects Topicality
• Claims that in a vacuum (or by itself) the plan does not intuitively support the resolution, but rather, the effects of plan (i.e. solvency) are topical.
• This means that you must look to solvency to determine whether the affirmative does in fact support the resolution.