[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: topicality views

> 
> There was a round where we ran T, and the
> Affirmative had no counter-definition, no
> counter-interpretation, no counter-standards
> and no "we meet" answers.  All they did was
> indict our interpretation as being bad.  We did
> drop a ballot this round, and I'm curious how
> people see this.
> 
> To me, the Affirmative is topical until
> challenged.  After the T shell is read the
> Affirmative is not topical because they do not
> meet the Negative interpretation (which is a
> clear violation of the resolution, as opposed to
> "I read the 1AC, therefore I am Topical")  


The question being raised by the Aff is why they should lose since the 
only interpretation being offered is one which is poor for debate. As I 
see it if you want to win T, you need to explain why your interpretation, 
which will ALWAYS exclude the affirmative (unless you have no clue, in 
which case you are not going to win T anyway), is a good interpretation 
for debate. Does your interpretation provide adequate ground for debate? 
What mainstream cases does it include/exclude? Is it supported by the 
literature? How clear of a bright line does it draw? These are all 
questions that need to be answered to win a T debate. 


> 
> Even if the Affirmative can prove that the Neg.
> interp is bad...what is there to look to, if there is
> no counter-interpretation to look to? 

It seems that you look at the aff and then evaluate their advantages 
because there has been no clear explanation of why I as a judge should 
reject them.  The neg must provide some sort of grounds for rejecting the 
aff beyond just "we have a violation that they don't meet". What 
arguments can you not run etc?


 If the
> Affirmative's presumption of being topical is
> gone the moment the T shell is read, then
> shouldn't the Affirmative have to prove a
> counter-interpretation that is better than the
> Negative's (and supported by a definition and
> standards) to win?

I think that this is the problem. The aff presumption doesn't merely 
disappear, and even if it did, you need to explain why their 
interpretation of the resolution (that allows them to be topical) is 
uniquely bad.  Your interpretation needs to include this level of 
explanation. Assuming that they don't provide a counterinterp, what is 
the abuse? I think ultimately T becomes an issue of ground. Failure to 
explain why you have none because of the aff, and why your interpretation 
is the most fair way to evaluate the debate/resolution would seem to make 
it fairly difficult to win the violation.  Obviously, I didn't see the 
debate, so this is sort of hypothetical.

.02,

Jason Jarvis
Wake Forest


  So, even if the Negative
> interpretation is proven to be bad (because it
> onerlimits, for example), it is still the only
> interpretation in the round so shouldn't the critic
> have to vote on it?
> 
> Just curious how you feel
> 
> Sean
> SWT
>
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page