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

If you even care about RVIs' status....

Ross writes:

"This is my attempt to defend the legitimacy of RVIs.  First however, I
think most of the criticisms are based on the frequency of 2As to say,
"oh...and make it an RVI" at the bottom of their T answers.  I don't
defend this."

I say:
How do you AVOID defending this? Most judges who say "I don't vote on 
RVIs" or the notably lesser "I hate RVIs (which don't precisely rule out 
voting on them)" feel this way in part because they are initiated in this 
manner most of the time. It may be hasty to dislike a certain genre of 
argument because of how it is poorly used, but it could be the best way 
of rooting out the annoying misuse. 

Ross says:
"I think RVIs are legitimized by the reason claims T is a voter, 
allow me to explain.  There are essntially 2 justifications for why T is 
a voter: ground and jurisdiction.  NO "tradition" is not an argument."

I say:
Tradition IS an argument, just a weak one. If ground were the only issue, 
why would we require negative to hide behind topicality in protesting 
ground abuse? Why would we allow affirmatives to abuse ground just 
because they are topical? TOPICAL ground is important for reasons that 
transcend and include both jurisdiction and ground. Ground is a very 
important consideration, but so is the predictability of research that go 
with being topical. Ignoring the Whole Rez issue for a moment, topicality 
could be a voting issue because the desireability of the plan doesn't 
prove the resolution true, which is the affirmative's duty. 

Ross says:
"If the neg uses ground...
1. If I can show why the neg interp hoses my ground more than my case
selection hoses theirs-I think should win.  This acts somewhat like a
link-turn. examples...
1. Neg runs an extremely abusive interpretation.  Maybe a couple of cases
meet-like "declare war on Mexico" and "annex mexico".  I think neg should be
forced to defend their argumentation.
2. Neg runs T in 1N- aff meets.  Neg then runs new T in 2N that the 2A
"we meets" concede the violation to.
3. Neg runs A T kick position just to get a link to a DA.  Once the the
phrase "we meet' is uttered.  Neg kicks it.  I don't think an RVI
uniquely hoses their ground any more than the T position does.
4. Neg runs multiple T positions, no case can meet all of them.
These are just some."

I say:
By this line of thinking, a negative could say ground is critical and 
show that their interpretation is better for ground. They may totally 
lack definitional support, they may be unable to draw some bright line 
which allows well-intentioned affirmatives to avoid the violation, and 
they may ignore big chunks of the line-by-line. The undesireability of an 
interpretation of EITHER Aff or Neg is a warrant for the other side's 
interpretations, which must be compared to other warrants. It is a 
TWO-STEP process: Ground affects which interpretation is 
reasonable/better, which is turn affects whether plan is topical or not.

Ross says:
"Neg argues jurisdiction...
Try checking out Tom Murphy's 1990 article on the judicial analogy.  I
think its in A & A.  It argues that true jurisdiction suggests that we
employ the judicial analogy.  In this jurisdiction is determined in a
separate hearing , which in debate terms translates to:  Once
jurisdiction is argued the judge acts as a judge in a special hearing
that determines jurisdiction and that is all.  Substantive issues are
irrelevent.  In this analogy T becomes an all-or-nothing issue for both
sides.  Although their may be limitations to this analogy, it certainly
merits a listening, instead of the blanket " I hate RVIs" rejection."

I say:
Many debaters argue policymaking as an anology. If they are right, shouldn't 
arguments such as "you lose re-election because the voters will hate 
you" or "You'll lose re-election because this will offend certain PACs" take 
precedence over appeals to the common good? If you cannot recognize that 
analogies have their limits, you must find normal conversation very 
baffling (or, as I prefer, very amusing). By the analogy, judges might 
hear arguments that are out of their jurisdiction, but they don't decide 
the round on them. 
Of course, the jurisdiction battle occurs alongside the substantive one. 
Debate speeches are not designed to have a sub-hearing on topicality 
before deciding the rest of the round. The analogy is incorrect because 
arguments to throw out a court case on jurisdiction do not preclude later 
winning the case (or collecting attorney's fees) while arguing its 
merits. 
There is a certain elegance to the simultaneous system because it means 
the same argumentative skills (including time allocation) that decide 
other issues also determine topicality. Borderline affirmatives must 
devote more energy to answering procedurals, while very topical ones can 
usually get time-tradeoff if the negative initiates topicality.

Ross says:
"For different reasons, what about a kritik that serves as an RVI on T, i.e.
it is modernist or statist, etc."

I say:
Like a critique/kritik, a well developed RVI asks the judge to step 
outside of the assumptions under which they normally judge the round. 
Most RVIs ask us to do so with only the slightest wisp of a reason. I 
think presumption, as much as anything, explains the resistence of some 
judges to doing so on most RVIs. 
You are right, IMO, that judges should consider RVIs instead of 
dismissing them out of hand. These reasons this is true have everything 
to do with the benefits of judges trying to be tabula rasa and nearly 
nothing to do with the merits of RVIs per se. These reasons are rarely 
developed to a level which is on par with topicality itself in serving a 
useful purpose for debate (or ground, or whatever).

Thank you for the opportunity to vent about a very minor but occasionally 
annoying issue.

Eric Morris
Asst Dir of Forensics, SMSU
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page