[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: If you even care about RVIs' status....
On Thu, 14 Mar 1996, Morris Eric R wrote:
> 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.
Why not just say "I won't vote on unsubstantiated or undeveloped
arguments"?, instead of RVIs. Not all RVIs are undeveloped. The same
could be true of many arguments.
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.
No. Tradition is not an argument in this sense. If it were, it would be
based on ground or jurisdiction, i.e. "traditionally judges vote on T for
jurisdictional reasons. Additionally, even when it is an argument it is
a fallacious one. Maybe you've heard of it-it's called a fallacious
appeal to tradition.
> > 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.
Yes. You look specifically to the interps and determine if there is
ground abuse, all of the line-by-line just help to determine if a skew is
present, i.e. bright line. Take in consideration that this is only true
if t is declared a voter for exclusively ground reasons.
> > Ross says: > "Neg
> 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.
Please read my posts before you go off. Above I clearly indicate that
the analogy has limitations. Although I think your "elections" analogy
has much more. Nonetheless, I think the analogy is strong enough to merit
a listening. Your objections are good IN-ROUND responses, not reasons to
ignore it as a justification for the RVI
> Of course, the jurisdiction battle occurs along side 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
Another good IN-ROUND argument. Of course, likewise it could be said that
the all-or-nothing nature of jurisdiction merits an exclusive hearing so
that the T debate will be in-depth and less superficial. The analogy may
be incorrect at this level-fine. But other "debate-specific" reasons like
the one above merit the exclusive listening. Additionally, in a true
jurisdictional analogy, the judge isn't ALLOWED to hear substantive
debate until jurisdcition is determined, which answers the simultaneous
> 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.
Would be correct if it were true. Unfortunately its not. The case I'm
running ratifies a bilateral treaty with Mexico, and I hear T every round
because there's no case ev.
> > 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.
True in some cases. I don't think a well-developed RVI need to make you
question any assumptions however, as the ground and jurisdiction examples
> You are right, IMO, that judges should consider RVIs
> 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).
I think you've just experienced some bad RVI debates. Many times my RVIs
are much more developed than the initial T position. I think the
theoretical support for RVIs merit alistening.
> Thank you for the opportunity to vent about a very minor but occasionally
> annoying issue.
No problem. I think we agree on the big picture. We just have
differences on how to get there.
> > Eric Morris
> Asst Dir of Forensics, SMSU
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (email@example.com)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page