Comments for Jason Debate http://www.jasonline.net/debate News, evidence, strategies, tips, and more. Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:44:15 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 Comment on Theory Arguments as Universal Frameworks by Jason Debate » Blog Archive » Why the fundamental question of the resolution is sancrosanct in theory debates http://www.jasonline.net/debate/?p=81&cpage=1#comment-183 Jason Debate » Blog Archive » Why the fundamental question of the resolution is sancrosanct in theory debates Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:44:15 +0000 http://debate.jasonline.net/?p=81#comment-183 [...] previous posts I’ve lamented on my desire to see objectivity/universality in theoretical frameworks that [...] [...] previous posts I’ve lamented on my desire to see objectivity/universality in theoretical frameworks that [...]

]]> Comment on Live from NY States – Finals by Faber http://www.jasonline.net/debate/?p=112&cpage=1#comment-10 Faber Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:44:00 +0000 http://www.jasonline.net/debate/?p=112#comment-10 sweepstakes award? sweepstakes award?

]]> Comment on A Baseline Approach to Topicality by Faber http://www.jasonline.net/debate/?p=94&cpage=1#comment-9 Faber Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:42:40 +0000 http://www.jasonline.net/debate/?p=94#comment-9 That's fair, as far as the purpose of the graphing exercise. As far as the 'defensive args delimit aff's c/i', though, I'm not sure that has to be the case. With the example I suggested above, isn't it more accurate to say that the neg violation claims that the case is way way to the right on this graph, and the defensive argument is moving the case to the left, rather than the c/i to the right? That’s fair, as far as the purpose of the graphing exercise.
As far as the ‘defensive args delimit aff’s c/i’, though, I’m not sure that has to be the case. With the example I suggested above, isn’t it more accurate to say that the neg violation claims that the case is way way to the right on this graph, and the defensive argument is moving the case to the left, rather than the c/i to the right?

]]> Comment on A Baseline Approach to Topicality by Jason Wright http://www.jasonline.net/debate/?p=94&cpage=1#comment-8 Jason Wright Sat, 25 Apr 2009 23:00:37 +0000 http://www.jasonline.net/debate/?p=94#comment-8 yeah, we had this discussion on cross-x. this method is not intended to wholly graph or address how "fair" an interpretation is - only how limiting it is. this matters when you make defensive arguments that delimit you interpretation - but the flip side is that you could use "only our case scores high on the metric" as a reason why limits-only evaluations of topicaliy are stupid. I'm not trying to defend using limits as the only standard for evaluating topicality - just expressing it graphically. yeah, we had this discussion on cross-x. this method is not intended to wholly graph or address how “fair” an interpretation is – only how limiting it is. this matters when you make defensive arguments that delimit you interpretation – but the flip side is that you could use “only our case scores high on the metric” as a reason why limits-only evaluations of topicaliy are stupid. I’m not trying to defend using limits as the only standard for evaluating topicality – just expressing it graphically.

]]> Comment on A Baseline Approach to Topicality by Faber http://www.jasonline.net/debate/?p=94&cpage=1#comment-7 Faber Sat, 25 Apr 2009 20:34:07 +0000 http://www.jasonline.net/debate/?p=94#comment-7 Interesting. But this only uses the number of topical cases as a metric, so it strongly biases topicality toward the limits debate. If limits is your base standard, you're probably not going to win the T debate anyway. Especially when, as your graphic admits, your framework accepts "only our case" as *very* limiting, rather than unlimiting. More compelling if you could graph arguments against 'predictability', although obviously much more difficult. What about when the defensive argument answers one of the standards for why the neg interp is good? EG, neg says 'our interp ensures that the neg gets unique disad links', the defensive argument 'they can read xyz disads' functions rather differently, doesn't it? And personally I'd still prefer to find for the aff on a well-developed reasonability argument. Interesting. But this only uses the number of topical cases as a metric, so it strongly biases topicality toward the limits debate. If limits is your base standard, you’re probably not going to win the T debate anyway. Especially when, as your graphic admits, your framework accepts “only our case” as *very* limiting, rather than unlimiting. More compelling if you could graph arguments against ‘predictability’, although obviously much more difficult.
What about when the defensive argument answers one of the standards for why the neg interp is good? EG, neg says ‘our interp ensures that the neg gets unique disad links’, the defensive argument ‘they can read xyz disads’ functions rather differently, doesn’t it?
And personally I’d still prefer to find for the aff on a well-developed reasonability argument.

]]> Comment on Theory Arguments as Universal Frameworks by Jason Debate » Blog Archive » A Baseline Approach to Topicality http://www.jasonline.net/debate/?p=81&cpage=1#comment-6 Jason Debate » Blog Archive » A Baseline Approach to Topicality Thu, 23 Apr 2009 03:33:30 +0000 http://debate.jasonline.net/?p=81#comment-6 [...] disagree, we can certainly agree that the answer should be no. With this and my previous post about theory arguments as universal frameworks in mind, we can being to conceive of topicality as a one-dimensional metric, with certain defensive [...] [...] disagree, we can certainly agree that the answer should be no. With this and my previous post about theory arguments as universal frameworks in mind, we can being to conceive of topicality as a one-dimensional metric, with certain defensive [...]

]]> Comment on Theory Arguments as Universal Frameworks by Jason Wright http://www.jasonline.net/debate/?p=81&cpage=1#comment-4 Jason Wright Thu, 26 Mar 2009 23:19:09 +0000 http://debate.jasonline.net/?p=81#comment-4 There are some OK arguments both way on the question of political capital disads. Using the universal framework standard that I proposed here, the neg can make at the very least the following argument: "Your logic justifies excluding all disads based on fiat - like spending, tradeoff, etc." This isn't the greatest argument in the world to make. It generally requires beating 3 essential affirmative claims: 1) that the link means plan wouldn't pass without political capital, 2) that means the DA is illegitimate, 3) it isn't possible to fiat around political capital, BUT you can fiat new spending/whatever else is required for the plan to be enacted. I think that if the aff wins all three of those claims it is almost impossible to think of DA which that logic also excludes... So, you are probably better off answering those specific claims. One other practical note is that making the argument "you have to justify your practice in ALL contexts" on the neg means you can't make "politics DAs good" arguments, which are a common & useful response to arguments like this & non-intrinsic perms (see the last paragraph). There are some OK arguments both way on the question of political capital disads. Using the universal framework standard that I proposed here, the neg can make at the very least the following argument:

“Your logic justifies excluding all disads based on fiat – like spending, tradeoff, etc.” This isn’t the greatest argument in the world to make. It generally requires beating 3 essential affirmative claims: 1) that the link means plan wouldn’t pass without political capital, 2) that means the DA is illegitimate, 3) it isn’t possible to fiat around political capital, BUT you can fiat new spending/whatever else is required for the plan to be enacted.

I think that if the aff wins all three of those claims it is almost impossible to think of DA which that logic also excludes… So, you are probably better off answering those specific claims.

One other practical note is that making the argument “you have to justify your practice in ALL contexts” on the neg means you can’t make “politics DAs good” arguments, which are a common & useful response to arguments like this & non-intrinsic perms (see the last paragraph).

]]> Comment on Theory Arguments as Universal Frameworks by Faber http://www.jasonline.net/debate/?p=81&cpage=1#comment-3 Faber Thu, 26 Mar 2009 18:23:23 +0000 http://debate.jasonline.net/?p=81#comment-3 Particularly in light of this post, curious about your thoughts on this discussion http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=990488 ? Particularly in light of this post, curious about your thoughts on this discussion
http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=990488
?

]]> Comment on From Sever Hall, Part 4 by t-boi http://www.jasonline.net/debate/?p=23&cpage=1#comment-2 t-boi Mon, 16 Feb 2009 23:10:56 +0000 http://debate.jasonline.net/?p=23#comment-2 the round between lauderdale and westminister was a 2-1; antonucci sat. the round between lauderdale and westminister was a 2-1; antonucci sat.

]]>