3NR Podcast Prep

The second 3NR podcast is going to be recorded tonight with Bill joining us on this one.

If you have any questions you want answered, something discussed etc please post them in a comment below or e-mail them to me at Roy@the3nr.com .   Hopefully you all enjoy podcast 2.

3nrpodcast2-300x272

8 thoughts on “3NR Podcast Prep

  1. David Mullins

    The season is progressing to the point where it is becoming more and more likely people will break new affirmatives. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on how to prepare for and predict these affirmatives.

  2. Whit Whitmore

    “T – ‘persons in poverty’ = poverty line” is obviously massively overlimiting and bad for debate. The “T – ‘persons in poverty’ = means tested” violation that Nooch wrote seems like a fair compromise. It would allow any AFFs that use social services which currently base eligibility off some percentage of the federal poverty line. Limiting it to current programs would prevent teams from fiating in means testing or doing some conversional table math to say their eligibility requirements are ‘just like’ means testing at some random percentage. Dheidt says this interpretation is arbritrary. Discuss amongst yourselves.

  3. Stefan

    It’s arbitrary, and better than “poverty line.”

    National circuit T debating is getting sort of ridiculous — it’s just a race to find the most limiting interpretations of the topic that fail to comport in almost any way with the literature base that support the resolution. Quite simply, social service aren’t (mostly) meant/designed for persons living below the federal poverty line.

    While the affirmative gets boxed into an almost unwinnable corner, the gloves have come of the negative with ridiculous interpretations of “negation theory” and “neg flex.”

    The strategic options available to the negative far exceed the number of strategic options available to the affirmative, producing a massive imbalance and teams that are terrified to go Affirmative in elims.

  4. Ellis

    I think the “means test off some percent” argument makes a lot of sense. It gives the neg most of the benefits of affs that use the poverty line (i.e. any links based on the poverty line), but keeps the aff from being pigeon-holed into those 6 (?) programs. I don’t really understand why DHeidt thinks it’s arbitrary–granted, I guess you aren’t legally considered to be “living in poverty” if you make 135% of the income level, but at the point where nearly all “social services for persons living in poverty” use a higher multiple, the multiples interpretation sides more with actual programs discussed in the literature. I guess one possible explanation is that the interpretation is arbitrary to the extent that someone could say for persons at 100000% of the poverty line but I don’t think the lit base ever supports that idea.

  5. Richard

    Ellis – Stefan – Whit,

    What about the full employment aff or the “change the poverty line” aff – these affs actually have literature based on using no percentage at all, and there’s nothing to prevent affs from reading this.

    Setting a community precedent to prevent these T violations from being read just makes being neg suck even more. Seriously, affs aren’t afraid and won’t be if they know the judging community feels that the neg can go suck it.

  6. Whit Whitmore

    @Richard – I was arguing for the ‘means testing’ violation as a fair limit on what AFFs can do. I think it is a fair limit on the topic. It would exclude the affs that you mentioned.

    @David – It’s a bigger issue than ‘disad links.’ I’d like to have case negatives, advantage frontlines, and specific counterplans. Also, it’s functionally impossible to win a round against a GOOD team reading generic disad links. So, to the extent that I would like to cut specific politics links to the AFF, yes it matters if they are topical or not. …and ‘we won’t link out of your DAs’ is a red herring anyway. It’s usually shenanigan code for “we’re abusing you in some other massive way so take this minor concession which probably benefits us strategically” (e.g. – Critical AFFs that just want to read impact Ks every round).

  7. Scott Phillips

    I could be wrong- first time for everything- but I think Mullins’ point is that if the aff applies to more people the link will be easier since the plan’s scope is larger- i.e. do X program for 10 people unlikely to link better than do it for 1 million people. This isn’t an issue of specific or generic link- its about the link magnitude. Now whit’s point about case specific strategies is obviously the best argument for a limited topic, but its empirical validity is suspect at best, particularly in high school.

    I agree with Stefan about T/neg flex, I think if an aff read a big heart of the topic case like immigration or health care for example, the threshold I would have for voting against the neg on theory would be much lower than if the aff was something smaller and less predictable.

Comments are closed.