Answering some Q’s

Answers to misc. questions that didn’t really warrant their own individual post:

1 . Link to the Keith Payne article discussed in the last podcast

2. The kind of article you would want on the neg to respond to this

3. Epistemology K of “credibility” links

4. Impact defense is worse than internal link defense because it accomplishes less. If the neg reads a DA the impact of which is “US-China relations solve Taiwan war” if you read “no Taiwan war” they can just read another impact to US-China relations and you have to start all over. If you read “no internal link, relations won’t collapse” that cuts off any relations impact.

5. How would you answer try or die in a debate- I would first emphasize timeframe- “even if X has to happen, it is better if it happens later”. I would also make an argument about why “try or die” style analysis strips causal event chains of complexity to fit them into stupid debate rubrics. The sun will at one point explode, that doesn’t mean that the space exploration advantage makes our bio-terror impact “inevitable”. Though they are discussing the same impact (extinction) everything else about them is different, and those differences are meaningful for policy makers.

6. The direction of a “link” is not necessarily absolute. Withdrawing from Afghanistan may create a place where terrorists could train. Occupation may drive terrorist recruitment. To resolve this one does not have to say “terrorism only occurs if X”, more logically one would decide under what conditions is terrorism more likely. If you are in a debate with these kind of issues, you are more likely to win if you read evidence/make arguments that compare the relative likelihood of a terrorist attack from each possible internal link instead of just arguing you will win terrorism and it is the biggest impact. Examples of this include

A. Resolving the motivation for terrorism is more important- if we reduce resentment that they have a place to train is irrelevant- no one will want to attack us

B. Safe havens outweigh- resentment is inevitable due to numerous US fopo actions, not just occupation in Afghanistan- resentment is linear, they may reduce it but they are insufficient to solve it.

7. If someone drops one of your advantages there is no need to go to that sheet, just extend it elsewhere. Going to another sheet sucks up value 2AC time in transition and adds nothing. As a related point, the 2AC doesn’t need to do impact args on every sheet- saying the case o/w the disad once is enough unless you are reading a card about a specific adv turning/outweighing a specific disad impact. Just saying “hegemony o/w everything” on every sheet is repetitive and useless.

5 thoughts on “Answering some Q’s

  1. Ryan Marcus

    Not sure if i agree with #7 — it seems like a dropped advantage is worth a little time to extend and work with.

    Imagine if you were negative and the affirmative dropped a DA… that's basically what your advantages are: DAs to the SQ/CP. I personally wouldn't let that fly.

    While I'm not a 2A, it makes sense to me to visit the sheet and do a little bit of work. You probably don't need to read any cards, but a two-sentence explanation of the advantage and the implications of that advantage (implications on the round) seems beneficial, especially to refocus the debate on the 1AC.

    Perhaps I misinterpreted the situation. Just my two cents.

    Edit: I do totally agree that one should not make the same impact analysis on every DA. Cross-applying or having DA-specific analysis is the way to go for sure.

    1. Brad Meloche

      His point is that there is no reason to go to the advantage flow specifically. Any extension of that advantage should be done as impact calc on another flow.

  2. Anon

    On answering try or die: Sam Miller of SD made a timeframe argument against it (against a terrible Cap K) in an awesome way. "Yes, everyone will die someday. 2012 is just around the corner, but that doesn't matter because we only need to win that we delay death because life is good and we should act to prolong it."

    Not his exact words, but it was hilarious when he said it.

Comments are closed.