Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

A debate question

Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 1:30:47 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
I've been thinking about this for a couple of months now, and I finally remembered to ask about it. In a debate, lets say that Pro brings up that if X does Y, then it will lead to protecting free trade. Con counters by saying that X should not do Y because it will lead to free trade, and free trade is bad. And then Con lists the reasons for why free trade is bad. Pro then can either argue about free trade, which is a huge debate unto itself, which doesn't leave room for actually debating the resolution. Or Pro can debate the resolution, but just concede that argument. Pro loses out either way, which would make for an interesting strategy for Con as he can just contest that the results of many of the contentions aren't actually good (within using kritiks I guess). But to take it even further, what would you do as a judge? Would you fault Con for it?
lannan13
Posts: 23,111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 3:08:28 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 1:30:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
I've been thinking about this for a couple of months now, and I finally remembered to ask about it. In a debate, lets say that Pro brings up that if X does Y, then it will lead to protecting free trade. Con counters by saying that X should not do Y because it will lead to free trade, and free trade is bad. And then Con lists the reasons for why free trade is bad. Pro then can either argue about free trade, which is a huge debate unto itself, which doesn't leave room for actually debating the resolution. Or Pro can debate the resolution, but just concede that argument. Pro loses out either way, which would make for an interesting strategy for Con as he can just contest that the results of many of the contentions aren't actually good (within using kritiks I guess). But to take it even further, what would you do as a judge? Would you fault Con for it?

You could just attack the impact or use a Turn. It would be a simple and short way to go about it. You could run topicality based on the style of debate. Con would be justified, assuming that Pro is using Free trade as an advantage, by running that Turn in his argument and I surely wouldn't fault him for it via conduct.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-Lannan13'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

If the sky's the limit then why do we have footprints on the Moon? I'm shooting my aspirations for the stars.

"If you are going through hell, keep going." "Sir Winston Churchill

"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." "Eleanor Roosevelt

Topics I want to debate. (http://tinyurl.com...)
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 12:14:58 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 1:30:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
I've been thinking about this for a couple of months now, and I finally remembered to ask about it. In a debate, lets say that Pro brings up that if X does Y, then it will lead to protecting free trade. Con counters by saying that X should not do Y because it will lead to free trade, and free trade is bad. And then Con lists the reasons for why free trade is bad. Pro then can either argue about free trade, which is a huge debate unto itself, which doesn't leave room for actually debating the resolution. Or Pro can debate the resolution, but just concede that argument. Pro loses out either way, which would make for an interesting strategy for Con as he can just contest that the results of many of the contentions aren't actually good (within using kritiks I guess). But to take it even further, what would you do as a judge? Would you fault Con for it?

If R Pro says women should all wear bikinis in public, you politely agree with Pro, because Pro is trying to help you out. Make sense?
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 1:21:56 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 1:30:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
I've been thinking about this for a couple of months now, and I finally remembered to ask about it. In a debate, lets say that Pro brings up that if X does Y, then it will lead to protecting free trade. Con counters by saying that X should not do Y because it will lead to free trade, and free trade is bad. And then Con lists the reasons for why free trade is bad. Pro then can either argue about free trade, which is a huge debate unto itself, which doesn't leave room for actually debating the resolution. Or Pro can debate the resolution, but just concede that argument. Pro loses out either way, which would make for an interesting strategy for Con as he can just contest that the results of many of the contentions aren't actually good (within using kritiks I guess). But to take it even further, what would you do as a judge? Would you fault Con for it?

It's a valid debate tactic, and one I as a judge would applaud. In real world conversations, we make a tremendous number of assumptions regarding what is "good" and what is "bad." It's the reason we can often say that protecting freedom/democracy/equality is always for the best, so let's simply discuss ways in which we could defend those things best. Debate is meant to provide opportunities to test those assumptions. If they underpin a topic, say a topic about defending free trade, then it's definitely within the prerogative of the debaters to argue over those assumptions. If Pro simply assumes that free trade is good, then Con is absolutely welcome to challenge that assumption. Every assumption should be supported, particularly when they're integral to understanding the impact of your case. If free trade is good, as Pro would like us to assume, then we should know why, and have detailed reasons spelled out for us. If they chose not to do so, Con can and probably should capitalize on that.
tejretics
Posts: 6,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 1:33:35 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 1:21:56 PM, whiteflame wrote:
It's a valid debate tactic, and one I as a judge would applaud. In real world conversations, we make a tremendous number of assumptions regarding what is "good" and what is "bad." It's the reason we can often say that protecting freedom/democracy/equality is always for the best, so let's simply discuss ways in which we could defend those things best. Debate is meant to provide opportunities to test those assumptions. If they underpin a topic, say a topic about defending free trade, then it's definitely within the prerogative of the debaters to argue over those assumptions. If Pro simply assumes that free trade is good, then Con is absolutely welcome to challenge that assumption. Every assumption should be supported, particularly when they're integral to understanding the impact of your case. If free trade is good, as Pro would like us to assume, then we should know why, and have detailed reasons spelled out for us. If they chose not to do so, Con can and probably should capitalize on that.

I don't think that's Hayd's question - I think his question was if one debater were to argue free trade as an advantage to affirming, and the other argued free trade as a disadvantage to Pro's advocacy. Should they continue pressing on that issue or kick the argument and shift the focus? IMO that should be decided on a case-by-case basis depending on the magnitude -- I mean, all arguments should be *rebutted* but the offensive bit can be kicked if needed, to conserve character space for bigger impacts or anything.
"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 1:43:06 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 1:33:35 PM, tejretics wrote:
At 8/1/2016 1:21:56 PM, whiteflame wrote:
It's a valid debate tactic, and one I as a judge would applaud. In real world conversations, we make a tremendous number of assumptions regarding what is "good" and what is "bad." It's the reason we can often say that protecting freedom/democracy/equality is always for the best, so let's simply discuss ways in which we could defend those things best. Debate is meant to provide opportunities to test those assumptions. If they underpin a topic, say a topic about defending free trade, then it's definitely within the prerogative of the debaters to argue over those assumptions. If Pro simply assumes that free trade is good, then Con is absolutely welcome to challenge that assumption. Every assumption should be supported, particularly when they're integral to understanding the impact of your case. If free trade is good, as Pro would like us to assume, then we should know why, and have detailed reasons spelled out for us. If they chose not to do so, Con can and probably should capitalize on that.

I don't think that's Hayd's question - I think his question was if one debater were to argue free trade as an advantage to affirming, and the other argued free trade as a disadvantage to Pro's advocacy. Should they continue pressing on that issue or kick the argument and shift the focus? IMO that should be decided on a case-by-case basis depending on the magnitude -- I mean, all arguments should be *rebutted* but the offensive bit can be kicked if needed, to conserve character space for bigger impacts or anything.

Well, at least partially, he was asking the question of how a voter would/should perceive it. That was what I was responding to with this post.

With regards to this question, the debater doesn't need to entirely drop what they were doing before and shift focus. If their opponent chose not to respond to their arguments regarding free trade, then they likely have some reasons in there supporting free trade as an outcome, or at the very least showing that boosting free trade is a likely outcome of their case. That can be valuable in the remainder of the debate. The debater should, however, shift focus and make the case for why the turn on free trade is inaccurate, or turn it back. I agree that it's dependent on magnitude, but I believe we're talking about high magnitude points here, i.e. something integral to the success of your case. Not all turns require responses, to be sure.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 3:52:37 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 1:21:56 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 8/1/2016 1:30:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
I've been thinking about this for a couple of months now, and I finally remembered to ask about it. In a debate, lets say that Pro brings up that if X does Y, then it will lead to protecting free trade. Con counters by saying that X should not do Y because it will lead to free trade, and free trade is bad. And then Con lists the reasons for why free trade is bad. Pro then can either argue about free trade, which is a huge debate unto itself, which doesn't leave room for actually debating the resolution. Or Pro can debate the resolution, but just concede that argument. Pro loses out either way, which would make for an interesting strategy for Con as he can just contest that the results of many of the contentions aren't actually good (within using kritiks I guess). But to take it even further, what would you do as a judge? Would you fault Con for it?

It's a valid debate tactic, and one I as a judge would applaud. In real world conversations, we make a tremendous number of assumptions regarding what is "good" and what is "bad." It's the reason we can often say that protecting freedom/democracy/equality is always for the best, so let's simply discuss ways in which we could defend those things best. Debate is meant to provide opportunities to test those assumptions. If they underpin a topic, say a topic about defending free trade, then it's definitely within the prerogative of the debaters to argue over those assumptions. If Pro simply assumes that free trade is good, then Con is absolutely welcome to challenge that assumption. Every assumption should be supported, particularly when they're integral to understanding the impact of your case. If free trade is good, as Pro would like us to assume, then we should know why, and have detailed reasons spelled out for us. If they chose not to do so, Con can and probably should capitalize on that.

But then since free trade is a debate unto itself, the debaters would argue about free trade instead of the resolution.
imabench
Posts: 21,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 4:21:39 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 1:30:47 AM, Hayd wrote:

In a debate, lets say that Pro brings up that if X does Y, then it will lead to protecting free trade. Con counters by saying that X should not do Y because it will lead to free trade, and free trade is bad. And then Con lists the reasons for why free trade is bad. Pro then can either argue about free trade, which is a huge debate unto itself, which doesn't leave room for actually debating the resolution. Or Pro can debate the resolution, but just concede that argument. Pro loses out either way, which would make for an interesting strategy for Con as he can just contest that the results of many of the contentions aren't actually good (within using kritiks I guess). But to take it even further, what would you do as a judge? Would you fault Con for it?

It depends entirely on what the resolution of the debate is.

Con concedes that Y leads to free trade. If he then tries to steer the debate to be one about free trade rather than the resolution, then whatever he argued can be labeled as 'off topic' and can be dismissed as such IF pro points out that it doesnt relate to the resolution. If Pro partakes in the debate though and goes off topic, then the debate is a shitshow and youre better off not voting on it
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2016 8:20:45 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 3:52:37 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/1/2016 1:21:56 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 8/1/2016 1:30:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
I've been thinking about this for a couple of months now, and I finally remembered to ask about it. In a debate, lets say that Pro brings up that if X does Y, then it will lead to protecting free trade. Con counters by saying that X should not do Y because it will lead to free trade, and free trade is bad. And then Con lists the reasons for why free trade is bad. Pro then can either argue about free trade, which is a huge debate unto itself, which doesn't leave room for actually debating the resolution. Or Pro can debate the resolution, but just concede that argument. Pro loses out either way, which would make for an interesting strategy for Con as he can just contest that the results of many of the contentions aren't actually good (within using kritiks I guess). But to take it even further, what would you do as a judge? Would you fault Con for it?

It's a valid debate tactic, and one I as a judge would applaud. In real world conversations, we make a tremendous number of assumptions regarding what is "good" and what is "bad." It's the reason we can often say that protecting freedom/democracy/equality is always for the best, so let's simply discuss ways in which we could defend those things best. Debate is meant to provide opportunities to test those assumptions. If they underpin a topic, say a topic about defending free trade, then it's definitely within the prerogative of the debaters to argue over those assumptions. If Pro simply assumes that free trade is good, then Con is absolutely welcome to challenge that assumption. Every assumption should be supported, particularly when they're integral to understanding the impact of your case. If free trade is good, as Pro would like us to assume, then we should know why, and have detailed reasons spelled out for us. If they chose not to do so, Con can and probably should capitalize on that.

But then since free trade is a debate unto itself, the debaters would argue about free trade instead of the resolution.

Well, admittedly, I don't know the topic that this would center on, but if the chief impact that one side is going for is based solely on free trade being beneficial, then that's the debate they were pushing for from the outset. It sounds like the rest of the debate is "how can we best achieve more free trade," at least from what I'm reading, and that just begs the question of why free trade. You could potentially predicate the debate on the assumption that free trade is good, but that would have to be explicitly stated in R1.
YYW
Posts: 36,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 4:05:05 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 1:30:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
I've been thinking about this for a couple of months now, and I finally remembered to ask about it. In a debate, lets say that Pro brings up that if X does Y, then it will lead to protecting free trade. Con counters by saying that X should not do Y because it will lead to free trade, and free trade is bad. And then Con lists the reasons for why free trade is bad.

It depends.

Assuming that the resolution is NOT about free trade, then any argument CON makes with respect to free trade will have no impact on the overall advancement of their burden beyond the extent to which negating free trade advances CON's BOP.

So, CON can go town tangential paths of argumentation, but tangential paths of argumentation, by definition, do not advance your burden of proof because it's outside the scope of the resolution.

The problem is that there are very stupid people and judges who think that it's totally ok for CON to move the goal post from the resolution--which was not about free trade--to something beyond the scope of the resolution--e.g. free trade--and then talk about free trade only.

Except reasonable people and competent judges do not reward that behavior.

You have heard some perspective in this thread from people like whiteflame, who does not intellectually have difficulty with the concept of "within the scope of the resolution" and other people who do. They are wrong, to the extent that they disagree with what has been explained here.

Pro then can either argue about free trade, which is a huge debate unto itself, which doesn't leave room for actually debating the resolution.

This is a tactic that bad debaters do. Is it a legitimate tactic? idk... I think it looks dumb, because it is dumb, but there are dumb judges who can be misled into being made to chase a moving target. You will know them by how they write their RFD's... circuitously and poorly due to a lack of coherency or structure, or correctly.

Or Pro can debate the resolution, but just concede that argument. Pro loses out either way, which would make for an interesting strategy for Con as he can just contest that the results of many of the contentions aren't actually good (within using kritiks I guess). But to take it even further, what would you do as a judge? Would you fault Con for it?

Pro does not lose to points that are beyond the scope of the resolution, unless the judge is just totally inept. The judge's job is to evaluate the strength of arguments with respect to their comparative strength in advocating for a side of a given resolution... not moving blindly through darkness chasing shadows in fog.

This is why kritiks are dumb and most of the people who use them are also dumb.

But really, a K is just a totally different way of thinking, that is overtly hostile to western logical writing. It's the spin-off of intellectual frauds (e.g. Derrida) and intellectually fraudulent methods (e.g. deconstruction) which more closely resemble arm-chair psychoanalysis than actual persuasion.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 4:06:29 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 8:20:45 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 8/1/2016 3:52:37 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 8/1/2016 1:21:56 PM, whiteflame wrote:
At 8/1/2016 1:30:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
I've been thinking about this for a couple of months now, and I finally remembered to ask about it. In a debate, lets say that Pro brings up that if X does Y, then it will lead to protecting free trade. Con counters by saying that X should not do Y because it will lead to free trade, and free trade is bad. And then Con lists the reasons for why free trade is bad. Pro then can either argue about free trade, which is a huge debate unto itself, which doesn't leave room for actually debating the resolution. Or Pro can debate the resolution, but just concede that argument. Pro loses out either way, which would make for an interesting strategy for Con as he can just contest that the results of many of the contentions aren't actually good (within using kritiks I guess). But to take it even further, what would you do as a judge? Would you fault Con for it?

It's a valid debate tactic, and one I as a judge would applaud. In real world conversations, we make a tremendous number of assumptions regarding what is "good" and what is "bad." It's the reason we can often say that protecting freedom/democracy/equality is always for the best, so let's simply discuss ways in which we could defend those things best. Debate is meant to provide opportunities to test those assumptions. If they underpin a topic, say a topic about defending free trade, then it's definitely within the prerogative of the debaters to argue over those assumptions. If Pro simply assumes that free trade is good, then Con is absolutely welcome to challenge that assumption. Every assumption should be supported, particularly when they're integral to understanding the impact of your case. If free trade is good, as Pro would like us to assume, then we should know why, and have detailed reasons spelled out for us. If they chose not to do so, Con can and probably should capitalize on that.

But then since free trade is a debate unto itself, the debaters would argue about free trade instead of the resolution.

Well, admittedly, I don't know the topic that this would center on, but if the chief impact that one side is going for is based solely on free trade being beneficial, then that's the debate they were pushing for from the outset. It sounds like the rest of the debate is "how can we best achieve more free trade," at least from what I'm reading, and that just begs the question of why free trade. You could potentially predicate the debate on the assumption that free trade is good, but that would have to be explicitly stated in R1.

rofl wtf?

That doesn't even touch the question he was asking.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 4:08:23 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/1/2016 1:31:19 AM, Hayd wrote:
this doesn't apply to any debate in particular, I've been thinking about it for a long time now intermittently

It's a fair question, and btw. it's not about "faulting" CON so much as not rewarding it.

The goal when you are debating is to advance a side of an argument, and the only thing that does that is arguing that point. You can relate other things to that point (and should) but if you just totally go down a rabbit hole, that doesn't help you.

Leading your opponent down a rabbit hole doesn't help you either.
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 5:07:43 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 4:05:05 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/1/2016 1:30:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
I've been thinking about this for a couple of months now, and I finally remembered to ask about it. In a debate, lets say that Pro brings up that if X does Y, then it will lead to protecting free trade. Con counters by saying that X should not do Y because it will lead to free trade, and free trade is bad. And then Con lists the reasons for why free trade is bad.

It depends.

Assuming that the resolution is NOT about free trade, then any argument CON makes with respect to free trade will have no impact on the overall advancement of their burden beyond the extent to which negating free trade advances CON's BOP.

I think this is often the case, but not always the case. Consider using a free trade disad under a util framework being used to outweigh Pro offense (Con's world is has more utils than Pro's). So, the topic needn't been on free trade for free trade to make a weighable impact.

@Hayd, I think that has direct relevance to what you're saying. Creating multiple disad as a time/space sink for your opponent is about the same as spreading in the impact it can have. Your opponent can only cover so much, so they drop or undercover your points. This can be an effective strategy, but it depends on the topic and the framework in question.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 5:13:55 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 5:07:43 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 4:05:05 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/1/2016 1:30:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
I've been thinking about this for a couple of months now, and I finally remembered to ask about it. In a debate, lets say that Pro brings up that if X does Y, then it will lead to protecting free trade. Con counters by saying that X should not do Y because it will lead to free trade, and free trade is bad. And then Con lists the reasons for why free trade is bad.

It depends.

Assuming that the resolution is NOT about free trade, then any argument CON makes with respect to free trade will have no impact on the overall advancement of their burden beyond the extent to which negating free trade advances CON's BOP.

I think this is often the case, but not always the case. Consider using a free trade disad under a util framework being used to outweigh Pro offense (Con's world is has more utils than Pro's). So, the topic needn't been on free trade for free trade to make a weighable impact.

I will refer you to what I said above.

@Hayd, I think that has direct relevance to what you're saying. Creating multiple disad as a time/space sink for your opponent is about the same as spreading in the impact it can have. Your opponent can only cover so much, so they drop or undercover your points. This can be an effective strategy, but it depends on the topic and the framework in question.
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 5:16:25 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 5:13:55 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/2/2016 5:07:43 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 4:05:05 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/1/2016 1:30:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
I've been thinking about this for a couple of months now, and I finally remembered to ask about it. In a debate, lets say that Pro brings up that if X does Y, then it will lead to protecting free trade. Con counters by saying that X should not do Y because it will lead to free trade, and free trade is bad. And then Con lists the reasons for why free trade is bad.

It depends.

Assuming that the resolution is NOT about free trade, then any argument CON makes with respect to free trade will have no impact on the overall advancement of their burden beyond the extent to which negating free trade advances CON's BOP.

I think this is often the case, but not always the case. Consider using a free trade disad under a util framework being used to outweigh Pro offense (Con's world is has more utils than Pro's). So, the topic needn't been on free trade for free trade to make a weighable impact.

I will refer you to what I said above.

I'll just take that as an "agree to disagree." Cool beans.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 5:19:30 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 5:16:25 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 5:13:55 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/2/2016 5:07:43 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 4:05:05 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/1/2016 1:30:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
I've been thinking about this for a couple of months now, and I finally remembered to ask about it. In a debate, lets say that Pro brings up that if X does Y, then it will lead to protecting free trade. Con counters by saying that X should not do Y because it will lead to free trade, and free trade is bad. And then Con lists the reasons for why free trade is bad.

It depends.

Assuming that the resolution is NOT about free trade, then any argument CON makes with respect to free trade will have no impact on the overall advancement of their burden beyond the extent to which negating free trade advances CON's BOP.

I think this is often the case, but not always the case. Consider using a free trade disad under a util framework being used to outweigh Pro offense (Con's world is has more utils than Pro's). So, the topic needn't been on free trade for free trade to make a weighable impact.

I will refer you to what I said above.

I'll just take that as an "agree to disagree." Cool beans.

It's not an "agree to disagree" because what you said is consistent with what I said, you just said it in a different way.

If a debater relates a harm to the resolution, then it's topical, but if you just go down a tangential rabbit hole, that's outside the scope and it doesn't advance the burden.

Something is outside the scope until it's related to the resolution by the debater.

What Whiteflame was saying, which is why he is entirely wrong, is that it's permissible to shift the scope of advocacy beyond the resolution. That is incorrect, and really inane.

With what you said, there wasn't a missing link. You're just talking about linking a harm to a premise.
Tsar of DDO
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 5:25:14 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 5:19:30 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/2/2016 5:16:25 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 5:13:55 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/2/2016 5:07:43 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 4:05:05 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/1/2016 1:30:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
I've been thinking about this for a couple of months now, and I finally remembered to ask about it. In a debate, lets say that Pro brings up that if X does Y, then it will lead to protecting free trade. Con counters by saying that X should not do Y because it will lead to free trade, and free trade is bad. And then Con lists the reasons for why free trade is bad.

It depends.

Assuming that the resolution is NOT about free trade, then any argument CON makes with respect to free trade will have no impact on the overall advancement of their burden beyond the extent to which negating free trade advances CON's BOP.

I think this is often the case, but not always the case. Consider using a free trade disad under a util framework being used to outweigh Pro offense (Con's world is has more utils than Pro's). So, the topic needn't been on free trade for free trade to make a weighable impact.

I will refer you to what I said above.

I'll just take that as an "agree to disagree." Cool beans.

It's not an "agree to disagree" because what you said is consistent with what I said, you just said it in a different way.

Fair enough. Then either I misread, or it wasn't clear. It sounded like you were saying that discussion of impacts (free trade) in a debate not about those impacts (a debate not in free trade) were always irrelevant to a debater's BOP. Obviously, that wasn't the

What Whiteflame was saying

This wasn't really about whiteflame, as far as I was concerned...only about the comment to which I replied. That issue (my reply) is now settled. I am sure whiteflame can speak for himself.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 5:30:54 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 5:25:14 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 5:19:30 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/2/2016 5:16:25 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 5:13:55 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/2/2016 5:07:43 AM, bsh1 wrote:
At 8/2/2016 4:05:05 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/1/2016 1:30:47 AM, Hayd wrote:
I've been thinking about this for a couple of months now, and I finally remembered to ask about it. In a debate, lets say that Pro brings up that if X does Y, then it will lead to protecting free trade. Con counters by saying that X should not do Y because it will lead to free trade, and free trade is bad. And then Con lists the reasons for why free trade is bad.

It depends.

Assuming that the resolution is NOT about free trade, then any argument CON makes with respect to free trade will have no impact on the overall advancement of their burden beyond the extent to which negating free trade advances CON's BOP.

I think this is often the case, but not always the case. Consider using a free trade disad under a util framework being used to outweigh Pro offense (Con's world is has more utils than Pro's). So, the topic needn't been on free trade for free trade to make a weighable impact.

I will refer you to what I said above.

I'll just take that as an "agree to disagree." Cool beans.

It's not an "agree to disagree" because what you said is consistent with what I said, you just said it in a different way.

Fair enough. Then either I misread, or it wasn't clear. It sounded like you were saying that discussion of impacts (free trade) in a debate not about those impacts (a debate not in free trade) were always irrelevant to a debater's BOP. Obviously, that wasn't the

What Whiteflame was saying

This wasn't really about whiteflame, as far as I was concerned...only about the comment to which I replied. That issue (my reply) is now settled. I am sure whiteflame can speak for himself.

I will refer you to what I said above.
Tsar of DDO
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/2/2016 1:57:05 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
I'm not going to respond directly to YYW in this forum, so I'll leave it up to Hayd to determine whether or not I'm addressing the point he's making. I may not be, and if so, I apologize for not understanding it completely. Perhaps if we could put this in the context of a resolution, it would make things a little clearer for me.
YYW
Posts: 36,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 12:52:54 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 8/2/2016 1:57:05 PM, whiteflame wrote:
I'm not going to respond directly to YYW in this forum, so I'll leave it up to Hayd to determine whether or not I'm addressing the point he's making. I may not be, and if so, I apologize for not understanding it completely. Perhaps if we could put this in the context of a resolution, it would make things a little clearer for me.

Well of course you're not going to respond because you not only are wrong but what you said fails to stand up to scrutiny in any respect.

You not only failed to answer his question in the first instance, you thereafter furnished an incorrect one.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/3/2016 12:56:42 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
This is the bottom line:

You have to relate what you say to the resolution in order for it to advance your case. If you do not relate what you say to the resolution, then you are making a non-topical argument. Non-topical arguments, or, said another way, arguments that are beyond the scope of the resolution have no bearing on the debate.

There is a school of thought that no matter what the resolution is, it is totally ok for a debater to lead another debater down an endless rabbit hole. That is an abusive and incorrect method of argumentation. Why? Because the debaters only debate the resolution in a debate, and nothing more.

Can a debater relate extraneous ideas to the resolution? Sure. That's fine, and to the extent that you do, then you're advancing your BOP. But if you don't do that, then you're just moving the goal post, which is by definition an impermissible method of advocacy.

This is not even up for debate. It's just a fact.
Tsar of DDO