Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
Jump to topic:

RFD For Taxing Churches Debate

Zaradi
Posts: 14,124
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 12:55:37 AM
Posted: 5 days ago
RFD for this debate: http://www.debate.org...

-------------------------------------------

I end up negating off of a risk of offense in increasing beneficial mental states. Realistically, I don't really want to vote for either side. I think the best way to go about this RFD is to say what both sides need to do better, then explain my vote.

-----------

Hayd:

First, I don't think you understand what a plan actually looks like. More specifically, I think you're confusing a plan with an advocacy. The difference is that one offers methodology and solvency to the resolutional action being taken, and one doesn't. If you want to argue a plan, you need to specifically state exactly what you're looking to implement, what that looks like, and how it fixes the problems that you're saying exist within the status quo. Look to the counter-plan I'm running against you in our debate for what it should look like in general terms - have a specific advocacy statement as to the policy action you want to take, then how it works and why it works.

This does two things for your arguments; a) it links your advocacy to a specific nuance, which lets you spec out of generic negative arguments that don't address your specific advocacy. Despite what you may be thinking, this ISN'T what you're doing; b) it allows negative to tailor arguments to your specificity, which apply to the specific policy action that you're looking to implement. This means that, in this sense, it becomes harder to de-link from arguments that are specific to your advocacy.

Those two reasons are why you're "plan" isn't actually a plan. I as the judge have no f*cking clue what exactly you're advocating for other than that taxes are going up, which is literally the res. But the moment you start specifying where stuff is going and narrowing down your advocacy, you're not defending whole res anymore. Especially as you keep narrowing and narrowing your advocacy further and further down as the debate goes on, the aff side of the flow is a literal example of the Shifting the Goalposts fallacy. This makes my job to try to tally the amount of offense in the round really f*cking difficult because I have no idea how you're actually leveraging any kind of offense. For this debate, though, you get really f*cking lucky in that you both agree to a framework to evaluate arguments under, which lets me look to non-policy spec arguments (despite how close to spec that you're trying to make them).

Second: You need to understand the difference between offensive impacts and defensive impacts, because virtually all of the arguments you end up going for are defensive, which is really hard for me to vote off of. Look at your taxes going to charity argument. Say that I buy the argument and that you're winning in that area of the debate. What does that tell me? Governments can donate money to charities too? Neither of you are doing any real weighing on the impacts of churches donating to charities versus governments donating the charities, which method is more effective, or even why I should prefer one over the other. The fight literally just comes down to "Hey we can use these taxes for charity sh*t which means that churches aren't the only thing that can do this." You're making a nonunique argument against the NC. Which is a viable argument to go for, don't get me wrong. But it's not an argument that you can win off of. There's a massive difference between saying "You should vote aff" and "You shouldn't vote neg". Making nonunique arguments say the latter - he's trying to say that churches donating to charities is a good thing and taxing them would stop this, while you're saying that governments can donate the taxes to charities so I shouldn't vote for thett on this basis.

The one offensive argument I potentially could've given you was your "Tax exemption law suits hurt national econ" argument, but by the end of the debate a) you're articulating in a way that's super defensive, and b) you just don't go for it in the end and go for the whole charity donations argument. Hard to vote off of an arg you don't go for in the last round.

-----------

Thett:

Thett. Please. For the love of all that is holy and spray-painted golden orange like Trump's spray tan. Just put the f*cking warrant into the argument. We both know that it doesn't matter if you're technically right, or what you're saying is reasonably true, or if what you're saying is "common knowledge". Technically and mechanically, if you don't have a warrant to an argument and he says there's no warrant, he's technically right. You're right in that it's reasonable that if churches in the squo aren't planning on having to pay taxes, then we suddenly make them pay taxes that it's going to f*ck with their plans and make things a little sketchy. Just give me something that I can point to and say "I vote off of that piece of evidence". Infinitely easier for me to justify.

-----------

Honestly idk why I put this much effort into the RFD xD but anyway. How I end up voting is that I'm looking towards what is going to, and to quote the 1AC, "maximize their desirable states (read: pleasure) and minimize their undesirable states (read: suffering.)". So I'm looking for what has the most desirable end benefit.

Most of the debate ends up being about charity donations and who does more of them and what happens to churches post fiat and legit these areas of the debate become one giant cluster-f*ck. Neither side does a good job of weighing against the standard nor providing me with much in the way of actual offense to evaluate. The only real offense that seems to link back to the standard that has been cleanly extended the entire debate is the arguments of increased happiness and decrease likelihood for things like depression and suicide for people. I'm receiving enough ink to believe that there's a good chance at taxing churches is going to make at least some of the churches shut down, and he's making the argument that this is really bad for those impacts. Since there's really not anything else in the way of offense that makes me want to pull the trigger, I vote there.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2016 1:25:35 AM
Posted: 5 days ago
At 11/29/2016 12:55:37 AM, Zaradi wrote:

Thett:

Thett. Please. For the love of all that is holy and spray-painted golden orange like Trump's spray tan. Just put the f*cking warrant into the argument. We both know that it doesn't matter if you're technically right, or what you're saying is reasonably true, or if what you're saying is "common knowledge". Technically and mechanically, if you don't have a warrant to an argument and he says there's no warrant, he's technically right. You're right in that it's reasonable that if churches in the squo aren't planning on having to pay taxes, then we suddenly make them pay taxes that it's going to f*ck with their plans and make things a little sketchy. Just give me something that I can point to and say "I vote off of that piece of evidence". Infinitely easier for me to justify.

Thanks for the RFD. My laziness has always been my debate achilles heel...when I don't want to make an argument (or in this case, a warrant) I usually just...don't. Even when it's completely necessary. I should've found some evidence about the impact of big financial changes on religious organizations which I'm sure exists somewhere.

This was actually a big concern of mine. I felt at the beginning that I had an ironclad case about why religion was good (the topic I really wanted to debate) and was taken aback when he conceded that point entirely. It was a solid tactical move that I didn't expect. I expected him to concede the warrant and dispute the impact, but instead he conceded the impact and went after the warrant and I realllyyyyyyyyy did not want to spend hours researching in order to prove what I was trying to say. Even though, yea, I should have

Basically I think your criticism is totally on point


-----------

Honestly idk why I put this much effort into the RFD xD but anyway. How I end up voting is that I'm looking towards what is going to, and to quote the 1AC, "maximize their desirable states (read: pleasure) and minimize their undesirable states (read: suffering.)". So I'm looking for what has the most desirable end benefit.

Most of the debate ends up being about charity donations and who does more of them and what happens to churches post fiat and legit these areas of the debate become one giant cluster-f*ck. Neither side does a good job of weighing against the standard nor providing me with much in the way of actual offense to evaluate. The only real offense that seems to link back to the standard that has been cleanly extended the entire debate is the arguments of increased happiness and decrease likelihood for things like depression and suicide for people. I'm receiving enough ink to believe that there's a good chance at taxing churches is going to make at least some of the churches shut down, and he's making the argument that this is really bad for those impacts. Since there's really not anything else in the way of offense that makes me want to pull the trigger, I vote there.

I agree that the debate was a clusterf*ck, especially the last round. Probably not the best debate on the site, lol
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right