Did truth testing die?

I havent really read this thread but there is absolutely no reason why LD shouldnt transition to an offense/defense type model of debate. The cx community understood the flaws of hypotesting years ago. In LD these problems are manifested in the form of an extraordinary neg bias. The same thing happened in policy, I cant even imagine how devastating the block would have been for a 1ar if the judge was a hypotester.

Sure policy has random spec arguments, which some might consider blippy. However, most judges have a very high threshold for winning those arguments. Much higher than LD judges have for a prioris; I know this because I have ran many aprioris in LD and I have also ran 'T/substantially' and 'T/you cant read a plan in CX'. In addition procedural arguments help maintain a balance that exists in the form of strategic tradeoffs between the aff and neg. In a world where we assume offense/defense, the aff already has an advantage because there is always a risk they will make the status quo better. To check this back the neg has the block and competing interps which flips presumption in theory toward the negative absent the aff having some kind of offense on the T flow. Moreover, winning those kinds of arguments should require an increidble amount of analysis in the 2NR, surely more than the 10 seconds it takes to extend and impact an apriori.

For anyone out there who says that Offense/Defense excludes particular forms of discourse, you have clearly not taken a close enough look at policy debate. It is sooo much more laid back than LD. On balance, Judges are more open to crazy arguments. Just because the community accepts a certain paradymic model of debate, does not mean that model cant be challenged or that the 'truth' of the affs assumptions cant also be challenged. Its called framework Yo. Its called the K.

Its really not a question about whether or not offense/defense is better than hypotesting. Its a question of 'how can the transition take place in LD?' I have a couple ideas:
1. Get rid of the value/criterion- it is an arbitrary weighing mechanism based on analytic analysis that no one cares about. If anything really limits discourse is a blippy criterion spike that somehow excludes someone from the ability to make any argument.
2. We NEED a comprehensive model of debate. The problem with comparison in LD is that most judges dont understand how that comparison many debates become completely arbitrary. The community needs to create something similar to policy and camps, especially, need to teach debaters according to this alternative model.
3. Changing the way resolutions are written. As a community it is imperative that we sit down and decide if, fundamentally, our purpose is to be policy makers. If we decide, 'yes', then we need to frame resolutions in terms of policy options, where the aff defends a fiated change from the status quo and the neg defends an alternative world or the world of the squo.

Benefits of doing this:
1. Theory debates would no longer be a retarded mess of people shouting things about fairness and education. The reason why hypotesters hate theory in LD is because there isnt an objective way of evaluating it. There arent any community norms that currently exist about theory in LD, and therefore it is completely arbitrary. Think about how many times youve lost on a terrible theory argument that didnt make any sense; We could fix so much frustration if we changed this.
2. Neg Bias- If Two relatively good lders have a debate, often times that debate is decided by who went neg. If we want that problem to forever disappear we have change the model to favor the aff. And it makes sense to do it that way, otherwise non-unique disadvantages instantly become game over issues, something we often see in LD.
3. Education- Debates are no longer about who is better at pointing out flaws. It is about who comes up with the BEST policy. This will only increase the proliferation of quality evidence, arguments, and analysis. When debaters are forced to put more work and thought into their arguments, people become better critical thinkers. That is all.

you know i was going to come back with a response to jake but there is no way i am reading the rest of this thread.

Only six pages, P.Rai...

I want this thread to never die. 20 pages, anyone?

Having now fully understood what these two paradigms entail, I'm gonna go ahead and put in my input.

I agree generally that truth testing is stupid. I don't think the topic makers at the NFL make a topic in a way so it is factually false in its base nature. To me, the point of the resolution is to debate the implications of upholding it or not, rather than simply arguing over whether the resolution is true in its writing. And, as bakeryjake noted, there's no real impacts to truth testing arguments. Furthermore, education is better upheld when arguments have legitimate impacts; instead of coming out of a round and saying, "Wow, I learned that something was false today," one should come out of a round saying, "The tenants of adopting X resolution are Y and Z, and as such adopting X resolution would be harmful to society." The former of the two is kind of a "yeah, who cares?" situation; there are legit real world implications in the latter situation.

HOWEVER, this Comparative Worlds paradigm (or O/D, as it has been referred to), at least in the way it has been presented in this particular thread, is something I have a few problems with.

bakeryjake wrote: I agree wholeheartedly. Get rid of V/C. Every case run without a V/C facilitates the growth of O/D.

This is really my only issue here. This idea that a value and a criterion cannot take part in a comparative worlds model is absurd. I think the value (I can live without a criterion personally, however useful they are) is simply a lens through which one regards the resolution. I fail to see how the value cannot be an offensive or defensive argument. For example, on the vigilantism topic, if one were to run a value of justice, one could argue as to how in the AFF world, justice is better achieved through the use of vigilantism, whereas negating the resolution damages justice. One could argue it in a deontological sense, or one could look at it through the comparative world lens: after the round, which side better achieves justice? The criterion could function along the same lines. Say, in a round, both sides have the same value; who has a better means of achieving it? The debaters could then argue how justice is better served with offensive and defensive arguments. Criterions and values should have real world implications; they shouldn't be these nebulous concepts that one can never really argue for. I really don't get how having a value and criterion stops a comparative worlds mindset.

JamesM wrote:1. Get rid of the value/criterion- it is an arbitrary weighing mechanism based on analytic analysis that no one cares about. If anything really limits discourse is a blippy criterion spike that somehow excludes someone from the ability to make any argument.

How is the framework "arbitrary?" LD was founded as a value debate. A clash of two values. The use of dichotomous thinking in ethical issues. Whatever you want to call it. I really doubt the framers of this type of debate went, "Hey, what's a random way to have debaters debate?" "Oh, I don't know, let's make a framework of a value and a criterion. No idea what those are, but let's just go with it." LD was created to be a clash of value issues. What happens when deontology clashes with utilitarianism? What happens with justice clashes with individualism? Etc. I fail to see how "no one cares" about a value framework; it's been run that way for as long as LD has been around, primarily because that's the way the debate was framed. I agree that criterion spikes are annoying, as are spikes in general, but that's a problem with how the criterion is used, not a criterion itself. I've read spike-filled cases without values or criterion. For some reason, people feel that eons of spikes in a case are good. I disagree. However, I fail to see how this makes a value/criterion framework "arbitrary."

I'm not trying to say that LD is morphing into one on one policy, but if this is the route LD is supposed to take, unfortunately, that's what it will become. Many have claimed "multiple" reasons why LD would still be unique from Policy. If we rid of the value and criterion with this O/D framework that has been discussed, there will be only two differences: one on one, and two topics a semester. You might say, "well, LD is still more ethics centered in its topics." Policy people run ethical arguments all the time, even if that's not what their debate is centered around. Critical affs and Ks are seeming to become more popular nowadays; if we rid of a value and criterion framework, there LD and Policy will have next to no differences. I really don't want to see this happen.

ctheis wrote:O/D is about the comparison of impacts/offense and the V/C skews that comparison. If a debater wins that standard X is more important that standard Y, that does not mean that standard Y has no importance. If there is only a minimal link won to standard X and a massive impact to standard Y then the V/C framework would probably lead to the wrong decision being made. So I think making this shift is necessary for O/D to make sense as a way of making decisions.

I disagree here as well. My main issue is this....if the above scenario that ctheis outlined happens all of the time, then why haven't debaters made up the argument that he just said? If the judging is good, the above argument that ctheis outlined could end up becoming a clear voter. It isn't that hard to say, "While my opponent may have won standard X, the impact on my standard, Y, is far more detrimental than the link on standard X." Not really that hard of an argument to make. If a debater articulates it well, he should win. I've made similar arguments such as ctheis' and have won with it; even if my opponent wins value X, my the impacts on my framework Y far outweigh. I really don't see how a "wrong decision" would be made; unless the judges were complete imbeciles, I really don't see what harm would be done. There are tons of ways to win an LD round. While the V/VC framework is important, that doesn't mean it's the only way to win the round.

I do agree that arguments need impacts, and shouldn't just be "This is false! Vote neg!" However, I don't see how abolishing the V/VC makes it so much easier for the "O/D Revolution" to take place. If you argue correctly, then handling the V/VC framework should be cake.

bakeryjake wrote:If I were to “boil down” my advocacy to a sentence, it would be this: “The affirmative burden is to present a topical advocacy and defend it in comparison to a competitive negative advocacy.”

I agree. But, to sum it all up, that could easily be done with a value and a criterion. Both are competitive. Both offer an advocacy of a resolution. I think ridding of the value and criterion gets rid of some of the offense and defense that is unique to LD.