CI's, RVIs, and other ways to win off of responses to theory

[novice]

Why would you re-hash a new topic? This topic has been recycled way too much.

[classof2012]

Why would you re-hash a new topic? This topic has been recycled way too much.

I've been working on theory files and just began writing justifications for the RVI. Of the arguments I thought up, the one I found the most convincing is one that I don't think has been explicitly mentioned before:

P.S. You can't rehash a new topic.

[Richard (Not Nixon)]

- Running an RVI just gives an alternative way to frame theory. Instead of the traditional "evaluate theory, and if there's no abuse then evaluate case", an RVI posits that theory should be "evaluate theory, and vote for the debater that wins it".

This is pretty bad, then debates become totally centered around theory when it is ran, and debaters will run theory to sidetrack rounds much in the way that traditional debaters get bogged down debating "LIFE VS. JUSTICE, PT. 4,158." This moots the point of the substance debate, instead of allowing debaters to intertwine them and make intricate strategies. This ends up with a net loss in education.

- Theoretical issues are generally considered an issue of competing interpretations.
- Fairness matters and precedes substance. If one side is running theory, and the other is running an RVI, this will always be true.

RVIs are even more unfair than just running theory as a time suck (which right now is only considered unfair because judges have such a demanding threshold for not dropping arguments, if we adopt a policy-esque paradigm with theory/T and allow debaters to weigh arguments instead of adopting this paradigm debaters and some judges think is great that a dropped argument=insta-win, this would become a non-issue) because they allow good theory debaters to essentially always be theoretically illegitimate and pick up ballots. This also encourages good theory debaters to run theoretically illegitimate positions to bait people into theory debates and then beat them on it, or to engage them on substance and lose to spikes/aprioris/whatever it is.

Given those three things, the RVI debate should be whether framing theory as a two-way street is more fair than theory being no-risk.

This is also consistent with the logic of theory. If a resolutional argument must be fair to be considered in-round, and we should use the interpretation given for the resolution that provides for the most fair debate, then we should also use the most fair interpretation for theory justified in round.

Further, saying that theory should be a two-way street fails to take into account one fact: it already is. If you lose theory, your argument is rejected unless the other debater puts analysis as to why you should lose. If you win theory, your argument gets full weight, and has been undercovered because of the focus on the theory debate. Theory as a strategic argument is entirely legitimate, it operates this way in policy, and should in LD as well. Judges just need to give lenience to the 1AR answering theory, and allow for simplistic answers like what often happens in T debates in Policy. Then Theory will become a time tradeoff argument employed as strategy, and gone for when necessary.

An RVI-inclusive interpretation ensures fair debate because neither debater can be punished for something not of his own doing. You lose either because (a) you were abusive, or (b) you ran theory when there wasn't abuse. This is the same justification generally given for the abusiveness of theory of "but he started the abuse".

The no risk interpretation similarly ensures fair debate in the case that there is actual abuse. The only punishment done is to the debater that brought it upon himself by causing abuse. However, this isn't true in the case of theory being run against a non-abusive strategy. Theory debatably causes time skew and strategy skew, and destroys turn ground and reciprocity (pretty much every harm of insuficient burdens), but in the case that it is being run against an unabusive position, that abuse is not justified.

Seeing as an RVI interpretation always ensures that the debater who caused the abuse is punished, any risk of no-risk theory being abusive would be a reason to accept the RVI since it's more fair.

Bad theory debates are already checked by a high threshold to vote on theory by judges - excluding how it plays out in front of judges who will vote on X dropped standard regardless. RVIs damage the quality of debate, because a debater whose strategy can be conceived as abusive may also be a really good theory debater, discouraging others from running theory against his strategy, and then getting screwed on both the substantive and theoretical level of the debate. RVIs are infinitely regressive, it justifies me running an RRVI saying that if I win the RVI is BS you should vote for me, and it takes debate TOTALLY away from substance.

[classof2012]

This is pretty bad, then debates become totally centered around theory when it is ran, and debaters will run theory to sidetrack rounds much in the way that traditional debaters get bogged down debating "LIFE VS. JUSTICE, PT. 4,158." This moots the point of the substance debate, instead of allowing debaters to intertwine them and make intricate strategies. This ends up with a net loss in education.

I totally agree that debates will become centered around theory, and that's how I think it should be. Theory shouldn't be a no-risk way to waste your opponent's time. It's something that should be run if there's legit abuse, and you should be willing to go all-in on it. I see increased length in theory debates as beneficial. As it is now, theory is often just a bunch of really blippy warrants, and by the 2AR there's very little developed argumentation.

On the issue of side-tracking, I think you'd see debaters side-track rounds less if RVIs became a legit argument. (1) Without the RVI, debaters can still side-track the round just as much by running theory, but it's even worse because when they do their opponent can't win on it. (2) RVIs give debaters a strategic disadvantage to side-tracking the round by running theory: they can lose on it. Without the RVI, debaters can side-track the round and kick theory if they're losing it.

I'll answer the rest later. I don't have time right now.

[Richard (Not Nixon)]

The point is there's no brightline to what constitutes something legitimate or illegitimate. Your interpretation of what theory should be is only truly justifiable in a world where there is one set norm for EVERY theoretical violation, and even then, some are so stupid they don't warrant a loss (like if I kick a consult CP, the abuse didn't impact the round since I'm not going for it).

There also is still the matter of how debaters have varying ability at debating theory. This means that under your interpretation some illegitimate strategies to be ran by debaters who are just good at debating theory.

[classof2012]

The point is there's no brightline to what constitutes something legitimate or illegitimate. Your interpretation of what theory should be is only truly justifiable in a world where there is one set norm for EVERY theoretical violation.

If I'm understanding your argument right, this is a problem with theory, not with RVIs.

and even then, some are so stupid they don't warrant a loss (like if I kick a consult CP, the abuse didn't impact the round since I'm not going for it).

The justification for RVIs (at least the one I've given) is that they make theory reciprocal. If you or your opponent says that the implication of theory is just to drop the argument and not the debater, then an RVI wouldn't make sense.

There also is still the matter of how debaters have varying ability at debating theory. This means that under your interpretation some illegitimate strategies to be ran by debaters who are just good at debating theory.

1. They can still do this without theory.
2. The alternative is debaters who are good at theory abusing it.
3. This isn't a structural advantage. The better debater wins like they're supposed to.

[classof2012]

Further, saying that theory should be a two-way street fails to take into account one fact: it already is. If you lose theory, your argument is rejected unless the other debater puts analysis as to why you should lose. If you win theory, your argument gets full weight, and has been undercovered because of the focus on the theory debate. Theory as a strategic argument is entirely legitimate, it operates this way in policy, and should in LD as well. Judges just need to give lenience to the 1AR answering theory, and allow for simplistic answers like what often happens in T debates in Policy. Then Theory will become a time tradeoff argument employed as strategy, and gone for when necessary.

I don't see how this is a two-way street. Theory is a time skew, so even if you lose it and kick it you still benefit. This makes it win-win for the person running theory. Even in the case that theory doesn't help, it's still not reciprocal. My losing an argument that can't even be turned to use as offense against me is not remotely as important as your losing the entire round.

[TomC]

Further, saying that theory should be a two-way street fails to take into account one fact: it already is. If you lose theory, your argument is rejected unless the other debater puts analysis as to why you should lose. If you win theory, your argument gets full weight, and has been undercovered because of the focus on the theory debate. Theory as a strategic argument is entirely legitimate, it operates this way in policy, and should in LD as well. Judges just need to give lenience to the 1AR answering theory, and allow for simplistic answers like what often happens in T debates in Policy. Then Theory will become a time tradeoff argument employed as strategy, and gone for when necessary.

I don't see how this is a two-way street. Theory is a time skew, so even if you lose it and kick it you still benefit. This makes it win-win for the person running theory. Even in the case that theory doesn't help, it's still not reciprocal. My losing an argument that can't even be turned to use as offense against me is not remotely as important as your losing the entire round.

Which is why you should run 13 minutes of theory every neg round, and 7 minutes of theory every aff round.

[Richard (Not Nixon)]

If I'm understanding your argument right, this is a problem with theory, not with RVIs.

Theory can be employed as a strategic tool as well, it's accepted practice in policy, and is checked back by high thresholds to vote on theory, that's what I told you before, and you so conveniently didn't respond. RVIs would only be justifiable in a world where debaters were of equal speed and skill, and there was an actual list of what was considered theoretically legitimate. Anything outside of that and it becomes more arbitrary than just having theory the way it is.

The justification for RVIs (at least the one I've given) is that they make theory reciprocal. If you or your opponent says that the implication of theory is just to drop the argument and not the debater, then an RVI wouldn't make sense.

Theory doesn't need to be reciprocal, however, you didn't address how it's better solved by high thresholds to vote on theory. In any other game where someone accuses the other of breaking the rules, if they're proven wrong, we don't punish them, do we?

1. They can still do this without theory.

Without theory entirely, sure, but with theory that is NOT backed by RVIs, it allows debaters to employ theory for two reasons: 1. to check back the actual strategy, and maybe win on it, and 2. as a time suck to detract the debater from covering the substantive debate. Under your framework that debater might not want to risk running theory on the chance that his opponent is better than him at it.

2. The alternative is debaters who are good at theory abusing it.

Under your interpretation theory wouldn't be ran in many situations it normally would, and provides that same strategic advantage to those who are more adept at debating it. Your system creates more "unfair" losses than the current one.

3. This isn't a structural advantage. The better debater wins like they're supposed to.

Then let theory stay the way it is, and not penalize those legitimately trying to run it under your framework. RVIs are atrocious and are checked back by numerous things I've stated, including judges with high thresholds on theory, getting faster, improving your word economy, having efficient grouping of relevant arguments, and good comparative analysis.

I don't see how this is a two-way street. Theory is a time skew, so even if you lose it and kick it you still benefit. This makes it win-win for the person running theory. Even in the case that theory doesn't help, it's still not reciprocal. My losing an argument that can't even be turned to use as offense against me is not remotely as important as your losing the entire round.

It is a two-way street in the only way that's reasonable. Theory is a time-skew like any other argument, if a debater over-covers the theory debate and undercovers in other areas, he/she is just bad at time allocation. The fact of the matter is bad theory is checked by high thresholds by judges to vote on it, the way the LD community needs to shift is towards a paradigm that doesn't consider dropped arguments instant wins, and then we'll have better debates with the inclusion of theory.

[classof2012]

Theory can be employed as a strategic tool as well, it's accepted practice in policy, and is checked back by high thresholds to vote on theory, that's what I told you before, and you so conveniently didn't respond.

You were talking about Policy like you said. That doesn't currently apply to LD. Even if it did, I don't see why the high voting threshold is sufficient to check back time skew.

RVIs would only be justifiable in a world where debaters were of equal speed and skill, and there was an actual list of what was considered theoretically legitimate. Anything outside of that and it becomes more arbitrary than just having theory the way it is.

Every aspect of debate, case debate, theory, etc., is biased in favor of the debater of better speed and skill. That's the point of debate. You win for doing well. I don't understand how this is substantively different from saying "some debaters are particularly good at substantive debate which makes debating the case unfair".

Also, this is non-unique insofar as theoretical issues will always be won by the better theory debater with or without RVIs. Even if RVIs weren't legit, good theory debaters could still abuse theory, but in that case they could abuse it without repercussion.

The justification for RVIs (at least the one I've given) is that they make theory reciprocal. If you or your opponent says that the implication of theory is just to drop the argument and not the debater, then an RVI wouldn't make sense.

Theory doesn't need to be reciprocal, however, you didn't address how it's better solved by high thresholds to vote on theory. In any other game where someone accuses the other of breaking the rules, if they're proven wrong, we don't punish them, do we?

1. The fact that one debater is running theory means they presuppose that having an equal playing field matters.
2. Debate is unique in that it requires the debaters to call each other out and debate what the rules should be. Other games have referees with predetermined rulebooks.
3. Football.

Without theory entirely, sure, but with theory that is NOT backed by RVIs, it allows debaters to employ theory for two reasons: 1. to check back the actual strategy, and maybe win on it, and 2. as a time suck to detract the debater from covering the substantive debate. Under your framework that debater might not want to risk running theory on the chance that his opponent is better than him at it.

So, with non-RVI theory, you can:
1. Actually check back abuse
2. Use theory to create more abuse

With RVIs, you can:
1. Actually check back abuse
2. Lose for abusing theory

I don't really understand this "bad theory debaters will be afraid of good theory debaters" argument.
1. The better debater should win. The ballot says that.
2. Anyone who thinks they can win on theory will be running theory either way.
3. Anyone who thinks they can't win on theory (ie. actually show abuse) shouldn't be running theory.
4. Bad theory debaters won't run theory either way since with or without RVIs they will be owned by good theory debaters.
5. Bad theory debaters shouldn't be running theory against good theory debaters (or anyone) if they don't think they can win on it. That just creates more abuse.

Under your interpretation theory wouldn't be ran in many situations it normally would, and provides that same strategic advantage to those who are more adept at debating it. Your system creates more "unfair" losses than the current one.

The "unfair" losses you're talking about come from people not running theory when they could. RVIs don't discourage running theory in the case that it is actually legitimate because the person running theory would still win with or without an RVI. The theory arguments that would be discouraged are the ones that (1) are just being run to create a time skew because the debater finds a theory shell that his opponent could possibly link into; and/or, (2) are just being used to "test" the abusiveness of the opponent's position, not to actually call our clear abuse. I don't see either of these as places where theory is beneficial or necessary.

The unfair losses I'm talking about are the ones that come as a result of debaters running theory when there isn't any actual abuse. Empirically, theory is a common argument, and it is commonly kicked or just gone for in 1-2 minutes of the NR.

3. This isn't a structural advantage. The better debater wins like they're supposed to.

Then let theory stay the way it is, and not penalize those legitimately trying to run it under your framework.

The better debater isn't necessarily winning in the status quo. The debater who is abusing theory is.

RVIs are atrocious and are checked back by numerous things I've stated, including judges with high thresholds on theory, getting faster, improving your word economy, having efficient grouping of relevant arguments, and good comparative analysis.

All of those things (minus high judge thresholds) can be used equally well by the other side to make theory harder to win.

It is a two-way street in the only way that's reasonable. Theory is a time-skew like any other argument, if a debater over-covers the theory debate and undercovers in other areas, he/she is just bad at time allocation.

How do all arguments unfairly skew time? Contention level debate doesn't equate to an auto-loss if dropped. Theory does. Contentions can't just be kicked if you turn them. Theory can.

The fact of the matter is bad theory is checked by high thresholds by judges to vote on it, the way the LD community needs to shift is towards a paradigm that doesn't consider dropped arguments instant wins, and then we'll have better debates with the inclusion of theory.

I don't understand how your conception of theory works. If I think your theory argument is dumb... I just don't answer it? Why is this mutually exclusive or net beneficial to RVIs?

[Pwneill]

I think what Richard is saying is that in a world in which the judge grants full weight to the initial claim of a dropped argument and subsequently evaluates the probability/magnitude of the original claim, we would see rounds in which debaters are not required to necessarily "win" theory in order to moot it but rather would be capable of mitigating the impact of the initial shell such that it only warrants rejecting the argument and not the debater. This is, as he rightly points out, how policy approaches theory. One can win that their interpretation is preferable, but in order for that to be sufficient to vote on, they would subsequently have to win that rounds where dropping debaters who violate the interp would be better than rounds where the argument is simply disregarded. In other words, there are two "theory" debates at play: the original interpretation and what the penalty should be for violating the interp.

This provides a narrow window for RVIs to legitimately be run. If you win that theory being run on a particular practice is bad for debate, and that they should lose for doing so, you have functionally created an RVI, but it is structured like a real theory shell (namely, there is an interp/vio).

[classof2012]

I think what Richard is saying is that in a world in which the judge grants full weight to the initial claim of a dropped argument and subsequently evaluates the probability/magnitude of the original claim, we would see rounds in which debaters are not required to necessarily "win" theory in order to moot it but rather would be capable of mitigating the impact of the initial shell such that it only warrants rejecting the argument and not the debater. This is, as he rightly points out, how policy approaches theory. One can win that their interpretation is preferable, but in order for that to be sufficient to vote on, they would subsequently have to win that rounds where dropping debaters who violate the interp would be better than rounds where the argument is simply disregarded. In other words, there are two "theory" debates at play: the original interpretation and what the penalty should be for violating the interp.

This provides a narrow window for RVIs to legitimately be run. If you win that theory being run on a particular practice is bad for debate, and that they should lose for doing so, you have functionally created an RVI, but it is structured like a real theory shell (namely, there is an interp/vio).

In policy, telling the judge to drop the argument is generally more sufficient to moot the abuse of theory than in LD since the negative in policy can kick whatever one position is abusive and go for the multiple other arguments they have in the round. In LD, having to kick the NC in the NR would generally have a significant impact on the negative's ability to win. In the case of NC theory, dropping the argument isn't really an option since kicking the AC is pretty much a loss on face.

This method also seems somewhat arbitrary. How abusive is abusive enough to drop the debater, not the case? This seems to boil down to 1 liners about how dropping the case doesn't reverse the time skew or something of that sort.

[W. Marble]

I don't really feel like getting into the entirety of this debate (suffice it to say that I don't think RVI's are good for debate most of the time), but, I feel like the post above me is wrong.

In policy, telling the judge to drop the argument is generally more sufficient to moot the abuse of theory than in LD since the negative in policy can kick whatever one position is abusive and go for the multiple other arguments they have in the round. In LD, having to kick the NC in the NR would generally have a significant impact on the negative's ability to win.

This is an argument in favor of "drop the argument, not the debater." If it's much harder to win when you're forced to ignore the abusive argument, why isn't that sufficient punishment for the abuse? You'll probably say that means that "drop the argument, not the debater" is a bad argument to make and you should instead run an RVI. However, this misses the point. "Drop the argument" is only one of the responses you'd make to the theory. You'd also give offensive reasons your counter-interp is better. And, it's definitely possible for a negative to win after kicking the NC. They could have their own theory that was run in the NC and turns on the AC, or if they made good responses to theory they'd find a way to allow the NC but let the aff weigh against it or something like that.

In the case of NC theory, dropping the argument isn't really an option since kicking the AC is pretty much a loss on face.

This is just false. It's certainly possible to win aff rounds after kicking the AC (hell, I did it practically half of my rounds on the Jan/Feb topic).

This method also seems somewhat arbitrary. How abusive is abusive enough to drop the debater, not the case? This seems to boil down to 1 liners about how dropping the case doesn't reverse the time skew or something of that sort.

This applies to any theory. Not just "drop the argument." I mean, I think if you can just demonstrate how kicking the abusive argument is sufficient to moot the abuse, you'll be fine.

Overall, none of your post is a reason RVI's are a good thing. The "kick the abusive arg" response would only come into play once you've lost the interp debate, and you're on the voter level. If you win that your counter-interp is better and you meet it, there's no reason for you to have to kick the argument. So in any of those situations, an RVI would be irrelevant anyway because RVI's are contingent on winning your counter-interp.

[classof2012]

This is an argument in favor of "drop the argument, not the debater." If it's much harder to win when you're forced to ignore the abusive argument, why isn't that sufficient punishment for the abuse?

I'm not concerned with what happens to people who were legitimately abusive, and I'm not saying dropping the argument is insufficient punishment. My issue is how people who aren't being abusive deal with abusive theory, and I'm saying that kicking the argument isn't a sufficient way to cope.

it's definitely possible for a negative to win after kicking the NC. They could have their own theory that was run in the NC and turns on the AC, or if they made good responses to theory they'd find a way to allow the NC but let the aff weigh against it or something like that.

I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it's comparatively a lot worse than policy where there are still multiple positions left to go for even if you kick one.

In the case of NC theory, dropping the argument isn't really an option since kicking the AC is pretty much a loss on face.

This is just false. It's certainly possible to win aff rounds after kicking the AC (hell, I did it practically half of my rounds on the Jan/Feb topic). [/quote]
First off, even in the best of cases, when you kick the AC you're letting the negative define the ground of the debate, and you're giving yourself a 13-to-7 time advantage. Second, most resolutions aren't like the sanctions rez. Sanctions negatives would generally have a generic, consequentialist standard that could go both ways. It's much harder to win against, for example, a deontological negative without an AC standard. Most negative cases were also just links to some utilitarian impact, making turns a more viable strategy than on other resolutions.

This method also seems somewhat arbitrary. How abusive is abusive enough to drop the debater, not the case? This seems to boil down to 1 liners about how dropping the case doesn't reverse the time skew or something of that sort.

This applies to any theory. Not just "drop the argument." I mean, I think if you can just demonstrate how kicking the abusive argument is sufficient to moot the abuse, you'll be fine.

1. The blippiness something I think RVIs would solve. I'm pretty sure this was in a previous post.
2. I'm not sure how the fact that many theory arguments are blippy makes it OK in this case.
3. See above. Like you said, dropping the argument is still significant punishment, so if you do drop the argument you won't be fine.

Overall, none of your post is a reason RVI's are a good thing.

My post was a response to Pwneill's. I gave reasons RVIs are good in previous posts.

The "kick the abusive arg" response would only come into play once you've lost the interp debate, and you're on the voter level. If you win that your counter-interp is better and you meet it, there's no reason for you to have to kick the argument. So in any of those situations, an RVI would be irrelevant anyway because RVI's are contingent on winning your counter-interp.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Your interp would say drop the argument of the person that loses theory (either ignoring theory or the case). My interp would say drop the debater that loses theory. They are mutually exclusive.

[Pwneill]

classof2012, you missed the boat on what i suggest. My solution to the problems that exist in theory in terms of the voter (reject arg not debater, reject debater, rvi) should be resolved via a theory debate of sorts. I'm not advocating a rejection of the RVI, of theory, or of theory as a defensive tool. Rather, debaters should develop coherent standards as a means of justifying why their framework for evaluating theory is better. As someone who ran an argument like this at TOC. In response to parametrics bad, the argument was that people should be discouraged from running such a position because parametrics are extremely beneficial to debate. GIven that historically we have seen the ballot be the biggest deterrent of certain strategies (the apriori, skepticism, etc), if the judge agrees that parametrics ought to be encouraged in LD based on what took place in the round, they should vote the negative down for running the argument. Granted, this is me paraphrasing the argument as I recall it from 3 months ago, so it was a lot clearer warranted and more word economical then. This is not meant to be a debate over parametrics, but rather, demonstrates what i am suggesting.

My interpretation is that in order to vote on anything relating to theory, the debater must present an interpretation, demonstrate why their opponent violates this interpretation, and win why this interpretation is best for debate. This applies to every facet of the debate, from competing interps vs reasonability, to the "substinative" interp, to what the terminal impact of theory should be in this case. This is best because:

A. It ends judge intervention as currently seen on these issues. Judges are welcome to have defaults that they use absent a debate taking place in round, but if a debater wins that LD would be better if judges voted against X theory arg, they should treat it no differently than if X was a counterplan, an a priori, or anything else.

B. It actually encourages a debate over these issues to take place, which has 2 impacts: i) it solves back the standard reasons why rvis are bad - there is an interp/vio/standards/voter like a normal theory arg, and this would require a relatively substantial investment in time by the debater which means rvis wouldn't be deployed as a time suck; and ii) it would eliminate a lot of rounds where it is unclear as to how theory is functioning in the round. This also solves back your arbitrariness argument - the debaters would debate as to what constitutes enough abuse to warrant it being a reason to reject the debater or trigger an rvi or whatnot.

[classof2012]

classof2012, you missed the boat on what i suggest. My solution to the problems that exist in theory in terms of the voter (reject arg not debater, reject debater, rvi) should be resolved via a theory debate of sorts. I'm not advocating a rejection of the RVI, of theory, or of theory as a defensive tool. Rather, debaters should develop coherent standards as a means of justifying why their framework for evaluating theory is better

Yea, I assumed you were just defending "reject the argument"/higher threshold as an alternative like Richard has been. I completely agree that the issue should be debatable in round. My problem is with the large number of people who seem to reject RVIs on face because they consider them completely illegitimate arguments.

[Pwneill]

Yea, I assumed you were just defending "reject the argument"/higher threshold as an alternative like Richard has been. I completely agree that the issue should be debatable in round. My problem is with the large number of people who seem to reject RVIs on face because they consider them completely illegitimate arguments.

Well the reason I've heard from Nebel and Conrad as to why they normally reject RVIs is because there's no "violation". In other words, a lot of people are irked that most RVIs are just whining about how hard it is to affirm (generally) instead of explaining why allowing the theory argument in question to be run is bad.

[Julian Switala]

RVIs make especially no sense on topicality.