Scribd
Upload
67 views2 pages

Anoosh Theory

1. The document discusses a debate round where the negative team asked the affirmative team to concede the round since the affirmative team had won more bid tournaments, but the affirmative team refused. 2. The negative argues that conceding would help even the playing field for teams that have not won tournaments before by giving them a chance at victory and a better education through facing stronger opponents. 3. Not conceding risks those teams who haven't won leaving debate entirely if they are unable to start winning, reducing access and participation in the activity.

Uploaded by

Nathaniel Yoon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
67 views2 pages

Anoosh Theory

1. The document discusses a debate round where the negative team asked the affirmative team to concede the round since the affirmative team had won more bid tournaments, but the affirmative team refused. 2. The negative argues that conceding would help even the playing field for teams that have not won tournaments before by giving them a chance at victory and a better education through facing stronger opponents. 3. Not conceding risks those teams who haven't won leaving debate entirely if they are unable to start winning, reducing access and participation in the activity.

Uploaded by

Nathaniel Yoon
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

A is the interp - debaters who have won bid tournaments should concede to those

that have not


B is the violation – I asked them to concede the round and they didn’t
C is the standards
1. evening playing field - winners are disproportionately big schools, this gives all
access to victory which is a voter for fairness, and lets small schools advance
farther which gives us more education
2. bracketing - current debate stratifies the education you get, where the people
who win debate people who win, meaning bad debaters will never improve by
facing good opponents. voting on the shell puts my opponent in a lower bracket
and links into more important education
3. activity access - if they're winning, they're doing great and a loss won't matter
much. to people who have never won big tournaments, they're at a risk of
leaving entirely if they don't start winning soon, and access is a prereq to
learning from debate or getting fairness benefits
D: Paradigm Issues
[1] Fairness is the Voter 
[1] Can’t say who is the better team or if the resolution is true if there isn’t fair
contestation. It’s like saying a basketball team with double the players is
better. 
[2] Fairness is a gateway to participation, people quit unfair games and that's
the biggest internal link to education. 
[2] Education is a Voter: maximizing it is the only reason schools fund debate 
[3] Evaluate theory under competing interpretations 
[1] It avoids judge intervention, reasonability is arbitrary
[2] No brightline for reasonability, you can weigh standards under competing
interpretations.  
[4] Drop the Debater 
[1] You can't evaluate how the round would have been absent the abuse
[2] only voting deters future practice 
[5] No RVIs
[1] It’s illogical to win just because you are fair, we are also fair. 
[2] Incentives going all in on theory instead of back to substance 
[3] It means good theory debaters can be infinitely abusive

You might also like