joenusz wrote:A unique concept, but weaknesses:
1. Context - your definitions are abusive given the context of the debate; as a judge I would have to deem you abusive if the negative were to point that fact out.
2. Value - "debate welfare" is not more important that the most obvious choices that the negative will have, such as "justice, morality, etc." A negative debater could easily convince me that your value was too unimportant.
3. Solvency - your solvency for discrimination is not true solvency; you are simply skewing the context into one that ignores discrimination
4. Universalized experience - if the negative ran a universal theory, such as Kant's categorical imperative, the simple fact that the negative had the word "vigilantism" in a non-justified format on his page would trump you because you would have to prove that the justification should be universal - there is no reason for that to be so.
5. Deontology - your assumption that your case is more applicable to the real world is consequentialist in nature - the consequences make the action just; however, if the neg were running deontology - the action makes the consequences just - then your real world example would not inherently justify your case.
Simple suggestion - if you can run this and put some smiles on lay judges' faces, then be my guest. You might throw in a criterion for the sake of combating neg philosophies... perhaps utilitarianism because your real world example is consequentialist in nature?
I understand about the context. The argument is that the benefits provided outweigh the context, context is only a contribution of the reading mind and determined as a universal by the majority, and the context as defined by the majority to the point that debate becomes muddled by ambiguity.
The value: my impacts are real world. The value they are talking about amounts to words and gameplay - nothing is achieved in-round, save the preferential reasons found on the affirmative side of the flow.
Solvency: The idea is that by affirming, thus showing that the judges have comprehended and accepted the alternate, minority interpretation, they are taking strides in reversing the oppression of minority thought. You can look at the idea behind contextuality found in my address to the problem of context to see how the majority oppresses the minority of thought. Upon seeing me win, people will realize that these thoughts are equally legitimate.
The fourth idea presented is viable. I would love to get into a debate about universalism.
Again, the negative case, with the exception of inevitable theory, occurs on the debate "game board" meaning that their impacts are negligable. I outweigh with actual things happening. Also, even from a deontological viewpoint, nothing in the text of a word makes it inherently unjust. Justifying text is not inherently unjust. What would the impact be? I have 10 reasons why the interpretation is deontologically justified anyway because they happen immediately during the debate with no residual harms besides my opponent's theory which I am happy to talk about.
I honestly don't think a lay judge would even understand this well. I doubt they would enjoy or learn anything from the debate. I think a seasoned debater could appreciate it more. I am fine with combating as much theory as the negative is willing to read, and then I'll extend what I win, outweigh any negative impacts and place game-based case turns just in case. So, yes, it is fun, i think it can win, and you also do something for debate in my opinion. Look to the 10 reasons. Especially education and entertainment, along with analytics, etc, etc.