Combating Bad Theory: Jan/Feb 2009
LOS ANGELES, Cali. — So, I already have some concerns about the non-specification the actual International Criminal Court or what it means to “submit.” (Does it mean that the US would commit a C.A.H. and then call in some mythical international court?) In reality, I think the job of the affirmative was made more difficult when the ICC wasn’t specified. So, in order to try to give affirmatives some help, lets see the theory negatives are going to run. Hopefully we can work through some of these prior to the first few tournaments on the topic. (Blake, CPS, and VBT all still have registration space…so register soon!)
Oh, we should also include “a prioris,” theoretically unsound burdens, and other negative abuses. Let’s get started!
Popularity: 8%
no more tag found, sorry
Posted from: 134.161.72.181
December 1st, 2008 11:17
I think the most annoying negative argument will be that the affirmative can not specify ICC in an attempt to make it hard for the aff to use topic specific literature.
I agree that submit will be problematic also. When this was the camp topic at Iowa 3 years ago this debate was popular early on. As the camp progressed it became less popular.
Another one that was popular was that the affirmative had to prove that the United States should only join the ICC. I think that may have been what prompted the generalization.
I am less bothered by the vagueness for this reason. While there is a lot of topic specific lit on the ICC, especially against, the aff suddenly can take a more nebulous stance to help them duck out of a lot of the ICC specific arguments. It also makes negative ground in an ICC specific resolution seem a lot less tangible. Popular neg strats at Iowa like such as truth and reconcilliation commissions become aff ground.
I agree that there will be bad theory debate on the topic, and lots of it. I do think that the aff benefits quite a bit from the vagueness of the topic (assuming they use it appropriately).
Posted from: 130.160.197.240
December 1st, 2008 11:27
The first argument that Al mentions, that the aff cannot specify the ICC, is bad and I hope I never see it. Both the predictability and ground debates swing pretty heavily in the other direction, in my opinion, and I think a more common theory argument will be the opposite - that the aff should be forced to defend the ICC. The aff could defend their interp in this scenario by saying that defending the ICC gives the neg disad ground against the status quo. This is great ground for the neg since they get to rely on a large supply of great literature to answer back AC’s, instead of relying on speculative “but this could go wrong” claims. Also, I think the ICC is most predictable because the discussion over the ICC is politically relevant in the status quo, and because the ICC is probably the first thing to come to mind when one thinks about “an international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity.”
Posted from: 216.80.143.218
December 1st, 2008 12:01
what wade says makes a decent amount of sense, but also puts the affirmative in a double-bind: either aff case is linked directly the *the* ICC which gives the neg that immense amount of ground he cites, or, the neg can run a conditionality. while a decent debater can beat a condo shell, that is also something really obnoxious to deal with.
Posted from: 216.80.143.218
December 1st, 2008 12:01
a conditionality shell**
Posted from: 128.135.121.219
December 1st, 2008 12:39
quinn, you don’t get it. wade’s arguments are reasons conditionally is good, so hence no double bind.
Posted from: 206.180.133.78
December 1st, 2008 12:41
Quinn,
dont most condo bad args deal with predictability and ground skew, which all seem to be answered by wade’s post about how the ICC is the most predictable court? I mean, it’s not as if the affirmative is picking a random tribunal very few have heard of. also, it seems that defending the ICC would be better for neg ground insofar as a ton of topic lit is either in support or criticizing the ICC which means the negative would have the ability to make court specific responses without having to worry about the 1ar spiking out of court specific disads by saying that their hypothetical court would not have these problems. so, i guess on that level conditionality arguments wouldnt make sense since there would be no violation or abuse.
but maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying.
Posted from: 170.140.41.100
December 1st, 2008 13:12
also, the immense amount of ground both ways. something tells me that there is much more literature pertaining to the ICC versus the hypothetical concept of an international court that is designed to prosecute crimes against humanity
Posted from: 170.140.41.100
December 1st, 2008 13:17
goes both ways*
Posted from: 71.169.50.134
December 1st, 2008 13:27
On the question of icc specificity, at camp we just found alot of evidence talking about the benefits of joining an international court in general. If we used the icc in our cases we made sure that it could apply to any court.
This avoided bad theory debates because we were still talking about a general court system, but we still got to use material on the icc.
Hope that helped.
Posted from: 72.20.128.250
December 1st, 2008 14:08
josh: conditionality arguments, i don’t think, are directly rooted in theory / have to utilize theory standards (simultaneous truth and falsity, insufficient to fulfill aff burden, etc). as a result, conditionality isn’t necessarily a means of the neg calling out abuse (although it can be used that way); rather, it can be a means of pointing out the insufficiency of the 1AC if it is arguably specific.
this creates a problem because the aff can be ICC specific, and that opens up the ability for the neg to run a conditionality shell (along the lines of which i just described) in addition to running ICC specific neg args because neg burden is arguably different from the aff one. thus, the double bind still exists (in response to patrick).
Posted from: 76.219.139.225
December 1st, 2008 14:19
Quinn, you say that it might be insufficient to fulfill the aff’s burden. I guess my question then is, if it is true that the ICC is the main court and the best court to look to(becuase of equal division of ground, topic lit/ predictable etc) , then why wouldnt it be sufficient to affirm if the aff proves that we ought to submit to the jurisdiction of the ICC?
Posted from: 164.67.59.144
December 1st, 2008 14:39
what is an international court?
Posted from: 164.67.59.144
December 1st, 2008 14:40
also…. way to bias the discussion (”bad” theory), whoever titled this post. glad to know we aren’t a community of ideologues.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 1st, 2008 14:48
No, we are. Oh we are.
Posted from: 69.253.230.13
December 1st, 2008 15:00
Maybe I’m wrong, but I thought that the title of the discussion meant that we should flesh things out here so that people don’t run BAD theory (which we’ve all seen), etc, and instead run GOOD theory. It doesn’t judge what constitutes good/bad theory, but rather that we, as a community, should discuss what sorts of theoretical arguments aren’t really applicable/constructive here. That’s just how I interpreted it…
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 1st, 2008 15:09
Nah, I think you’re right, @15.
Posted from: 134.161.72.181
December 1st, 2008 15:10
I agree with Karlyn about the initial intent of the article. After rereading my initial post I guess I may have strayed a little but I don’t think that in this case it’s a big problem.
I do think Prashant has a point, what makes theory good or bad is pretty subjective. Some judges i know love voting on theory, even theory that I personally find rather distasteful.
I do think that this thread does serve a pretty good purpose in allowing us to discuss how theory can be good and bad. Even if we disagree which I assume some of us will, we at least will be able to discuss it and maybe create norms that rule out some of the more extremely undesirable arguments.
Posted from: 96.229.143.242
December 1st, 2008 15:23
prashant -
I posted the title. I’ve always maintained that theory debate is a good thing. Still do. I think it can be a strategic means of winning a round. Unfortunately there are too many people who are not prepared to answer “bad” theory and judges who don’t have the experience or know-how to delineate between good theory (or sound theory) and bad (or abusive) theory.
Lots of negatives simply take advantage of community ignorance on the issue and are able to get away with way too much.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 1st, 2008 15:28
What exactly is a theory argument?
Posted from: 72.153.132.35
December 1st, 2008 15:46
Parametrics (conditionality is a counterplan status) will certainly be an issue, and it seems the majority of the debate community recognizes this. The US specificity of the topic, coupled with the word “an”, makes the resolution a breeding ground for plans. Consequently, a host of negative strategies become readily available, given the plentiful CP, DA, and K ground (consult japan, politics and borders come to mind).
I agree with Wade that ICC-specific ACs should be very winnable. More interesting is the reverse theory: the AC must defend the ICC - certainly an interesting idea. However, the only time such theory would matter is if the affirmative was running a more broad AC on why joining criminal courts is good, so unless the negative specifies why the ICC is bad, it’s not clear that the affirmative violates that interpretation.
The notion of “specifying” brings (unfavorable?) consequences - LD may see a host of SPEC arguments, including the dreaded ASPEC (with regard to the criminal court, refer to the above paragraph) and OSPEC (over-specification). I’m not sure the ASPEC/OSPEC strategy is a viable one, however, given the paragraph above and the lack of a 2NC (OSPEC would have to be run in the NC, or new in the NR).
Theory about counterplan status, neg fiat, PICs, floating PICs, agent PICs, and so on, will likely arise. As mentioned before, the infamous consult japan CP could be subject to a lot of objections in the 1AR (or any other consult PIC, for that matter). Similarly, one might see Dispo Bad and Condo Bad (I leave out Unconditionality Bad because I’m not sure why someone would ever run such theory). As for agent PICs, I’m not sure what can be run, but I’m sure somebody will figure something out (it seems absurd to fiat a different government besides the US, so the likely advocacy is something other than an ‘international court designed to prosecute crimes against humanity’).
The most obvious T debates will be on “submit” and “jurisdiction”. I also foresee T debates on “international” (to exclude some AC positions), and “designed” (also to exclude wacky AC positions advocating some odd court perhaps). Mind you, the last two suggestions are things I thought of, and I don’t mean to say these are strategic or viable T violations. However, negatives should be ready to debate whether a court system fiated by the AC is topical.
Another T debate, which will likely be fleshed out through frameworks rather than theory, but could potentially occur, is of the word “ought”. Clearly, definitions as “desirability” or “moral obligation” radically affect frameworks and the ground debaters have accordingly.
Of course, one can expect all the generic NR theory: Severance Bad and 1AR Theory Bad (for when the 1AR goes for 4 minutes of theory). Similarly, nothing is going to stop debaters from running multiple a prioris or kritiks, so the standard theory shells for those will be read often (multiple a prioris bad, Ks bad, K alts need a text, etc).
Thats about all I can think of for now. I’ll post anything else I think of. The important thing is to realize there’s more than just the parametrics theory to worry about. I, personally, am excited to debate this.
Posted from: 72.153.132.35
December 1st, 2008 15:48
@19 - in its most basic form, theory is when you debate about the rules of debate. Here’s a basic article on theory. It’s geared toward policy, hopefully it’ll help some:
http://commfaculty.fullerton.edu/jbruschke/theory_and_practice_in_academic_.htm
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 1st, 2008 15:53
Thanks!
Posted from: 98.195.66.198
December 1st, 2008 16:08
@20
T = topicality ≠ theory
Posted from: 98.195.66.198
December 1st, 2008 16:08
my bad scratch that i just realized you were actually talking about topicality
Posted from: 24.130.194.63
December 1st, 2008 16:29
Quinn, although my theory certainly isn’t that strong, wouldn’t running Disads/blocks to the ICC AFF as neg be self defeating to any condo argument since that clearly shows that the AFF position does not really skew ground/predictability. So, a neg can’t really run both.
Posted from: 72.153.132.35
December 1st, 2008 16:46
@HaoHao
while you’re right that going for both DAs / blocks would mitigate any ground skew or predictability impacts, there are many other reasons why aff specification is bad. For example, the negative cut put forth a standard of textuality and make some analysis that the text of the resolution doesn’t allow specification. However, given the word “an”, I’m not sure this is a good argument, but certainly has potential. Still, there are other reasons.
Not all theory standards collapse into just ground skew and predictability.
Posted from: 67.101.46.172
December 1st, 2008 16:51
Man…there’s almost nothing I hate more than hearing/reading LDers babble on about conditionality. That nasty thing so many call conditionality is really a question of whether the aff has affirmed enough of the resolution. Back in the day (and by that, I mean the 1970s) we might have called it subtopicality, or hasty g…It’s certainly a real issue in resolution focused debate, but it is NOT conditionality. And the sorts of abuse claims and penalties that negatives bandy about (having stolen them from misunderstood policy files) make no sense at all. While it is true that an affirmative who has failed to affirm enough of the resolution should lose the debate, it’s not because she has mistreated the pitiful negative. She should lose the debate because she has not adequately affirmed. If the negative wants to win on this basis, he must demonstrate that the affirmative has not affirmed the bulk of/the most typical examples of the resolution. He’d better be able to explain how much of the resolution is enough to affirm, argue why his interpretation of how much is enough is good for debate, and show that the affirmative has failed to meet this standard. The usual rant of “I gave an extreme example of when the resolution sucks, she said she doesn’t have to advocate my extreme example, therefore she’s only conditionally advocating the res, that’s abusive, punish her” is just silly. Even worse, it assumes that the affirmative must prove that the resolution is true in all cases (hardly a fare burden) or most cases (impossible to ascertain in 26 minutes of speech time). It’s much hard to explain how much of the resolution is enough, as none of us really know. At the same time, we all know that it’s goofy to expect the affirmative to prove the resolution true in all cases.
Posted from: 71.169.50.134
December 1st, 2008 17:33
@27,
while it is true that it is obviously kinda absurd to expect the aff to be able to fully affirm the resolution every time theres no reason to criticize our version of conditionality -.-
most lders understand the difference between policy conditionality and ld conditionality for those of us that dont though i guess we know now?
Posted from: 98.201.178.59
December 1st, 2008 17:35
look, i’m not advocating that conditionality (or subtopicality or whatever, i don’t really care for what the ‘proper’ jargon is, don’t think it really matters) is good.
the question being asked, i think, is concerning sleazy strats. i was specifying a sleazy strat that i am 100% sure that someone will run. me explaining how the strat would most likely unfold (the double-bind scenario) is not me saying ‘OMG HOW CAN YOU LOSE A NEG ROUND WITH THIS ONE’; rather, i was clarifying how the strategy would most likely unfold. further, what i said was not a criticism of what wade was saying. i was only pointing out how X sleazy strategy would work in relation to wade’s explanation of how Y aff would pan out.
Posted from: 96.229.143.242
December 1st, 2008 17:59
ok i’m gonna say it:
Using CONDITIONALITY incorrectly — even though we might all know what it “means” MAKES US LOOK LIKE RUBES!
Especially when people say “condo”
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
December 1st, 2008 18:15
bietz ftw
Posted from: 69.105.30.19
December 1st, 2008 19:09
@ 19: i know that’s you, phil angelides..
Posted from: 98.195.66.198
December 1st, 2008 19:37
mezz, what the hell? mezz you have way too much of an addiction to theory. you still remember that i went 4 minutes of theory in the 1ar against tim at gbooks.
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 1st, 2008 19:40
Silly rabbit (@32), tricks are for kids!
Posted from: 128.135.194.171
December 2nd, 2008 09:41
quinn, you still don’t get it. when you make truth burden claims and say the aff needs to fulfill X interpretation of the resolution (i.e. a categorical one) you need theoretical reasons to prefer that interpretation of affirming (as opposed to one that says icc specific affirming is better). simply saying you haven’t proved the resolution true because you parametricized just begs the question of which system is a better form of affirmation.
Posted from: 67.101.46.172
December 2nd, 2008 10:01
Let me clarify a couple of the things that drive me nuts about conditionality and its bastard sons in LD.
1) These args often borrow theory from policy and completely miss-apply it. For example, saying it is abusive for a policy neg to advocate a CP conditionally makes sense because doing so allows the neg to make fundamental shifts in advocacy after the affirmative has been forced to commit in 2AC. LD conditionality args focus on the aff, rather than the neg, and are not needed because the problem of so-called conditional affs has nothing to do with shifts in advocacy. The neg has the opportunity in CX to pin the aff down.
2) They obscure the real issue, which it would behoove us all to address–just what is the role of the resolution in LD? From its inception, the powers that be have made it pretty clear that LD is intended to be whole res debate. This doesn’t mean that we cannot treat the resolution as a parameter, have plans, etc. It just means that those who would choose to do so will have to overcome presumption against their approach. It also means, however, that those who stay in whole res land have to figure out what it means to affirm. We all give lip service to the idea that the resolution should not viewed as a truth statement to be proven by the affirmative, giving the negative the power to win based on a single exception. We understand that this leads to fucked up debates. Some fall back on the idea that the aff’s burden is to prove the resolution generally or on balance true, but I don’t think we know what this means (or have the ability to assess such a thing in 26 minutes of speech time). Are we to decide based on who has more examples? Bigger impacts? More typical examples? I tend to favor the last, but grant that it is tough to figure out which examples are most typical.
So, uhm, yeah. Let’s have a discussion about theory (it’s kind of important to our endeavor), but can we please leave the C word out of it?
Posted from: 208.82.154.6
December 2nd, 2008 11:14
@32
Fair*
Posted from: 208.82.154.6
December 2nd, 2008 11:15
@15
all theory is good theory
Posted from: 208.82.154.6
December 2nd, 2008 11:15
@15
All theory is good theory.
Posted from: 128.135.198.146
December 2nd, 2008 11:28
As usual, Lexy is correct. But, I don’t want to get into her 2nd point.
How about this: Everyone write an ICC AC and a non-ICC AC. They can probably be virtually identical. Then, first Neg CX question: are we limiting the res to ICC?
This could even be disclosed before the round, to make things clearer. If the AFF is ICC-specific, then all they have to do is win the argument that the ICC is an international court that tries crimes against humanity. An ICC-specific AC only increases neg ground because both generic and specific responses will apply.
Also I want to mention that I have no idea what the hell the gray area in the Venn diagram is supposed to represent.
Finally, to Bietz: Wes once noted that the use of the term “rube” itself makes one a rube.
Posted from: 76.94.89.102
December 2nd, 2008 11:53
the gray area represents theory ground… rube.
Posted from: 165.155.200.10
December 2nd, 2008 12:31
I will soon have something productive to contribute, but in the meantime, I’d just like to say that I am so happy to have read post #30.
Posted from: 75.73.68.33
December 2nd, 2008 12:41
lexy ftw
also, everytime someone says “condo” a baby kitten dies.
Posted from: 150.212.2.80
December 2nd, 2008 13:31
“josh: conditionality arguments, i don’t think, are directly rooted in theory / have to utilize theory standards (simultaneous truth and falsity, insufficient to fulfill aff burden, etc). as a result, conditionality isn’t necessarily a means of the neg calling out abuse (although it can be used that way); rather, it can be a means of pointing out the insufficiency of the 1AC if it is arguably specific.”
still?
really?
honestly?
wow.
Posted from: 150.212.2.80
December 2nd, 2008 13:38
oh, also, bietz, in what sense is theory ground an intersection of advantage/disadvantage ground? the intersection should be the set of all arguments which are non-unique really.
Posted from: 98.201.178.59
December 2nd, 2008 13:55
michael, see 29.
Posted from: 96.229.143.242
December 2nd, 2008 14:10
there’s no need to read into the picture. it’s like extending your intro. i took it from a google image. that’s all. it’s just a silly picture apropos to nothing.
Posted from: 24.120.60.99
December 2nd, 2008 14:28
Quinn,
Several things…
QO: “what wade says makes a decent amount of sense, but also puts the affirmative in a double-bind: either aff case is linked directly the *the* ICC which gives the neg that immense amount of ground he cites, or, the neg can run a conditionality. while a decent debater can beat a condo[tionality] shell, that is also something really obnoxious to deal with.”
So your argument here seems to be that one should debate to the less educational and more fair strategy (as per your agreement with Wade) in an effort to avoid an “obnoxious” argument that you say is easy to deal with. I’m confused… This DOUBLE-BIND is seeming scarier every time I re-read your post… Wait… Nope. Never mind. My mistake.
QO: “josh: conditionality arguments, i don’t think, are directly rooted in theory / have to utilize theory standards (simultaneous truth and falsity, insufficient to fulfill aff burden, etc). as a result, conditionality isn’t necessarily a means of the neg calling out abuse (although it can be used that way); rather, it can be a means of pointing out the insufficiency of the 1AC if it is arguably specific.”
I think Mangus lets you off far too easily here. ARE YOU KIDDING? What LD calls conditionality arguments are specifically indictments of the affirmative failing to meet its “categorical burden” or some garbage to that extent. To make (coherently) and win those arguments you have to JUSTIFY why such a burden is theoretically legitimate. Moreover, you must DEMONSTRATE why failing to meet that burden is a reason to reject the AC. To accomplish either of these absent theoretical justifications that involve abuse stories is probably a terrible idea.
QO: “this creates a problem because the aff can be ICC specific, and that opens up the ability for the neg to run a conditionality shell (along the lines of which i just described) in addition to running ICC specific neg args because neg burden is arguably different from the aff one. thus, the double bind still exists (in response to patrick).”
Here’s where it starts to get laughable. What Josh is, rightly, pointing out, is that any real “Conditionality” argument would have to be making arguments as to why being ICC specific is theoretically illegitimate. Those reasons would ALWAYS appeal to arguments that are 100% taken out by the existence of a litany of ICC specific responses as that disproves ANY VIABLE abuse story.
QO: “look, i’m not advocating that conditionality (or subtopicality or whatever, i don’t really care for what the ‘proper’ jargon is, don’t think it really matters) is good.
the question being asked, i think, is concerning sleazy strats. i was specifying a sleazy strat that i am 100% sure that someone will run. me explaining how the strat would most likely unfold (the double-bind scenario) is not me saying ‘OMG HOW CAN YOU LOSE A NEG ROUND WITH THIS ONE’; rather, i was clarifying how the strategy would most likely unfold. further, what i said was not a criticism of what wade was saying. i was only pointing out how X sleazy strategy would work in relation to wade’s explanation of how Y aff would pan out.”
Actually you were advocating for it, but you seem to understand that passing this off as hypothetical now may have strategic advantages. But maybe I’m misreading you. So I’ll take you at your word.
What you certainly weren’t doing was talking about how a sleazy strategy would “unfold”. You barely posed an argument. Playing out an argument never happened. But what you seem to be missing is that Wade’s arguments assumed your “sleazy strat” and preemptively answered it. The strategy would NOT PAN OUT AT ALL.
Please, the point of this thread is to talk about misled arguments and how to ensure they do not dominate the topic. Responding to well-thought-out arguments that meet this standard with absurd distractions seems pretty unhelpful. If you have an idea regarding a bad argument that may be made post it AND THE ANSWER TO IT. Failing to initially indicate that you feel the argument is bad from the beginning destroys any credibility you cling for later.
DM
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 2nd, 2008 14:41
SO, what theory arguments do people plan on running that are good?
Seems to me like we’ve only brought up the bad ones so far.
Posted from: 66.108.128.221
December 2nd, 2008 16:59
the title of the thread is “combating bad theory”, hence the discussion of bad theory arguments.
Posted from: 98.195.66.198
December 2nd, 2008 17:04
@50
i think he realizes the title, he just, like others, want to know what some good theory on this topic might look like
Posted from: 71.189.35.103
December 2nd, 2008 17:11
I must say that I am disappointed with dan’s tone in his response to quinn. I’m not sure where the malice comes from, were just truth testing here.
I think the assumption of this thread is that there is apriori bad theory and that the notions of theory do not fluctuate over time. Theory, like all other arguments, has legitimacy that differs by time place and person. Good is only what the majority of people believe it to be.
Preface: My view of theory and in this case condo is as a check on the aff. Im a minimalist in that id like to see theory minimally run.
There are three theory-eque arguments I see panning.
1. Conditionality
Resolution burdens
Cant affirm
2. Overspec
Ground
Check to delinks
3. Underspec (agent, et al)
ground
cant generate disads
I think the first two are viable. The question of what it means to affirm has been in great flux for the past few years, and so i think is a viable area for debate. To Dan, I think negative has to justify why the aff has a resolution burden, if its not in the AC its an assumption, and probably should be attacked. I think this is simlar to the “apriori” and jurisdiction voters on theory, you appeal to standards which are based on what Quinn notes, logic, normativity, truth, general, etc.
Overspec is probably the biggest id want to see theory get. The only real abuse story is ground, and the only real ground loss would be if the negative couldn’t run their general ground and link it to the specific aff case. Thus overspec would be merely a check against affirmative delinks via the specific agent. The abuse would be generated in the AR, and I think the articulated in round abuse would be a viable story.
The final and worst arg is probably underspec. Some negatives may claim that under the resolution the affirmative should be forced to specify a plan. I think this is where the aff is in a double bind, either they spec and get condo and underspec or they don’t spec and get underspec.
As far as quinns args go, I don’t think they are articulated the best, but I don’t see some validity to them, though I have no idea what the initial double bind he was talking about is. I don’t think its fair to call his credibility into a question when I think he was legitimately decrying condo in his original post as obnoxious and easily beatable. I’m taking the position that condo and spec are viable, feel free to hate on me.
Posted from: 71.189.35.103
December 2nd, 2008 17:12
do see*
Posted from: 72.213.162.95
December 2nd, 2008 17:39
Thanks Phil. Of course I can read, but if we have all these bad theory arguments out there, and we know how to block them, then what good theory should we run?
Personally, I like my friends idea of kritiking the resolution by arguing that there can be no crimes against humanity. He sets it up very persuasively.
Posted from: 130.160.209.31
December 2nd, 2008 18:23
Alan, arguing there can be no crimes against humanity is not a theory argument, but it does link into (in my opinion) a pretty good one, which is that rejection theory is unfair. In other words, the neg should only be able to criticize assumptions that are specific to the AC, rather than assumptions inherent to the resolution. The warrant I’ve seen most frequently for this position is that it allows the aff to be responsible for the flaws in their own case and not flaws that exist in the aff world that are beyond the debater’s control. I think this is a particularly good theory argument on this topic because the good k ground for negs is gigantic enough as is. IR affs already generate tons of links for very specific k’s, so it seems unreasonable for negs to run k’s that link into literally every single AC.
Posted from: 136.152.150.81
December 2nd, 2008 18:31
here’s a useful question: is there a coherent theory argument about why the affirmative cannot advocate that the united states accede to the jurisdiction of the ICC by becoming a signatory to and/or ratifying the rome statute and/or repealing the american servicemembers’ protection act? as far as i see it, the article “an” justifies affirmative “conditionality”, and any disad that isn’t completely awful still links, so why is there a reason not to let the aff do this?
also, “aff must ratify the ICC” is a persuasive topicality argument IMO and i predict it will win lots of rounds through about VBT.
Posted from: 136.152.150.81
December 2nd, 2008 18:34
also, i agree that affirmatives reserving the right to kick the counterplan is probably abusive, ldo (this is what “conditionality” means, right?)
Posted from: 69.140.239.225
December 2nd, 2008 18:49
I don’t think that’s Alan.
Posted from: 24.151.41.11
December 2nd, 2008 18:58
Neither do I, Alan’s email is something like tonytong not arvay@gmail.com.
Posted from: 71.247.126.222
December 2nd, 2008 19:01
Alan Tong has the same ip adress as the anon who originally asked what is theory?
Posted from: 192.195.154.109
December 2nd, 2008 19:10
@ the “conditionality” (whole res) argument
It always seemed to me that this argument was bad because instead of warranting why defending the whole resolution is good, they whine about quantitative ground loss without speaking to the relative division of ground (essentially what Lexy is saying). It seems to me just to be an appeal to a notion of what the affirmative is bound to do without justification of why that is a fair burden. I think the reason that these arguments are prevalent is because many judges evaluate the argument from the starting point that the affirmative must justify why we deviate from whole res. If that is your starting point as a judge are we really surprised that debaters make abuse stories relative to defending “the entirety of the resolution (i.e. they exclude my obscure example as Lexy mentions)?” At that point it seems silly to demonize Quinn’s arguments because they are appealing to a (imo bad) paradigm that is fairly commonly accepted. Because (many) judges look at theory as an abuse claim that one side has to definitively prove rather than the balance of evidence being used to prefer an interp, debaters just make abuse stories relative to what judges intuitively think about debate. Until we see theory as competing interpretations rather than abuse claims negative theory arguments will be only half developed in the same way whole res “conditionality” arguments are. Just like it would be ridiculous to enter the round with preconceptions about substantive arguments, let’s stop having preconceptions about what is theoretically legitimate or illegitimate. If someone writes a case that talks about why realism is good and I don’t like realism, it shouldn’t be arbitrarily up to that debater to convince me realism is good, I should shed my preconceived notions and see which debaters has better arguments about realism. Instead of saying the aff must defend the whole resolution and we need a reason to deviate from that, both debaters should have to justify why whole res is a good or bad thing and if it is bad why parametrics (or some other logically counter-interpretation) is a good thing relative to a whole res position.
Posted from: 192.195.154.109
December 2nd, 2008 19:13
@ smitty
you are mostly right about counterplan conditionality although I would assume you meant the negative kicking the cp rather than the aff. Also if there is just defense on the cp and no straight turns to the net benefit you can still kick it even if its not conditional. Only if it is unconditional can you under no circumstance kick it.
Posted from: 136.152.150.81
December 2nd, 2008 19:15
my post was a joke, DUCY?
Posted from: 192.195.154.109
December 2nd, 2008 19:35
is there a reasons other than the fact that it sounds dumb?
Posted from: 192.195.154.109
December 2nd, 2008 19:35
**reason
Posted from: 71.82.121.134
December 2nd, 2008 19:39
@scogs
I agree with you on this one. Sounds an awful lot like an epic argument we had with Jake and Ravi….
Posted from: 67.80.215.195
December 2nd, 2008 20:23
:o(
Is it really necessary to impersonate somebody and advocate running bad arguments.
You sir, are lame.
Posted from: 75.72.79.154
December 2nd, 2008 20:24
scagga ftw x 2
Posted from: 67.80.215.195
December 2nd, 2008 20:35
To be honest I’ve never really understood the conception of theory as comparing interpretations. I understand it in terms of counterstandards and feasible arguments that can be run but it seems that if the notion of winning defense on theory is not persuasive than any time a theory argument is presented the metadebate is ultimately what will decide the round, which seems kind of silly to me as any theory argument would shift the entire focus of the round away from the case debate.
Maybe I’m not understanding the notion of competing interpretations correctly.
Posted from: 208.120.131.125
December 2nd, 2008 21:30
nice work emanuel
Posted from: 170.140.211.45
December 2nd, 2008 21:31
it’s just like how people don’t find winning defense on case arguments as a particularly persuasive way to vote (nobody wants to vote for some pansy “no warrant” shit),. some judges feel that winning theory debates by arguing “fairness is not a voter” should not be the all-star strat.
theory doesn’t necessarily always decide the round; let’s say the aff runs theory on the neg in the 1AR and the NR clearly shows how her interpretation is more fair/educational and whatnot. if the aff kicks theory in the 2AR then obviously theory would not be a factor in the judge’s decision.
when people argue about why their position is fair or predictable or gives good ground or whatever (in response to a theory shell), that is an implicit debate over interpretations. they are showing why their allegedly “abusive” case is in fact a better type of case. this is a preferable type of theory debate because it forces debaters to justify their conception of affirming/negating.
Posted from: 24.90.20.221
December 2nd, 2008 21:39
i don’t understand how the aff can just kick theory in the 2ar if the neg is effectively turning the standards by proving their counter interp better meets. the way i see it, just like ac’s can’t kick out of turns on the ac without extending neg args to take out their own criterion or framework, the aff can’t just decide theory doesn’t matter in the last speech if the neg never contests the legitimacy of theory arguments in the first place.
Posted from: 24.7.71.153
December 2nd, 2008 22:05
yeah, they can, because theory is a gateway issue and winning that you are topical or that you meet a better interpretation of the resolution doesn’t mean you should win the debate.
Posted from: 24.90.20.221
December 2nd, 2008 22:31
if the aff made fairness a voter by running theory, they said that your interpretation is unfair thus drop you. but if you are proving that your counter interpretation is in fact not unfair, but more fair than your opponents, according to their own standards, wouldn’t that mean that they should be voted down since they are the one with the unfair interp? i guess that’s how i always understood turns on theory in terms of counter interps
Posted from: 67.80.215.195
December 2nd, 2008 22:39
i agree with saboor. at least the way i understood it, framing theory as competing interpretations is strategic as it allows you to generate offense on the theory debate. if winning your interpretation is still no risk for the debater that brought up theory in first place, then i don’t understand how there is a check against debaters just running tons of crappy theory arguments. the notion of no-risk theory seems unfair too. :o/
Posted from: 192.195.154.109
December 2nd, 2008 22:41
So in the 1AR should I stand up and be like they did not contest my interpretation of ought, thus it is fair, thus I win? Why is an interp being contested unsuccessfully a reason to vote aff in that situation, and wouldn’t that also mean that ‘dropping’ interps would be reasons to affirm? How does that make any sense?
Posted from: 192.195.154.109
December 2nd, 2008 22:44
When you were taught that you can generate ‘offense’ on theory it was not that winning a counter-interp wins you the round (in the absence of an RVI) it was that you can give offensive reasons why your (counter)-interp is good and compare that offense with that of the initial shell. In that sense the argument is offensive, but you don’t win off of it.
Posted from: 67.165.107.38
December 2nd, 2008 22:51
competing interpretations does not mean ‘whoever wins theory wins the debate.’ it means that both sides need to have a principled defense of their interp of the rules. the basic idea is that if you dont have an interp or a counter-interp, you dont have a way to generate offense because you arent advocating for some specific constraint on debate practice. this convention doesn’t demand that the judge always vote based on theory; it just provides a way to frame theory impacts. initiating a theory argument amounts to the claim “the other side should lose because their approach is unfair.” proving that the approach is, in fact, fair to both sides does not imply that you ought to win - it only denies that you should lose based on the strategy. this is common sense.
the fundamental error made by some seems to be the supposition that “offense = reason you win.” this is a shallow understanding of the offense/defense paradigm. offense amounts to the sum of your impacts. weighing hashes out exactly what the value of each impact is. you do not win merely because you have offense; if both sides have offense, its a question of comparison.
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
December 3rd, 2008 00:21
the point of theory debate is not whoever is
“more fair” wins. By that interpretation of fairness, I could extend all of my opponent’s arguments for him, thus being the “most” fair, and win the round because fairness is a voter.
the idea is that once you cross a certain threshold you become sufficiently unfair (contextualized by the standards) and you then deserve to lose on the basis of fairness. again, the standards should provide a brightline. if they don’t, it’s probably not a great theory argument.
arguing that this interpretation of theory debate will create a world where theory is run in every round is absurd. first of all, judges check ridiculous abuse stories. judges are often unwilling to vote off of real abuse stories, so they definitely won’t buy false claims of abuse. second, the alternative is far worse. nobody would ever run theory if a bunch of “turns” about how they are actually “more fair” would be sufficient for a loss. this is even more true if taking out theory is sufficient for one side to win (which some people seem to think. I personally don’t know why “I’m fair”–>the resolution is true).
the only way to eliminate the abusive strategies that everyone seems to hate (e.g. multiple a prioris, skepticism, nec. but insuff. burdens) is to make theory an issue accessible to all debaters, not held to any particularly high standard or threshold, and not susceptible to awful generic takeouts or “turns” about how one side is “more fair”.
In other words, it seems like a lot of people hate the problem but are unwilling to embrace the solution.
Posted from: 170.140.111.105
December 3rd, 2008 07:54
just because you prove your interpretation as more fair does not necessarily mean your opponent’s interpretation as unfair, so extending turning turns on theory does not necessarily prove abuse by your opponent
Posted from: 170.140.111.105
December 3rd, 2008 07:55
is unfair*
Posted from: 170.140.111.105
December 3rd, 2008 07:55
and scratch turning, wow i’m retarded
Posted from: 70.118.127.70
December 3rd, 2008 20:28
I agree with Ken, Michael, Scoggin, and Maeshal that winning theory by winning the counter-interpretation “does not necessarily mean that your opponent’s interpretation [is] unfair” (80), but I do think Saboor is right about something.
The following examples are definitely accurate:
-Ken: “I personally don’t know why ‘I’m fair’–>the resolution is true.”
-Michael: “proving that the approach is, in fact, fair to both sides does not imply that you ought to win - it only denies that you should lose based on the strategy.”
-Scoggin: “So in the 1AR should I stand up and be like they did not contest my interpretation of ought, thus it is fair, thus I win? ”
I agree–the aff should not win merely by proving they are topical or fair. But I think that is an entirely different issue than the turns and counter-interp victories that Saboor is talking about. Here’s the distinction:
A. The aff needs an RVI if they want to win on “I’m being fair.” That’s probably a bad argument and justifies really counter-intuitive decisions. These are the ridiculous things discussed above.
B. The aff should not need an RVI if they want to win on strong offense with weighing on the counter-interp. An RVI makes theory an artificially bidirectional issue where it was once just a gateway (vote aff if I prove I’m topical), whereas a truly offensive win on the counter-interp would be a reason to vote against the debater who’s making debate worse. Michael is right that offense does not win, but compared offense does.
Here’s an example of the B route. The theory debate is on conditional counterplans. Aff interp: “the neg must be bound to its counter-advocacy as textually represented in the NC.” If the aff runs turns on theory, real offense, like “this interp would force the neg to do x which would be much more unfair in terms of y standard” (with weighing and comparison attached), then a competing interpretations paradigm of theory would justify voting for the counter-interp if it won the prime offense.
If the framework for theory is competing interpretations, then voting for one debater is voting for their interpretation, voting for the better rule for debate. If each side has its own interpretation, and one interpretation is better for debate, the judge should vote to make debate better rather than worse. This does not justify bad RVI strategies, generic takeouts, dumps on the voter, poor defense, or wins on “I’m topical” because the winning interpretation requires offense. Turns on theory, if they are really turns, prove that you should vote for “good” over “bad” debate, and I think that’s what Saboor is getting at.
Posted from: 164.67.207.181
December 3rd, 2008 21:58
at: whole rez
why isn’t the affirmative’s answer to NC theory just that it’s just defense against my ev instead of a fairness voter?
Posted from: 67.159.3.227
December 3rd, 2008 23:24
a2:Jake
if your counter-interp outweighs the standards arguments in their shell then you sever their internal link to the fairness voter (or at least render it non-offensive). at that point theres no reason to vote on their theory so you are not being forced to adhere to the their interp, which means the abuse articulated in ‘this interp would force the neg to do x which would be much more unfair in terms of y standard’ does not exist. the only conceivable reason to vote for you at that point would be some argument about why the fact that you had to spend time on the issue sucks from your ability to win the other substantive issues in the round, and that sounds an awful lot like an RVI.
Posted from: 67.165.107.38
December 4th, 2008 12:27
i think theres a distinction in terms of RVIs vs competing interps that gets glossed over a little bit in jakes post. an RVI makes its own independent theory position the issue (e.g. their arg was a timesuck, thats bad). these arguments are generally terrible, but they are distinct from generating offense to a counter-interp. link-turning their standards, for example, generates O to their interp rather than O to some external standard like an RVI would. thats ultimately the point of my post, since i think an incorrect understanding of offense is the problem a lot of people are having in this discussion. so as far as i understand it, everything jake says up until his example is reconcilable w/ my argument if you keep in mind that the RVI is basically a new theory arg rather than an on-point answer (like reading an add-on against a CP).
i am not sure i understand what jakes getting at in his example. it appears to me that his post has repeated the error of others by assuming that competing interps is a theory for decision rules, not a theory of comparison, but i may be wrong. if you can clarify the distinction between your example and the argument you think people are answering, i might have more to say.
Posted from: 70.118.127.70
December 4th, 2008 15:46
Michael: Sorry about the ambiguity. I agree with your distinction between RVIs and competing interps; I was trying to highlight that distinction in the A and B routes in my post. The RVI creates an artificial, independent theory issue, and generating offense to a counter-interp allows for a comparison of theory impacts against their interp.
My example was trying to prove that a debater can win on theory if they win outweighing offense on the competing interpretations debate. Although RVIs suck and “I’m topical so I win” is a bad argument, I think a counter-interp can still be a reason to vote for the debater that makes debate better.
Here’s the point: Absent an RVI, winning the counter-interp is not NECESSARILY a reason to vote for you, but I think people are a lot too dismissive of the possibility that it CAN win the round (Scoggin 77 for example). Yes, competing interpretations is just a theory of comparison, but that comparison may be a reason for decision (even without a crappy RVI) if there are link turns being extended against the initial shell.
I’ll re-explain the example to address Matt (85) as well, but first, to Matt, the scenario you describe sounds like the aff just won defense if the only result is that they “sever their internal link to the fairness voter (or at least render it non-offensive).” The competing interps framework allows for the comparison of offense, so abuse isn’t an all-or-nothing issue that only matters for the person running theory and is inaccessible to the defender. If you’re winning link turns, you’re winning offense, not just neutralizing theirs.
Now to the example: I mixed up like half the “affs/negs” so that generated some confusion in both posts; sorry ’bout that. Consider a different scenario:
NEG Interp: The aff must defend the whole res (violation is that the aff was “conditional”).
AFF C-I: The aff may defend one example so long as it was disclosed before the round (definitely competitive with the interp).
If the aff proves that the neg interp makes debate worse, and the counter-interp would make debate better, that competition of interps can very well be a reason to vote aff.
I think this is analogous to the aff just running a completely different theory argument and weighing it against the harms of the initial theory issue. That offense is a reason to vote; similarly, the judge would vote on the counter-interp if there were outweighing offense on that issue. If theory is a matter of comparison and not all-or-nothing abuse, then I see this as a logical consequence.
I’m just advocating that people shouldn’t just be outraged at the possibility that the counter-interp can win without a bad argument like “T is a time suck.” Saboor got a lot of flak for suggesting that the judge can vote for turns on the theory debate. Sure, that’s not the Essence of competing interps, but it’s a consequence.
If we don’t accept that as a consequence, then debaters would have little incentive to engage in substantive theory debates, since offense and defense would be equally strategic. Generating offense on the counter-interp would yield the same outcome as dumping defense: theory would go away. This does not justify RVIs; as Michael said, the RVI is an like an add-on that makes neutralization an artificial reason to vote. I’m saying theory offense should win; theory defense shouldn’t.
Posted from: 67.159.51.154
December 4th, 2008 16:15
‘Matt, the scenario you describe sounds like the aff just won defense if the only result is that they “sever their internal link to the fairness voter (or at least render it non-offensive).” ‘
i suppose i should have been more clear in what i meant: if you win that the justifications for your counter-interp outweigh the justifications for the interp, then you have neutralized the ability for your opponent to win the round off of theory. at that point, the abuse in ‘their interp forces me to do x unfair thing’, doesn’t exist because you aren’t being held to that interp anymore, instead the judge is evaluating arguments through your counter-interp.even with your distinction about rules, the judge does not need to vote for you to endorse the ‘better rule for debate’ because that rule is already in place. you would need some sort of independent reason outside the comparison of offense on the interp/counterinterp for the judge to vote on you. turns to theory collapse into RVIs.
in fact, if we accept that the judge ought to endorse the better rule for debate, and your opponent wins substance under your rule, the judge has to vote for your opponent to endorse your rule.
Posted from: 71.139.11.48
December 4th, 2008 16:34
“If the aff proves that the neg interp makes debate worse, and the counter-interp would make debate better, that competition of interps can very well be a reason to vote aff.”
Theory is not about nebulous links to “making debate worse.” The way you generate links to theory standards is by proving some sort of abuse claim. Where is the abuse story in the above scenario? Is it that the aff had to spend time answering theory (read: bad RVI)? Is it that the neg now has the “benefit” (sarcasm) of advocating a bunch of positions that are now non-topical because he lost the interp? The fact is that there is no abuse by the neg; the aff just gets links into their offense if they win the interp debate. Theory is a gateway issue–it is used to reject strategies that structurally prevent one debater from engaging in the round. Winning “offense” to a counter-interp is winning offense to a standard that permits you to continue to access the arguments you already were permitted to make.
In short: if you strawman competing interpretations as something that it is not and then use this to justify patently absurd interpretations of theory (e.g., topical => truth), all you are proving is that your strawmanning was problematic. Michael in particular is articulating a very clear interpretation of what offense actually means on the theory debate.
Posted from: 70.118.127.70
December 4th, 2008 16:46
Matt:
Your argument rests on a sort of theory debate chronology: “the abuse in ‘their interp forces me to do x unfair thing’, doesn’t exist because you aren’t being held to that interp anymore, instead the judge is evaluating arguments through your counter-interp.” They held you to their interp, you won the counter-interp, then you are free so your counter-interp is already in place.
I don’t think that’s a coherent account of the debate, because
1. You were never “held” to their interp. If you violated it, then you were never tied to it to begin with, and they argued that their interp is good, so vote against the violation.
2. Your argument only applies if the counter-interp is dropped; otherwise, the impacts that you’re generating still count, because they’re still advocating the counter-interp. If you say the scene changes when the judge decides in their head that the counter-interp won, then the judge is just retroactively erasing abuse after the fact.
3. The rule isn’t “already in place.” Winning the counter-interp doesn’t mean the counter-interp has been the underlying truth all along, and you just happened to reach into theory limbo to show the judge what’s up. No, you won the counter-interp and then the judge votes for it, just like the initial interp is something the judge endorses after the violation. Your view that the interp is just a kind of lens through which the judge views arguments makes theory’s offensive potential unnatural: there would be no reason to vote for the interpretation; we would just apply it and exclude the argument. Unless you think that “drop the argument not the debater” should be a universal policy or default, this is bad.
Then you say, “If we accept that the judge ought to endorse the better rule for debate, and your opponent wins substance under your rule, the judge has to vote for your opponent to endorse your rule.”
That sets a bad precedent. For example, the neg runs 8 a prioris and turns the AC silly, and the aff wins theory but drops the AC turns; your advocacy would justify a neg ballot so long as the neg is winning substance under the rule. Again, this makes theory into a merely defensive tactic of exclusion. Also, voting on theory doesn’t mean you’re voting for the person who is winning within the parameters of the best interpretation; that justifies kicking an AC proven not to be topical and just turning the NC, which encourages abusive strategies because debaters would just make debates unfair and then kick illegitimate arguments to leverage the time tradeoff. Bad debate.
Posted from: 67.165.107.38
December 4th, 2008 19:16
i think jake makes a basic error. let me start from the beginning:
competing interpretations is a way to frame theory impacts. i’ve made this claim a few times, but let me explain it in depth:
theory debate should be evaluated in terms of competing interpretations. if i prove the link to my standards, i prove that my interpretation is superior to my opponents. consequently, whoever has the best interpretation has the best “rule” for debate. if then win that the rule has been violated, i can make the case that my opponent ought to lose. the logical progression goes: i have won that A should be the rule (won my interp), i have won that they have broken rule A, therefore they ought to lose because they cheated me (in ways x,y,z…).
competing interpretations contrasts with an argument based on, for example, a standard of direct in-round abuse. under this alternative view, the logical progression is: they took an unfair action in the debate, therefore they should lose because they cheated me (in ways x,y,z). there is a step missing here - the argument is not made from some principled position (here is a rule we ought to have in debate) but rather responds ad hoc to some action the other side has taken.
if we reject the theory of competing interpretations, it is possible, for example, for a negative to run a conditional counter-plan, keep the counter-plan throughout the debate, and respond to conditionality bad with “it wasnt didn’t kicked, so the links to your impacts (standards) don’t obtain - we did not actually do the sinister things that a team with a conditional counterplan could do.” this forces the aff into proving that the very possibility of conditionality caused them direct harm - a steep uphill battle.
however, if we accept competing interpretations, then debaters can access the necessary links by defending the effects of their interpretation. the interpretation textually grounds the specific behaviors that are being objected to, and proceeds to defend why the judge ought to force the other side to strictly adhere to the interp. the question is not specifically ‘did something bad happen in this round?’ but rather generally ‘would this strategy set a bad precedent?’
nowhere in this is a through case made for why unfair strategies ought to be punished with a loss. that vein of argument is closely related because it is the terminal impact of the interpretation, but it has its own issues at stake. accepting competing interpretations - essentially an offense/defense approach understood in terms of competing advocacies - does not require you to take a stance about what constitutes a voting issue. however, i will take a stance:
you do not win because you are fair. you only lose because you are unfair. winning because you play be the rules is not coherent - the contest is not ‘how well did you follow the rules’ but ‘how well did you perform within the context of the rules.’ therefore, winning that your standard is the best only wins you the debate if the other side does something that violates your standard and you prove that this justifies voting against them. this observation is important because in theory debates *there are only competing interpretations, not competing violations.* this point is tied to my last post regarding rvis - a new violation is a new theory debate. competing interpretations compares approaches that allow or disallow a strategy. it does not claim that the other side is violating that rule. be sensible - if you’re neg and the aff runs conditionality bad, proving that conditionality is good does not generate round-winning offense for you because it is not comparative with the affirmative (i.e. you will not be winning that the aff has run an unconditional counterplan).
the sole exception i can think of to this principle is arguments that claim some unfair action by the other side justifies your strategy. for example, if the affirmative makes an intrinsic permutation against a kritik, they might claim intrinsicness is justified by the vagueness (or utopian-ness) of the negative’s alternative. however, this too is a case where a new theory argument has been initiated (vague alts bad) in conjunction with another theory debate (intrinsic perms bad).
lets apply this directly to jakes example:
“NEG Interp: The aff must defend the whole res (violation is that the aff was “conditional”).
AFF C-I: The aff may defend one example so long as it was disclosed before the round (definitely competitive with the interp).
If the aff proves that the neg interp makes debate worse, and the counter-interp would make debate better, that competition of interps can very well be a reason to vote aff.”
it does not follow that because the aff *may* defend one example, the judge therefore ought to vote aff *because* they defended one example. the judge’s objective is not ‘make debate better’ but rather ‘choose a winner, but choose fairly.’ there is no case made in jakes post, or anywhere else on this thread, for why judges ought to vote for strategies simply because they’re good strategies (e.g. evaluate only form and no content whatsoever).
the reason no one has said that yet is because it’s crazy talk. (maybe jon cruz will be so bold in his comments - come on jon, how many times will you lead us on by saying youll post later?) but most importantly, it has nothing to do with competing interpretations.
Posted from: 67.159.47.203
December 4th, 2008 20:05
i think you are misinterpreting my ‘debate chronology’. what i am saying is, when you win that your counter-interp outweighs, the judge uses your counter-interp to evaluate arguments in the round. by ‘already in place’ i did not mean that the counter-interp was ‘the underlying truth all along’. i mean once the judge defaults to your interpretation to evaluate the debate, the judge doesn’t need to vote for you on theory to endorse your counter-interpretation, because they are already using that interpretation as a rule for the substantive arguments in the round.
‘1.You were never “held” to their interp.’
by “held to their interp” i do not mean, “forced to argue in a manner consistent with their interp”. I just mean that they have argued for a specific rule, and if the judge votes using this rule, the implication of your arguments will subject to the rule’s stipulations.
“2. Your argument only applies if the counter-interp is dropped;”
you assume this: “If a debater is arguing against an interpretation in their last speech, the only way for the judge to endorse that interpretation is to vote against them.” I am arguing that that assumption is false. the judge can endorse your counter-interp by evaluating arguments under the paremeters of your counter-interpretation instead of under your opponent’s interp.
“3. Your view that the interp is just a kind of lens….”
I don’t view the interp as only a mechanism to establish the parameters of arguments in the round, I am only trying to demonstrate that you cannot justify a ballot for outweighing on a counter-interp based on “endorsing better debate” without some kind of independent argument (an RVI).
“That sets a bad precedent.”
this just illustrates my point that you have to make an abuse claim independent of the arguments on the interp/counter-interp to justify a ballot. i agree with you that theory should be a voting issue and not just a defensive exclusion of certain tactics, I am only arguing that if we make the assumption that the judge ought to endorse the “preferable model of debate” or whatever, you need to win some kind of RVI if you want the judge to vote for you because your counter-interp outweighs.
additionally, as moerner points out, that is probably not a good assumption to make, as theory should be about demonstrating an abuse claim, which means to win you have to prove why it is unfair for you to have to answer theory and then win substance, not just prove that ‘your rule is better’.
Posted from: 218.78.227.191
December 4th, 2008 23:54
condo good, judge!
I have nothing meaningful to say about the above debate.
I think P.Rai has a good point.
It seems like this discussion about “bad theory” is kinda taken out of perspective. When did people starting actually running theory in LD as we know it today? With actual warrants for fairness and real internal links from the standard to the voter?
I think most people would agree it’s pretty recent. 2002? 2001 maybe? Until about 2005 or so, you didn’t really see anyone run theory except for policy debaters who tried LD and the top national circuit debaters (and maybe a few of their acolytes). From 2005-now, i think we’ve seen two things happen very rapidly:
1. More people are running theory. Less experienced debaters are running more theory, and you’re seeing theory at more local and regional tournaments, rather than at primarily nat circuit ones. Camps are now teaching lots of it, and high-profile recorded rounds use it.
2. Theory is maturing. In 2006, I don’t think you would have seen a discussion this nuanced. In 2004 you certainly wouldn’t have. You’d hear much more about how people who run theory should go back to policy and stfu. Theory arguments and the dialogues surrounding them are getting better as people’s thresholds for voting on theory increases.
So why do we always talk about “bad theory”? Obviously theory isnt going to be as good as normal args, it takes alot of technical knowledge to write and run good theory, and theory debates have not had as long to mature in LD. Unless we’re comfortable allowing 8 apriori NCs, maybe we should acknowledge that theory needs to mature more. But that means you have to listen to it as a judge and be fine with your kids running it as a coach.
Posted from: 75.73.68.33
December 5th, 2008 09:30
i generally agree with mangus, i have 1 question, and ill use a policy example as a way to flesh it out:
1AR spends 2 mins on conditionality bad, 2NR spends 3 mins answering this with conditionality good/reject arg not team, so 2AR goes for 6 mins conditionality bad/reject team. Judge ultimately decided conditionality not so bad and not a reason to vote against the negative.
It seems like the 2NR arguments are more or less terminal defense against the 2AR offense, in the sense that the 2NR is not framing their conditionality good args in a “this is a reason to vote for us” but rather in a “this is a reason to not vote against us,” can a judge resolve theory issues in a offense/defense paradigm or is a different paradigmatic approach necessary?
One question for the community: why is theory such a death penalty issue in LD? I know that in college policy, shells(ie severance perms bad/text comp good) that start as “vote team down,” often times morph into “reason to reject the counter plan/perm.”
I think that if LD theory sort of evolved in that direction as a reason to reject things like insufficient burdens/a prioris, and not a reason to vote someone down, it would probably become increasingly palatable with a much larger percentage of the judging pool.
Posted from: 67.165.107.38
December 5th, 2008 12:35
daryls example repeats, again, the error of assuming that offense inherently means “round-winning arg.” “here are reasons to not drop us” is (a) not really an interpretive argument (that would be something like “heres our standard for CP status”) and (b) could be offensive or defensive. “condo good” and “condo not so bad” are not the same argument.
the answer, ultimately, is yes. offense/defense amounts to the principle “you need to make positive assertions, not negative denials.” this seems applicable to basically any argument.
i think people in policy accept ‘reject the arg’ more often than LDers to hedge their bets. when you have big debates with theory on both sides, its often in your best interest to accept ‘reject the arg.’ ive never seen anyone who was winning a big theory debate collapse to that stance on their own accord.
Posted from: 129.170.116.212
December 5th, 2008 21:06
So I have a question. It makes sense to me that you can’t win just for being topical or for being more fair or whatever, as these seem to be clearly threshold arguments. But what if the voter is something different that seems to be more of a maximization standard (”education” springs to mind). In this case, is it legitimate to extend turns against the shell as voters?
Posted from: 69.118.137.26
December 5th, 2008 23:45
Education voters are not maximization standards either. The side that is most insightful is not necessarily the side that wins. If this were the case, similar bizarre strategies to those described before would be allowed. People lose on the basis of education when they cross a certain threshold (for example, by ignoring the political content of the resolution by running skepticism), so it does not have to do with maximization.
Posted from: 66.74.215.244
December 6th, 2008 11:21
i remember that i would make turns on theory by just link-turning specific standards and proving that something else the other debater was doing was worse for fairness. That seems the most viable strat in terms of offense that can win you the round on theory. plus, internal weighing on theory isn’t something that i’ve seen a lot of ppl do and its really a must…
also, it seems to me the that there really isn’t some set threshold of “fairness” in all reality. Its more of an argument that the other person is being less fair than you are (i could be the aff and have multiple standards, but a neg that ran multiple conditional CPs would be a lot worse). And if that would be the case making turns by saying that you are ultimately more fair than your opp would seem to make sense as a response to theory.
I mean, that doesn’t exactly work, but I’m just curious why it wouldn’t. or is this explained earlier in the thread?
Posted from: 136.152.156.238
December 6th, 2008 13:30
+1 to Weeks.
Running theory prior to 2006 was a disasterous experience. Debaters were not good at it, and worse, judges actively refused to flow it.
Things have been improving steadily on theory. For example, am I wrong, or has skeptical argumentation gone down steadily and significantly since 2006? Is there a good explanation for this trend besides theory? There might be, but I tend to think theory has had an impact.
Posted from: 136.152.156.238
December 6th, 2008 13:30
grr. “Disastrous” not the butchering of that word in the post above.
Posted from: 76.186.244.15
December 10th, 2008 22:58
It seems as though the focus on the function of theory (in reference to the arguments about winning an opposing interpretation) makes an egregious error in development by appealing to, not an abstractness, but rather an overly technical understanding of function. While I was, for 3 years, strongly against theory in debate, and am also a fan of good technical debate, the notion being advanced by several people that winning offense on theory wins the round.
In a very linear understanding of debate, this would make sense. We are taught in novice lessons that win one debater wins offense on an argument, they win that argument, In reference to turns on theory this runs in to two potential problems. The first is that this requires explicit weighing between those turns and offense won by your opponent, which is infrequent. Secondly, this requires that you show that something your opponent is unfair enough to warrant voting. Simply winning that they are not fair does not simply automatically give you a link into a fairness motivated decision or exclusion of the position. If the offense is merely linked back to “me having whatever unfair thing i am doing is more fair” that is even more of a problem, and clearly is not a reason to use theory as offense for the person responding to it.
If the situation is different, and the person on whom theory is run provides a full counter interpretation justifying their position, this still requires a great deal of work, though it is more effective as defense on theory. to win this counter interp requires both offensive harms to fairness and the aforementioned outweighing. However, winning the interp merely indicates that you should be allowed to do what you are doing, and thus is not offensive. (as a caveat that most people seem to agree to, the argument that “i am not unfair but wasted time so vote for me” makes about as much sense as “i do not link to the K so i should win”).
To use an extreme example, if the neg runs 4 conditional counterplans one of which is consult japan, they should lose for running consult japan. realistic though, if the 1AR runs Condtional counterplans bad with specific harms to multiple counterplans and consult japan, the negative would then, usually, respond by providing the counterinterp, multiple conditional counterplans are good. Not only must they win reasons, they must weigh them against the aff theory and specifficaly compare to multiple and consult japan bad. In doing so, the only logical conclusion is that their positions are more fair than not having their positions, but that simply means they can run them. To say otherwise would mean that affirmatives could run, in the 1AR, my AC is not unfair so i should win. I think we can all agree that that would be a bit ridiculous.
Posted from: 207.207.127.247
December 13th, 2008 16:57
Kamil says:
“i remember that i would make turns on theory by just link-turning specific standards and proving that something else the other debater was doing was worse for fairness. That seems the most viable strat in terms of offense that can win you the round on theory. plus, internal weighing on theory isn’t something that i’ve seen a lot of ppl do and its really a must…”
this is nonsensical without a counterinterpretation. by “link-turning specific standards” you would be saying that are you’re being more predictable or give better ground or whatever, but saying that means nothing unless there is a counterinterpretation to weigh the interp against.
Kamil says:
“And if that would be the case making turns by saying that you are ultimately more fair than your opp would seem to make sense as a response to theory.”
that’s called weighing analysis. if you’re having two separate theory debates, one on multiple conditional cps and the other on multiple value criteria, then a 2AR could attempt to resolve that debate by arguing that the abuse by the multiple conditional cps is worse than the abuse by the multiple vcs and say that you still vote aff on theory. the compelling neg argument would probably be that the 1AC’s multiple vcs justifies the NC’s multiple conditional cps.