homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Thu Dec 14, 2017 2:06 am
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:28 am 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
Since the launch of the wiki, I've been doing quite a bit of theory-pondering. I'm increasingly starting to think that "advocacy" (as in, whether a team is officially advocating a specific position) is, like, not a thing.

This topic comes up occasionally with regard to AJACs etc, but it seems that most people just accept advocacy without question.

An argument against advocacy
For reference, I am unashamedly a rezcentrist. (Deal with it.) Consider the following syllogism:

  1. When voting in a debate round, you are deciding if a statement is true. (That is, the resolution.)
  2. When deciding if a statement is true, advocacy doesn't matter. (True arguments are still true, even if the person delivering them doesn't believe them.)
  3. Ergo, when voting in a debate round, advocacy doesn't matter.

This has several implications for the round. The most obvious example is conditional counterplans. Here's a slightly complicated example:

  • Aff runs a plan. Neg defeats the plan straight. The plan is now out of the picture.
  • Neg runs a conditional topical counterplan, and argues parametrics. Aff defeats the parametrics justification. The counterplan is now considered a reason to vote Affirmative.
  • Neg officially stops endorsing the counterplan. What happens? If advocacy exists, the judge should vote Negative, because there are no longer any arguments in the round endorsing the resolution. If advocacy doesn't exist, the judge should vote Affirmative, because the counterplan is still true even though the Negative stopped advocating it.

Another example is advocacy perms:

  • Neg runs a non-competitive counterplan. Aff runs an advocacy perm, advocating both their plan and the counterplan.
  • Aff runs disadvantages against the counterplan, and wins them. What happens? If advocacy exists, the judge should vote Negative, because the Affirmative just defeated their own plan. If advocacy doesn't exist, the judge should vote Affirmative, because the Affirmative's original plan is still true even though the Affirmative stopped advocating it (in its original form.)

An argument for advocacy... kind of
The only argument I've really seen for advocacy is contradictory plans. If voting is ultimately based on what arguments are presented, not on what arguments are actually advocated, what prevents the Affirmative from running an AJAC with two completely contradictory plans? (For example, both "regulate nuclear power" and "deregulate nuclear power".) The contradiction doesn't matter, they would argue; what matters is that, by the end of the round, at least one of them is shown to be true. This places the Negative in a difficult position, obviously, because whichever way they argue could wind up supporting the opposite plan. What gives?

The resolution, arguably. The Affirmative hasn't actually proven that the resolution is true, because it isn't clear which plan - if any - is actually a good idea. Advocacy isn't necessarily required to prevent contradictory positions, because contradictory points undermine each others' argumentative usefulness.

I feel like I'm missing something obvious. Why do so many rezcentrists believe in advocacy, even though it doesn't appear to have any resolutional basis?
_____________________________

EDIT: Is there a Srader-Signal, by the way? (Or are you supposed to say his name three times in front of a mirror or something?) :P

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
without advocacy, what prevents a judge from voting on arguments that weren't ever presented in the round? just because neither team advocated them doesn't mean they're not true.

_________________
- Will

2010-11 | Freshman | Bardsley/King | IX | 13th at Regionals
2011-12 | Sophomore | Dovel/King | IX | Q'd to Nationals
2012-13 | Junior | Dovel/King | IX | 17th at Nationals
2013-14 | Senior | Dovel/King | IX | 5th at Nationals

Baylor University class of 2018


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:12 am 
Offline
Guardian of the Black Room
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 26, 2011 3:05 am
Posts: 877
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: 127.0.0.1
I buy your argument that advocacy doesn't matter (while looking at it from my rezcentric mindset--I actually believe parametrics is a better framework, but that's besides the point right now).

That said, advocacy is certainly allowable under rezcentrism. (click for simple reasoning if you disagree)
Rezcentrism essentially says, "If aff can show that implementing the resolution (in any way) is a good idea, then aff wins." Showing one instance by advocating a plan is showing one way that implementing the resolution is beneficial/good.


Perhaps the reason for advocacy is beyond what's allowable based on the framework for interpreting the resolution. I contend that it is easier to win from an advocacy standpoint than from a general standpoint. A new judge will find it much easier to follow "Aff says implement X, while Neg says that X is a bad idea (or an alternative)." It is common sense to most people that in a debate, one team suggests a course of action (or actions), and the other team suggests a contradictory one.

It is counter-intuitive for a new judge, however, that a aff can argue that we should do an ambiguous something (as in a whole-rez case), or do one of two contradictory somethings (as in a AJAC with contradictory plans). It's harder to convince the (new) judge that, "Yes, I am making a coherent argument, even though I say we should do two contradictory things."

Now, one might say that my whole post thus far has been written in "fear" of having a new judge. True--you may end up with a ex-debater as your judge who understands (and may happen to agree with) the line of argument that advocacy doesn't matter. However, it is better to have a case that can be presented to all judges, rather than just to experienced ones.

tl;dr: The main justification I can see for rezcentrists (and debaters in general, for that matter) to highly value advocacy doesn't have anything to do with what's allowable/consistent, but rather with what could make sense to the judge.

This posts operates under the assumption that the rezcentrists you're talking about who believe in advocacy aren't demanding it, rather, just exhibiting strong preference towards it. If I've misunderstood this, please let me know.

Just my 2 cents... ;)

MSD wrote:
EDIT: Is there a Srader-Signal, by the way? (Or are you supposed to say his name three times in front of a mirror or something?) :P

You're a techie--you could make a Srader-Signal! How about a banner that stretches across the HSD homepage that says "Dr. Srader--we need your help!"? :P

EDIT: I was ninja'd, but oh well... I'm too tired to respond. :)

_________________
"The poet only asks to get his head into the heavens. It is the logician who seeks to get the heavens into his head. And it is his head that splits"
- G.K. Chesterton


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:48 am 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
kingwill wrote:
without advocacy, what prevents a judge from voting on arguments that weren't ever presented in the round? just because neither team advocated them doesn't mean they're not true.
You don't have to say "only vote on the arguments the debaters endorse." You can easily say "only vote on the arguments the debaters present."

I should clarify what I mean by "advocacy" vs. "no advocacy" (I'm not referring to running a plan vs. not running a plan.) Except for particular cases, the round functions pretty much the same under both frameworks; the Aff (generally) presents a plan, the Neg (generally) refutes it. What changes is whether you vote on the plan because the Affirmative "advocates" it, or just because it was brought up in the round.

Another way of thinking about it: you're in a board meeting, and you're trying to decide if the company should change its management hierarchy. Is there a practical difference between a shareholder saying, "getting rid of middle managers would be a good idea, and I advocate it!", and a shareholder saying, "getting rid of middle managers would be a good idea", without explicitly advocating it? It seems not; to answer the question of whether the company should change its management hierarchy, you only need to know if it's a good idea, not whether someone personally advocates it. Hence the syllogism above.

In ordinary cases (Aff case vs. Neg rebuttal) this is a moot point, but it can become important when talking about issues like severance and conditional counterplans.

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
A debate is a skill-building arena, like a weight room. For that reason, debate should reward good, useful habits that will pay off in post-debate career controversies. Advocacy is one.

Debate isn't about arriving at the truth of the statements any more than weightlifting is about getting the weight off the ground. If that were the objective, a forklift would be far more efficient, and safer, than using human muscle.


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2012 10:40 pm 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
So we should ignore arguments that are not advocated (even though there's no logical reason to do so), just because doing so will be important in later life?

I'm not sure I buy that. For one, advocacy doesn't always matter in real life; as mentioned above, finding the truth about something shouldn't rely on advocacy. In other cases, advocacy does matter, obviously. But it seems a pretty weak reason to insert unnecessary leprechauns*, particularly when advocacy has no effect whatsoever on 95% of rounds.

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 2:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 pm
Posts: 152
Home Schooled: Yes
Having advocacies is good for debate. Without it, both teams would have an incentive to run multiple contradictory plans, and get out of the double turn by kicking the ones that turn out to be worse. It's a race to the bottom and makes debate pointless. Your section on the argument for advocacy says the resolution checks back, but as long as the team with multiple texts picks one at SOME point in the round and shows it to be good, this doesn't work. And they gain a huge time skew if they wait until a strategic point (1AR probably) to kick one.

At your specific implications:
For the conditional counterplan, neg is going to lose it they just straight drop the CP whether you have advocacies or not. Aff turned it (T CP=aff ballot). The team that runs an argument/advocacy can't simply decide it no longer exists whenever they want, they can only concede arguments on it. If those arguments are offensive arguments, they'll lose if they drop/kick the point. Besides the fact that if you hold advocacies on such a high threshold that kicking it means it doesn't matter, you'd just run conditionality bad because it's an advocacy shift and win on that.

For the advocacy perm. First, advocacy perms are a terrible idea. They're changing plan text in the middle of the round, which is an advocacy shift, which you'll lose on to any team that knows how to run good theory. Plus, they don't really give you anything, since the only difference is whether both sides get an argument or neither does. Now, if you run one anyway, and then run DAs against the CP. With advocacy, the DAs apply equally to both sides, so it's as if they don't exist (along with the rest of the CP). Aff's plan still has advantages which can win the round, and neg isn't comparing SQ to plan, they're comparing CP to plan, which has the same DAs. Without advocacy...if you win the perm the CP basically becomes irrelevant, and you're looking at the plan. But this is part of why you should run perms as tests of competition, advocacy shifts make for confusing rounds.

Basically, having advocacies be important is key to avoiding multiple advocacies, while a consistent application of theory for advocacies means this won't have a significant effect on outcomes of specific arguments.

_________________
Come to Puget Sound Debate Camp!
debatecamp.pssda.net


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 4:29 am 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
ZaR wrote:
Having advocacies is good for debate. Without it, both teams would have an incentive to run multiple contradictory plans, and get out of the double turn by kicking the ones that turn out to be worse. It's a race to the bottom and makes debate pointless. Your section on the argument for advocacy says the resolution checks back, but as long as the team with multiple texts picks one at SOME point in the round and shows it to be good, this doesn't work. And they gain a huge time skew if they wait until a strategic point (1AR probably) to kick one.
Prima facie. The Aff has to uphold the resolution from the first speech, not just by the end of the round. A contradictory 1AC isn't prima facie.

I don't quite understand your position. You start by stating that "advocacy is good for debate", and then proceed to argue that it doesn't matter. (On the counterplan, you argue that the Neg changing their advocacy has no effect on the round; on the advocacy perm, you argue that the DAs have no effect on the round.) What's your position, exactly?

As an aside, this -
ZaR wrote:
With advocacy, the DAs apply equally to both sides, so it's as if they don't exist (along with the rest of the CP).
- makes no sense. They don't stop existing, they take out both the Aff plan and CP equally. If we take out BOTH the Aff plan AND the Neg CP, presumption takes over and the Negative wins by default (because we have no reason to vote Affirmative.)

Your argument is based on this statement:
ZaR wrote:
Aff's plan still has advantages which can win the round
...which implicitly denies advocacy. It basically assumes that the Aff can sever the mandates that work from the mandates that don't work, which makes sense under a "no advocacy" framework (because the other mandates still prove the resolution), but doesn't make sense under an "advocacy" framework (because they're advocating the good and bad mandates as a unit.)

(Also, yes, the "no advocacy" framework permits severance by default. There are other ways to object to it, however.)

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 6:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 pm
Posts: 152
Home Schooled: Yes
Prima Facie derives from advocacy...it's basically saying advocacy shift bad. If you don't hold for advocacies, there's no theoretical justification for saying an aff must be prima facie. Additionally, this doesn't respond to the fact that neg could run 4 conditional CPs, then kick to one in the block, which has the same result.

Advocacy is good because it means you don't get to run what would be multiple advocacies, because that creates large negative incentives. It doesn't matter to the resolution of any individual arguments, just which arguments you're allowed to run in the same round.

Um...just because you win a DA doesn't mean you win the round. Impact weighing exists regardless of your stance on advocacy. What I was saying in that part is that if the perm is correct (assumed to be true for now), then the DA applies both to the plan and the CP. In this case, the DA is more or less irrelevant if the CP is not kicked (the conditional CP was the other part) because both sides have the same DA for their plan, so neither side is gaining an advantage on the impacts. Basically, if a perm is true and you're advocating it, all arguments for or against a CP apply equally to both sides.

So to be clear, I wasn't severing the mandates, I was saying that aff can still use advantages to outweigh the DA, especially since the perm must be better than the counterplan, rather than the status quo.

Additionally, I don't see the justification for presumption without advocacy. Presumption derives from risk of change, so if you're not "advocating" change, there's no real reason for it. Also, if neg runs a CP (in either framework) they're arguing for change as well, so presumption no longer exists, it is simply a comparison of the plans. The articulation is different if you're trying to avoid sounding like you're supporting parametrics, but it applies regardless.

_________________
Come to Puget Sound Debate Camp!
debatecamp.pssda.net


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 6:52 am 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
For the purposes of Example #2 I was assuming the DAs were sufficient to outweigh the plan (I thought that was obvious), but we're in danger of getting very off-topic here, so I'll stick to the issues that actually affect the importance of advocacy. :)

Is advocacy necessary for prima facie?
No. Prima facie is just the requirement that the 1AC be a complete, stand-alone argument. We don't have to believe in advocacy to require that.

  1. With advocacy: The fact that advocacy exists, by itself, does not force the Aff to do anything special in the first speech. We hold to prima facie because it makes the round work better.
  2. Without advocacy: The fact that advocacy does not exist, by itself, does not force the Aff to do anything special in the first speech. We hold to prima facie because it makes the round work better.

What's the difference? In either case, prima facie only exists because we decide that it does.

Is advocacy necessary for presumption?
No? Presumption just comes from the question, "should we reform?" It makes no difference whether the Aff is answering that question by "advocating" something, or just by, you know, answering it.

  1. With advocacy: The resolution asks, "should we reform?" Reform carries an inherent risk, so whatever reasons for reform the Aff presents need to be sufficiently persuasive to override that risk.
  2. Without advocacy: The resolution asks, "should we reform?" Reform carries an inherent risk, so whatever reasons for reform the Aff presents need to be sufficiently persuasive to override that risk.

What's the difference?

Does advocacy prevent contradictory positions?
Not as far as I can tell.

  1. With advocacy: If you contradict yourself, you lose because your positions cancel each other out, leaving the judge with no clear reason to vote Affirmative.
  2. Without advocacy: If you contradict yourself, you lose because your positions cancel each other out, leaving the judge with no clear reason to vote Affirmative.

Again, what's the difference?

It almost seems like advocacy increases the danger of contradictory positions, because once the Aff drops a position, it basically ceases to exist. They could (for example) pick up a contradictory position in the 2AC, and then drop it later. Under a no-advocacy framework, this is a terrible idea, because the positions still exist and can still contradict; but under an advocacy framework, it could be quite useful, because the drop effectively erases the contradiction.

(You can argue against this with conventional severance-bad arguments, of course, but you can do that under the no-advocacy framework, too.)

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 7:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 pm
Posts: 152
Home Schooled: Yes
MSD wrote:
For the purposes of Example #2 I was assuming the DAs were sufficient to outweigh the plan (I thought that was obvious), but we're in danger of getting very off-topic here, so I'll stick to the issues that actually affect the importance of advocacy. :)

Is advocacy necessary for prima facie?
No. Prima facie is just the requirement that the 1AC be a complete, stand-alone argument. We don't have to believe in advocacy to require that.

  1. With advocacy: The fact that advocacy exists, by itself, does not force the Aff to do anything special in the first speech. We hold to prima facie because it makes the round work better.
  2. Without advocacy: The fact that advocacy does not exist, by itself, does not force the Aff to do anything special in the first speech. We hold to prima facie because it makes the round work better.

What's the difference? In either case, prima facie only exists because we decide that it does.

Is advocacy necessary for presumption?
No? Presumption just comes from the question, "should we reform?" It makes no difference whether the Aff is answering that question by "advocating" something, or just by, you know, answering it.

  1. With advocacy: The resolution asks, "should we reform?" Reform carries an inherent risk, so whatever reasons for reform the Aff presents need to be sufficiently persuasive to override that risk.
  2. Without advocacy: The resolution asks, "should we reform?" Reform carries an inherent risk, so whatever reasons for reform the Aff presents need to be sufficiently persuasive to override that risk.

What's the difference?

Does advocacy prevent contradictory positions?
Not as far as I can tell.

  1. With advocacy: If you contradict yourself, you lose because your positions cancel each other out, leaving the judge with no clear reason to vote Affirmative.
  2. Without advocacy: If you contradict yourself, you lose because your positions cancel each other out, leaving the judge with no clear reason to vote Affirmative.

Again, what's the difference?

It almost seems like advocacy increases the danger of contradictory positions, because once the Aff drops a position, it basically ceases to exist. They could (for example) pick up a contradictory position in the 2AC, and then drop it later. Under a no-advocacy framework, this is a terrible idea, because the positions still exist and can still contradict; but under an advocacy framework, it could be quite useful, because the drop effectively erases the contradiction.

(You can argue against this with conventional severance-bad arguments, of course, but you can do that under the no-advocacy framework, too.)
If the DAs outweigh the plan, it's worth voting aff just to avoid the obviously gaping flaws in the CP. Since we're assuming they don't kick it.

Prima facie
With advocacy: The existence of advocacy as a concept inherently means that anything which is an advocacy is held to a different standard than other arguments. One of those standards is that it must be held consistently through the round (this is usually accomplished via having a specific text), because shifting advocacies is clearly bad for debate.

Without advocacy: If advocacy does not exist, everything is simply arguments to prove the res. This can logically be done with contradictory plan texts, in the same way that neg can run "contradictory" arguments via hypothesis testing (ie plan is inherent, and also has unique DAs).

Obviously, we agree that prima facie cases are good, and you can run that cases should be prima facie for competitive balance under either framework, but advocacies also gives you a theoretical support for it.

Presumption
The question "should we reform?" only increases the threshold for one side if they're actually advocating to change. If you're simply showing there's a possible improvement, but not actually implementing it, I don't see a reason for presumption. Also, a key part of what I was saying for presumption is that neg loses presumption as soon as they run a CP because they're advocating (or not, but this is still the same as aff) for a change.

Contradictory positions
With advocacy: If you run contradictory positions, the only way to get out of it is win that advocacy shifting is fine. While it's possible to do this in specific cases (dropping a conditional CP to defend SQuo), you're not going to win that for running two opposite plans.
Without advocacy: If you run contradictory positions, you can simply extend neg arguments on one, and keep the other. Now you spend your whole speech showing why that one's right. It's just like kicking the inherency point of the above hypothesis test, as the entire point of no advocacy is that it's just another argument.

And I'm not sure what you're saying in the next part. The entire point of advocacies is that you can't just drop them when you feel like it. And even if you do drop them, the arguments concerning them still exist and can be applied elsewhere on the flow, you just no longer advocate the specific text of the advocacy. Under either framework, dropping something doesn't make it "disappear", the arguments still exist, the only change is whether dropping part of a plan is different than kicking a DA.

Why is severance bad without advocacy? I can kick other arguments, why not a counterplan?

_________________
Come to Puget Sound Debate Camp!
debatecamp.pssda.net


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 10:03 am 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
I have a feeling we're using different definitions of "advocacy", because none of your arguments make any sense to me. But I'll do the best I can. :)

Prima facie
I have two problems with your response. Firstly:
ZaR wrote:
If advocacy does not exist, everything is simply arguments to prove the res. This can logically be done with contradictory plan texts, in the same way that neg can run "contradictory" arguments via hypothesis testing (ie plan is inherent, and also has unique DAs).
Erm... no. That's not how it works at all.

The Question: Is there a reform to our environmental policy that's worth doing? (that's basically what the resolution is asking)
Aff Team: Yes! We should build more nuclear power, because nuclear power is good! We should also ban nuclear power, because nuclear power is bad!

Based on what the Aff said, is there a reform to our environmental policy that's worth doing? We have no idea. We don't know that Plan A is worth doing, because it was immediately refuted by Plan B. Neither do we know that Plan B is worth doing, because it was previously refuted by Plan A. There is no plan in the round that is clearly is a good idea. Therefore, the resolution has not been affirmed.

Secondly:
ZaR wrote:
Obviously, we agree that prima facie cases are good, and you can run that cases should be prima facie for competitive balance under either framework, but advocacies also gives you a theoretical support for it.
Except that it doesn't. Let me explain.

Earlier you said:
ZaR wrote:
The existence of advocacy as a concept inherently means that anything which is an advocacy is held to a different standard than other arguments. One of those standards is that it must be held consistently through the round
But why is this one of the standards? The simple fact that we should "hold advocated arguments to a different standard" doesn't tell us which standards to hold them to. So why did we pick this one? Answer: IT'S ARBITRARY. You said so yourself: The reason we require positions to be held consistently through the round is "because shifting advocacies is clearly bad for debate."

Which is exactly the same as what we do under the non-advocacy framework.

Advocacy: We require positions to be held consistently through the round because shifting advocacies is clearly bad for debate.
No Advocacy: We require positions to be held consistently through the round because shifting advocacies is clearly bad for debate.

The only way in which advocacy provides "support" for this essentially arbitrary rule is that it provides a convenient place to "hook it on" (we already treat advocacy differently, so it seems a more "natural" place to tack on another exception.) But this is a flimsy justification indeed, hardly what I would call "support". The rule itself is no more logical; the only effect is emotional.

Presumption
ZaR wrote:
The question "should we reform?" only increases the threshold for one side if they're actually advocating to change. If you're simply showing there's a possible improvement, but not actually implementing it, I don't see a reason for presumption.
This makes no sense. Advocacy doesn't change whether the plan gets "implemented"; the plan never gets implemented. The round is always just "showing there's a possible improvement". The only thing that advocacy changes is whether we ignore arguments that aren't explicitly "advocated" (see below.)

In order to affirm the resolution and overcome presumption, the Affirmative has to prove that a topical plan exists for which the advantages outweigh the inherent risk of passing it. Whether you are "advocating" this plan or merely "presenting" it makes no difference; if it exists, it exists, regardless of whether someone "advocates" it. Presumption thus operates the same under both frameworks.

Contradictory positions
Yes, technically you could run multiple contradictory positions and then just extend one, but:

a) You can't do that in the 1AC (because that wouldn't be prima facie), and
b) 99% of the time, that is a terrible, terrible idea (there are all kinds of ways that permanently undermining your own position could go wrong, and very few ways it could go right), and
c) THAT'S STILL SEVERANCE.

Having a moving-target case is still bad, regardless of whether the Aff plan is being "advocated" or just "presented". It's just as easy to win severance-bad in both cases, because the justifications for it are the same: Aff changing what arguments they advocate/actively-extend = bad.

The only difference between the two cases, then, is Point B (above). It's hard to win the severance debate in either case, but if the Aff does win the severance debate, having advocacy opens up a lot more strategic options - because you can genuinely and fully kick out of points, instead of having a bunch of Ghosts of Arguments Past floating around and rattling chains at the judge.

Speaking of which:
ZaR wrote:
And even if you do drop them, the arguments concerning them still exist and can be applied elsewhere on the flow, you just no longer advocate the specific text of the advocacy. Under either framework, dropping something doesn't make it "disappear", the arguments still exist
Erm... no. That's actually the entire point of advocacy. If we're judging the round based on what arguments are "advocated" (not just presented), then when you kick a CP/DA/plan plank, it is gone. It doesn't influence anything from then on. (Related arguments/rebuttals by the other team may still exist, but the argument itself doesn't, so - in the case of a CP or plan plank, anyway - the rebuttals are now irrelevant.)

On the other hand, if kicked arguments do continue to influence the round, then you're denying that we should vote based on advocacy. In which case... welcome to the no-advocacy club. 8-)

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 2:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 pm
Posts: 152
Home Schooled: Yes
I'd agree that we may be using different definitions of advocacy. Every position in a round is either an advocacy or not. Non-advocacies are things like DAs; claims about the SQuo or a proposed change. Advocacies are ways the team say the SQuo should change. Plan, CP, K all fit into this. In this framework, an advocacy is held to certain standards deriving from the fact that it is not just a claim about the state of something, but a change in that state. The most important is that the advocacy has a text. This gives a stable spot to base the debate around. Other standards would include not severing parts of the advocacy, and most of the other things I've been saying are differences between having advocacies and not having them.

From this definition, I interpreted your post (and some of your examples in the OP implied this) to be saying that all arguments should be treated the same, whether they are a DA or a CP. In this world, there's no real reason I could kick a DA but not a CP. And if I can kick a CP, I can run two contradictory CPs. Maybe not as extreme as literally doing the opposite, but at least ideologically opposed ideas (streamlining the visa process in one plan and reducing the visa cap in the other maybe). Then, after aff responds to both CPs, I pick one to keep. I start with the other one, say I agree with many of the line by line responses, and proceed to cross apply them to the other CP, essentially turning 3 minutes of the 2AC into arguments for my side.

Prima Facie
1. The argument would be that we don't need to know after the 1AC, just by the end of the round. Delaying the choice is obviously bad for convincing a judge rhetorically, but has clear advantages from a technical perspective without a theory position against it.
2. That was worded poorly. The inclusion of advocacy as a concept gives a brightline (and NTP) for why we shouldn't be able to kick a plan but can kick a DA. Intuitively it makes sense that neg doesn't have to keep defending every DA they mention, but shouldn't just be able to kick CPs. Why? Because one is an advocacy and the other isn't. To a certain extent it is a convenient place to "hook it on", but without that distinction we are arbitralily picking some arguments to be bad to kick and some to be fine. This leads to a large increase in the number of theory debates on the issue because maybe this specific DA can't be kicked. Additionally, the theory debates have lower quality NTPs because there's no defining characteristic for why something can be kicked.

Presumption
This is basically why I don't understand what you say with not having advocacy. By having a plan text, you're saying it's a good idea, which is advocating for it. So I tried to draw a distinction by saying you wanted to treat a plan on the same level as any other argument. And I'm pretty sure your response here indicates otherwise.

Contradictory positions
a and b see above. c) My point is that it's only severance if a plan/CP is a fundamentally different type of argument: an advocacy. It's not severance to drop a DA, so without advocacy why is it severance to drop a CP?

Dropping arguments
The neg has a bad strategy if the CP is completely unrelated to everything else in the round. The line by line arguments should be related to other positions you're running. So if you drop a CP with advocacy, yes it's gone (if you can defend that you're allowed to drop it) but all the line by line arguments still matter.

To give an example, suppose aff runs a plan to pass a plastic bag tax. Neg runs a DA that Texas will secede if the tax is placed on them, and a CP to give an exception to Texas. Aff responds to the CP by saying that Texas is key to solving for plastic bags, and the impacts can't be solved without them. If neg drops the CP, they can still extend the Texas solvency args to the case, and kill aff solvency with the DA as well as getting the DA MPX. Without that, you're left comparing the DA MPX to the Adv MPX, which is going to be harder to win. Obviously the arguments aren't very realistic, but it's not that uncommon for CP solvency responses to supercharge DA MPX.

In addition, I don't see how no-advocacy means arguments affect the round after they're dropped. If I say the perm is true, CP isn't competitive, in what form does the CP still matter to the round? (Other than with advocacies where it's unconditional and turns still affect the plan vs CP debate, assuming the perm was run as a test of competition)

_________________
Come to Puget Sound Debate Camp!
debatecamp.pssda.net


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2013 10:37 pm 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
I'm having an extremely difficult time following any of your arguments. For example:
ZaR wrote:
This is basically why I don't understand what you say with not having advocacy. By having a plan text, you're saying it's a good idea, which is advocating for it. So I tried to draw a distinction by saying you wanted to treat a plan on the same level as any other argument. And I'm pretty sure your response here indicates otherwise.
You seem to think that "saying it's a good idea" is the same thing as "advocating for it", but I don't understand why you think this is true. You talk about "want[ing] to treat a plan on the same level as any other argument", but I have no idea what you mean by that. You say "your response here indicates otherwise", but I have no idea what part of my response you're referring to, or how it indicates otherwise, or even what it is indicating otherwise from. etc.

So let me try to clarify my position rather than just repeating the same arguments for a third time.

  • Rezcentrism says the judge votes for or against the resolution. Therefore, the judge is voting based on whether the arguments in the round show that the resolution is true.
  • Because of the wording of the resolution, the resolution is true if a worthwhile topical reform exists.
  • ALL arguments in the round, from Aff plans to t-presses to solvency to DAs to CPs, are evaluated from the same standpoint: "does this show us that worthwhile topical reform exists?" On the Aff side, plans attempt to show that such a reform does exist. On the Neg side, t-presses attempt to show that no topical reform exists; solvency, DAs, and CPs attempt show that no worthwhile reform exists (in the case of CPs, by presenting opportunity costs to the plan); etc.

"Advocacy" meas that the judge should only consider/vote on things that are actually "advocated", not merely presented. If the Negative casually presents an idea for a counterplan, but doesn't officially "advocate" it, the judge should just ignore the idea.

We can make severance-bad arguments that we only apply to plans and CPs. We can even call plans and CPs "advocacies" if we want. But just treating plans and CPs differently, and calling them "advocacies", does not force us to accept the above non-advocated-plans-don't-count standard.

The key question is: Why should non-advocated plans/CPs not count? What advantage does this particular standard (NOT general theory arguments that treat plans/CPs differently) have?

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 pm
Posts: 152
Home Schooled: Yes
MSD wrote:
You seem to think that "saying it's a good idea" is the same thing as "advocating for it", but I don't understand why you think this is true.
Advocacy: the act of supporting a proposal. In a debate round there doesn't to seem to be a good way to "just say it's a good idea" without at least implicitly endorsing it.

MSD wrote:
You talk about "want[ing] to treat a plan on the same level as any other argument", but I have no idea what you mean by that. You say "your response here indicates otherwise", but I have no idea what part of my response you're referring to, or how it indicates otherwise, or even what it is indicating otherwise from. etc.

Is there anything fundamentally different between a DA and a CP besides the fact that one presents a negative change and the other presents the loss of a positive change? Does a CP have the same standards as a DA, or are there different requirements for it to win? Several of your responses, such as saying you shouldn't be able to hypothesis test CPs imply there are different standards, which in my mind the CP should be an advocacy.

Quote:
ALL arguments in the round, from Aff plans to t-presses to solvency to DAs to CPs, are evaluated from the same standpoint: "does this show us that worthwhile topical reform exists?" On the Aff side, plans attempt to show that such a reform does exist. On the Neg side, t-presses attempt to show that no topical reform exists; solvency, DAs, and CPs attempt show that no worthwhile reform exists (in the case of CPs, by presenting opportunity costs to the plan); etc.

This validates all of my arguments about multiple CPs. If the CP is simply presenting opportunity costs, there's nothing to stop me from running 4 of them. Except that it's bad for debate. But why is it bad for debate? Because a CP should be treated differently than a DA. Also, I don't see how a plan is not a fundamentally different argument for aff since the plan itself is key to the existence of the reform. Once a plan is a larger scale argument than an advantage, I don't see how a CP can hope to be an effective argument unless it is treated to be the same type of argument. If it's simply "an opportunity cost", there's no real impact since the SQuo probably won't actually implement it.

Quote:
"Advocacy" meas that the judge should only consider/vote on things that are actually "advocated", not merely presented. If the Negative casually presents an idea for a counterplan, but doesn't officially "advocate" it, the judge should just ignore the idea.

This seems different to me then the meaning I got from the main argument, so my responses are a little different. First, why would it ever benefit the neg to "casually" present any argument? If you're going to run an argument, it should be worth the time to run it for real. Second, to me, not advocating something means not defending the world where it exists. If you're not willing to defend the passage of a plan, why should it affect the round? How does fiat function in this framework? Once you're defending the passage of a plan, you have an advocacy.

Quote:
We can make severance-bad arguments that we only apply to plans and CPs. We can even call plans and CPs "advocacies" if we want. But just treating plans and CPs differently, and calling them "advocacies", does not force us to accept the above non-advocated-plans-don't-count standard.
And how does this help anybody? We revert to calling it an advocacy any time we try to take advantage of the framework, and the only thing we gain is the ability to point out that aff picked a plan that excludes some other ideas that may or may not be a good idea. Which comes back to why a CP should be an advocacy; without it, it's pretty much just pointing out that aff picked a single topical plan.

MSD wrote:
The key question is: Why should non-advocated plans/CPs not count? What advantage does this particular standard (NOT general theory arguments that treat plans/CPs differently) have?
Because you're no longer defending the passage of the plan/CP. If you're no longer defending this, what meaning does the argument have on the round because you're not actually saying any advantages will come about. How I interpret not having an advocacy, you're giving up solvency entirely without it.

In the end, what advantage do I gain without advocacy that justifies having to figure out the many theoretical implications of the position?

_________________
Come to Puget Sound Debate Camp!
debatecamp.pssda.net


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:16 am 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
I spent the last several hours trying to write a coherent response to the above, before finally giving up. You really don't seem to understand my core argument at all, and consequently I'm having a very difficult time understanding your arguments, so continuing this discussion is just going to confuse both of us. So, with all proper courtesy and respect, I shall bow out. :)

In sum: The round is about what "should" happen. It is not necessary to personally advocate a reform to show that it "should" happen. Trying to say, "but if you don't advocate it, it won't happen, so it has no impact!" is just... gahhh. It doesn't matter if it "won't" happen, what matters is if it "should" happen. All the arguments in the round, from solvency to CPs, are perfectly capable of proving that without advocacy.

I will make a couple of comments about CPs, however.
ZaR wrote:
This validates all of my arguments about multiple CPs. If the CP is simply presenting opportunity costs, there's nothing to stop me from running 4 of them. Except that it's bad for debate. But why is it bad for debate? Because a CP should be treated differently than a DA.
To be perfectly honest, I don't think multiple CPs are bad for debate. Contradictory CPs are obviously bad for debate, but running multiple CPs is just like running a really big plan with a bunch of different planks. They're perfectly legitimate, too: CPs are essentially disadvantages to enacting the plan ("we lose this better option"), so it's just like running multiple DAs. Instead of saying "we shouldn't enact the plan because we lose the ability to do this other good thing", you're saying "we shouldn't enact the plan because we lose the ability to do several other good things." Which is a perfectly valid argument.

Speaking of which...
ZaR wrote:
Once a plan is a larger scale argument than an advantage, I don't see how a CP can hope to be an effective argument unless it is treated to be the same type of argument. If it's simply "an opportunity cost", there's no real impact since the SQuo probably won't actually implement it.
Erm... no. The status quo isn't going to implement the Aff plan, either. The entire question of the round is what "should" happen; opportunity costs show that we "shouldn't" adopt the Aff plan, so they definitely have a real impact. In this view, a CP is basically a DA; it doesn't need to be a "larger scale argument" to combat the Aff plan any more than a DA needs to be a "larger scale argument" to combat the Aff plan.

If we don't start by assuming that advocacy matters, CPs work fine without it. They're just DAs.

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:46 am
Posts: 678
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I can't think of anything witty right now...so...RIX
Without fully reading the above thread (just the OP)...

I think advocacy is necessary because no matter how logical an argument seems to be, there are always other factors that we may not understand. Now, I have nothing against logical arguments that don't have advocacy. Yet if an expert makes a rational statement, that should hold serious weight. It is up to the judge to decide just how much weight to give it. If I make a logical argument for why we need less regulation and a very highly respected economist writes a paper, the conclusion of which is that we do need more regulation, I must either point out a logical flaw in his methodology or I must produce a counter-expert OR I must acquiesce to his point. In other words, advocacy provides high schoolers with ethos, something that we lack. It also gives us the opportunity to prove that there is some sort of consensus that an idea makes sense.

_________________
http://siftingthroughmythoughts.blogspot.com/

08-09 | Thomas/Young | Broke to Regionals
09-10 | Brake/Thomas | Broke to Nats
10-11 | Black/Thomas | Won Regionals, 7th at Nats
11-12 | Comfort/Thomas | Won 2 Qualifiers, Won Regionals
12-13 | LD Debater | 3rd overall in RIX, 7th at Nats


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 3:24 am 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
(I think you're misinterpreting the original post. I'm not referring to expert advocacy, i.e. having experts that back up your logical arguments. I'm referring to position advocacy, i.e. a team explicitly "advocating" that their plan/CP be passed, rather than just presenting it as something that proves/disproves the resolution.)

But I agree, expert advocacy definitely helps debaters' ethos.

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 pm
Posts: 152
Home Schooled: Yes
MSD wrote:
I spent the last several hours trying to write a coherent response to the above, before finally giving up. You really don't seem to understand my core argument at all, and consequently I'm having a very difficult time understanding your arguments, so continuing this discussion is just going to confuse both of us. So, with all proper courtesy and respect, I shall bow out. :)

In sum: The round is about what "should" happen. It is not necessary to personally advocate a reform to show that it "should" happen. Trying to say, "but if you don't advocate it, it won't happen, so it has no impact!" is just... gahhh. It doesn't matter if it "won't" happen, what matters is if it "should" happen. All the arguments in the round, from solvency to CPs, are perfectly capable of proving that without advocacy.
The sum of what I'm saying is that when you say something "should" happen, that's an advocacy. So I'm not sure how you're differentiating between non-advocacy and advocacy. Maybe giving an example of what this looks like in round would help? This standard would seem to encourage lazy debating where you just mention ideas in passing and the judge decides the opportunity cost to them is high enough to justify voting neg.

Quote:
I will make a couple of comments about CPs, however.
ZaR wrote:
This validates all of my arguments about multiple CPs. If the CP is simply presenting opportunity costs, there's nothing to stop me from running 4 of them. Except that it's bad for debate. But why is it bad for debate? Because a CP should be treated differently than a DA.
To be perfectly honest, I don't think multiple CPs are bad for debate. Contradictory CPs are obviously bad for debate, but running multiple CPs is just like running a really big plan with a bunch of different planks. They're perfectly legitimate, too: CPs are essentially disadvantages to enacting the plan ("we lose this better option"), so it's just like running multiple DAs. Instead of saying "we shouldn't enact the plan because we lose the ability to do this other good thing", you're saying "we shouldn't enact the plan because we lose the ability to do several other good things." Which is a perfectly valid argument.
And my position is that a CP isn't just an opportunity cost DA, but a different strategy entirely from defending SQuo. Allowing multiple CPs is bad for debate because it means we don't have a substantive debate about any one of them, resulting in less depth and lower quality debate. This uniquely applies to a CP because if you can kick it, all offense relating to it goes away, unlike impact turns on a DA. This gives a big incentive to neg to run 5 CPs, wait for one to be undercovered, and kick out of all the others. Aff is then incentivized to run short, surface level solvency arguments, rather than more detailed DAs which are better for determining if a plan is good or not.

A second argument against kicking CPs/treating them like opportunity cost DAs is reciprocity. Aff can't just kick an advantage/plan if it wants, so neg being able to gives neg a strategic advantage. Aff being able to kick parts of the plan/modify the plan is similarly unbalanced because you can basically perm out of any DA, and the last speech ensures aff can beat the neg with this.

Quote:
Speaking of which...
ZaR wrote:
Once a plan is a larger scale argument than an advantage, I don't see how a CP can hope to be an effective argument unless it is treated to be the same type of argument. If it's simply "an opportunity cost", there's no real impact since the SQuo probably won't actually implement it.
Erm... no. The status quo isn't going to implement the Aff plan, either. The entire question of the round is what "should" happen; opportunity costs show that we "shouldn't" adopt the Aff plan, so they definitely have a real impact. In this view, a CP is basically a DA; it doesn't need to be a "larger scale argument" to combat the Aff plan any more than a DA needs to be a "larger scale argument" to combat the Aff plan.
But aff is advocating (defending) a world where plan is passed and saying it's a good idea. Neg should have to do the same thing with the CP, or it simply isn't functional. Just pointing out something that can no longer happen isn't enough to win, you also have to say that the lost opportunity is good. Which by my interpretation is what crosses the line from non-advocacy to advocacy.

_________________
Come to Puget Sound Debate Camp!
debatecamp.pssda.net


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:18 am 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
With all due respect, this is going nowhere. :? You clearly don't understand my argument at all, based on your apparent assumption that it allows you to kick counterplans (which it doesn't - that's the whole point, actually.) Considering that I've already re-explained it five or six times, using several different analogies, syllogisms, and in-round examples, I doubt further discussion will improve matters much.

The core problem, I think, is that you keep stuffing my arguments into the rigid box of your own definitions and presuppositions. And then, when parts of them don't fit, you go "Hey! That doesn't fit!" Well, duh. You're using a completely different definition of "advocacy" from me. You're pointing out "flaws" based on assumptions I was never making in the first place (like the idea that running a plan carries a Great and Special Weight that sets it above all the other arguments in the round.) Et cetera.

You cannot attack my argument by sticking it into your box and saying "it doesn't fit!", because your box is exactly what my argument is questioning.

The ultimate question I'm asking is, "If you formally 'kick' an argument, does it suddenly stop showing whether the resolution is true?" That's it. That's the entire question. And the answer is "no".

Anyway. Thanks for helping me figure out my own opinion, at least, even if we spent most of this debate(?) staring at each other's posts and going, "wut?" :)

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 29 posts ]  Go to page 1 2 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited