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:
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.
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:
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
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
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
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:
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.