homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:12 pm
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 Previous 1 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:08 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 pm
Posts: 152
Home Schooled: Yes
MSD wrote:
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.
I think part of the problem (and we've both been doing this) is that the explanations are mixed in with the arguments for/against and I'm having a hard time with which parts are descriptions of the difference between advocacy and non-advocacy, and which parts are potential impacts to that. For example, when you describe CP as an opportunity cost DA, that means to me that since a CP isn't an advocacy, neg can treat it as a normal DA and kick it if they want. Offense on it becomes pointless if kicked because the existence of a bad non-topical idea has no bearing at all on whether the aff plan proves the resolution.

We're also talking past each other to some extent, because to me, multiple CPs means I'm planning on dropping one or more of them. If I want a bigger CP I just run one CP with several mandates (just like you only run one plan, not several one mandate plans).

On a more general note, advocacy in the traditional sense is generally used to defend against CP conditionality, and is a strong argument on why CPs shouldn't be conditional, so I'm not sure why the different view is needed (at least in this case)

Quote:
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".
I think we have different views on what happens to an argument that is kicked and/or what it means to kick an argument. To me, kicking an argument means extending all the defensive responses on it, refuting any offense that still matters, then moving on. Basically dropping it intentionally.

If done correctly, it does stop showing whether the resolution is true, because one side made arguments that it doesn't matter and the other accepted them. Whether the judge feels like it should doesn't matter, because to vote on it would be intervening just as much as voting on something that wasn't discussed.

On the other hand, if an argument is kicked poorly (ie neg just says they're not going for it, and aff put a link turn on it), in a standard interpretation of advocacy aff can certainly come up and point out that this DA is actually now an advantage and win on it.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:32 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
ZaR wrote:
To me, kicking an argument means extending all the defensive responses on it, refuting any offense that still matters, then moving on. Basically dropping it intentionally.
Aha. This is explains a lot.

By "kicking" I don't mean "refuting your own argument". I just mean "stopping officially endorsing it." This can be done even if the opposing team has never responded to it.

e.g.: Neg runs a counterplan. (Let's assume the Aff doesn't fully respond to it.) One speech later, they go "OK, we're not officially endorsing that counterplan anymore, disregard it," and then move on without saying anything else. My argument is that the counterplan shouldn't be disregarded, because the arguments raised under it can still prove the resolution false even if it's not officially endorsed by the Negative.

Obviously, this has significant implications for conditional counterplans, which are traditionally based on the assumption that you can just press a button and make them disappear into thin air.

_________________
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 9:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 pm
Posts: 152
Home Schooled: Yes
I don't see how that's functionally different than what I said. How is the other team supposed to know they still need to extend/develop their responses if neg says to disregard the counterplan? To me, neg saying disregard this argument means they don't think it can win, and a judge deciding it actually can is highly interventionist and unpredictable.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2013 11:28 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
You're responding to a logical-validity issue with a practical, is-this-good-for-debate response. I'm asking, from a purely logical standpoint, does the counterplan still influence the round? (Can the Neg now proceed to run some completely contradictory position without actually, logically, contradicting anything? etc.)

This story from Dr. Srader kind of illustrates what I'm getting at. Give it a read, it's hilarious. :lol:

I should probably explain why I'm approaching this from a strictly logical standpoint. There are two types of theory arguments: things that are logical outcomes of the resolution, and things that we add because they make debate work better. In my view, we should always settle the logical questions before we introduce any this-works-better ideas. If we don't - that is, we start with what we think works best, and then try to fit our logical framework to it - we get all kinds of confusion and contradictions.
_________________________

The question of judge intervention, however, is a good point. Is it interventionist to vote on something that the debater(s) no longer want you to vote on, even if it was originally persuasive?

My personal judging philosophy is that, by default, I won't give much weight to arguments that aren't carried through to the 2NR/2AR. This is pretty much for the same reason that debaters aren't supposed to pick up dropped arguments: having a continuous chain of argumentation straight through to the rebuttals makes for much better debates. Arguments that fall by the wayside are still valid, I just choose not to give them much weight.

How is this different from advocacy? Because it has different implications for the rest of the round. Here's an example: Neg runs a CP in the 1NC, Aff turns it in the 2AC, Neg kicks the CP in the 2NC. Can the Aff extend the CP as an advantage to their plan in the 1AR? If kicking a CP actually removes it from the round, the Aff would functionally be "re-introducing" it, so it would be a new argument in the rebuttals. If kicking a CP doesn't remove it from the round, they can extend it all they want, because it's still the same argument.

Of course, if the Aff just let the CP die, I wouldn't give it much weight in my decision (per the above). But that's a different issue.

_________________
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: Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 pm
Posts: 152
Home Schooled: Yes
It's similarly logical for aff to run 5 plans, and then as long as they can show one as being good, they win. It doesn't mean that we should do it. Simple logical extensions from the round and what should be debated can't be separated like that. They both function as standards in theory arguments. Though Dr. Srader's point is good, running the abusive counter argument is a highly persuasive way to win a theory debate.

Additionally, I don't see why it logically follows for an argument both teams believe is bad to be voted on any more than it logically follows that both teams believe is so bad it shouldn't be run should be voted on.

-----

Aff continuing to talk about it wouldn't be reintroducing it to the round, because neg kicking it just means they concede arguments on it, not that it's actually gone. Aff has continued to argue that point. However, I don't see how a turned CP would have any bearing on the round if neg stopped advocating it. The existence of a bad non topical action that isn't being passed in SQuo doesn't mean we should pass a topical action.

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:27 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 simplicity I'll ignore your comments about logical framework vs. arbitrary banhammers for now - I think we actually agree with each other, you're just misinterpreting what I said.)

I honestly have no idea how to respond to any of this anymore. I spent literally 45 minutes just trying to untangle all the different things going on in the final paragraph of your last response, before giving up in confusion. You seem to be arguing a lot of things at once, several of which seem mutually contradictory to me (so I assume I'm not understanding them correctly.) Your arguments are often presented without explaining their premises, so I have a great deal of trouble understanding the logical connections you're making. The definitions you're using to evaluate my arguments seem to be completely different from the ones I asked you to use. Etc.

To bring some clarity: Please explain, in a maximum of 3 concise sentences, what I mean by "advocacy" and why I don't think it exists.

_________________
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: Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:29 pm
Posts: 152
Home Schooled: Yes
You say advocacy is the idea that some arguments are only relevant to the round as long as the team that brought them up is defending them. It doesn't exist because the truth of the arguments is not changed by whether or not one team supports it. Thus, neg can't run a CP, have a bunch of DAs run on it, then come back and tell the judge to pretend it never existed, aff is still allowed to point out that it's a bad idea.

That's a bit clearer picture than what I had a couple posts ago, so I'll summarize a couple problems I see with this.

First, it attempts to address conditionality logically by saying that if a DA was run and impact turned, neg couldn't just wipe it off the flow, so you can't just erase a CP either. However, if you look at a CP as an opportunity cost DA (as you phrased it, and the position that everything is just claims for/against the res implies), there's no benefit to aff to still have the CP on the flow. Getting rid of one bad option does not mean another option is good. If it did, affs would come up and talk about tons of terrible plans proposed in congress they'd keep from passing. So I don't see how this addresses conditionality.

Second, logically equating CPs and DAs (or plans/Advs) significantly weakens your other tools for defending against conditionality, which largely rely on saying there are fundamental differences between CPs and DAs (I realize you don't really disagree with this, but it's harder to argue if you've already argued they are similar in one way)

For terminology, I'd try to find something else besides advocacy to describe it, as advocacy is commonly used to refer to a plan/CP/K, something that one team commits to defending. And the neg team in Dr. Srader's story was almost certainly saying advocacy doesn't matter, so conditionality is fine.

To explain my last paragraph. I see nothing wrong with aff continuing to talk about the CP because neg kicked it. However, I don't see how this could help them win the round. The only way it does is if neg by running the CP has committed to defending the world of the CP not the SQuo. Which (maybe I'm wrong) you don't seem to be saying when you describe them as opportunity cost DAs.

One question I'd like answered is how do you see a round where neg runs a conditional CP, and aff attacks it with this strategy playing out? (on a speech by speech basis)

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


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2013 1:57 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
OK, hopefully everything should be more clear now. :)

Unless you want to dispute the core logic of my position, the only remaining question is: "Is advocacy (that is, having arguments disappear when kicked) sufficiently good for debate that we should act like it exists anyway, even though there's no logical basis for it?" None of your arguments seem to show that it is - after all, you agree that kicking CPs is bad for debate.

As far as what the "correct" definition of advocacy is, somebody like Dr. Srader might be able to answer that better. (The Aff's arguments in the example I linked, as well as a lot of my own theory reading, seem to back up my definition. See further down in that thread - in the 2AR, they argued that kicking their other plans resolved the contradiction between "build nuclear power" and "ban nuclear power" - in other words, that kicking an argument removed it from the round.)

ZaR wrote:
Second, logically equating CPs and DAs (or plans/Advs) significantly weakens your other tools for defending against conditionality, which largely rely on saying there are fundamental differences between CPs and DAs.
I don't really see how this is true, because:

a) It doesn't weaken the tools, it just removes the convenient(?) theoretical notch you were sliding them into. It's still just as easy to win that conditionality is bad for debate. It's not like Negatives are going to argue, "Yeah, what we're doing is bad for debate, but you should ignore that because they don't have a larger arbitrary framework to wrap their smaller arbitrary rules with!"

b) Except for mandate severance (which is kind of a different issue anyway), you don't actually need the other tools, because conditionality becomes logically meaningless anyway. (See below.)

ZaR wrote:
However, if you look at a CP as an opportunity cost DA (as you phrased it, and the position that everything is just claims for/against the res implies), there's no benefit to aff to still have the CP on the flow. Getting rid of one bad option does not mean another option is good. If it did, affs would come up and talk about tons of terrible plans proposed in congress they'd keep from passing.
I agree with the last part, but I don't see why this proves that we should allow kicks.

You're basically saying "letting the Neg kick a bad CP is OK, because bad CPs are already irrelevant anyway." In other words, kicking a bad CP doesn't influence the round. This is true; but it does not follow that kicking a good CP does influence the round.

My framework makes conditionality useless:
Kicking a good CP is irrelevant: it's still true even if it's kicked.
Kicking a bad CP is doubly irrelevant: it's still false even if it's kicked, AND it wouldn't influence the round even if they didn't kick it.

ZaR wrote:
One question I'd like answered is how do you see a round where neg runs a conditional CP, and aff attacks it with this strategy playing out? (on a speech by speech basis)
Sure. Here's the first example from the OP, fleshed out a little more:

Resolution: something like "Resolved: That the United States Federal Government should significantly reform its policy on alternative energy sources."

1AC: Aff presents a plan to federally subsidize nuclear power.

1NC: Neg straight-turns the case with a bunch of killer DAs - waste, terrorism, accidents, water shortages, politics impacts, you name it. Then, they run a counterplan to ban nuclear power.

2AC: Aff attempts to respond to the DAs, with mixed results. They also point out that the counterplan is topical, so even if the Negative wins the nuclear-power-bad debate, they've just proven the resolution true in a different way.

2NC/1NR: Neg carries the DAs and runs a massive parametrics justification for the counterplan, arguing that parametrics is necessary to prevent offtopic DAs and counterwarrants, yada yada yada.

1AR: Aff takes a look at their flow and realizes they have no chance of beating the DAs. Instead, they go straight for the parametrics justification, and spend the full 5 minutes grinding it into a pulp with incredibly detailed logical analysis. Even if the judge decides to go for the counterplan instead of their plan, they conclude, it's still a reason to vote for the resolution.

2NC: Rather than fight a losing battle over parametrics, the Neg decides to cut their losses and go for the easy win with the DAs. "Remember that the counterplan is conditional," they say. "We're going to kick it now. We're no longer endorsing it, so it's entirely removed from the round. Since the Aff's plan is terrible, and our counterplan is no longer in the round, there's no longer any reason to endorse the resolution, so you should vote Negative."

2AR: "The round is about whether we should reform alternative energy," says the Affirmative. "The Negative's counterplan conclusively shows that yes, we should reform alternative energy. Kicking it didn't magically make that stop being true. Yeah, they're not officially endorsing it any more, but it's ridiculous to say that that somehow removes the argument from the round. You should vote Affirmative, because their counterplan proves the resolution true."


(In this particular example you might be able to get into a picky argument about whether the Aff implicitly conceded conditionality by not bringing their 2AR argument up earlier, or whether the Neg is allowed to run a conditional CP without announcing it as such - but that's beside the point. Nothing prevents the Aff from running conditionality-meaningless earlier in the round.)

_________________
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 Jan 07, 2013 2:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
So I had to stay out of this because I was polishing up a journal submission, but I sent that off a few minutes ago, so now I have time to write a long-winded history of debate paradigms that will, in some ways, be relevant to the argument the two of you are having.

Prequel: in all professions, there is tension between the theorists and the practitioners. Law professors and lawyers take pot-shots at one another, as do med school professors and doctors, as do seminary professors and pastors. The communication major at NCU has two tracks, one of which is theory-driven (interpersonal communication) and the other of which is applied (public address). Debate is different, though: in debate, the mass of judge opinion has swung back and forth, pendulum-like, between theoretical and applied stances through several chapters of its history.

In the beginning, the debate world described itself as an outgrowth of logic and philosophy, which is where stock issues analysis came from. Stock issues analysis was a method, a recipe for resolving the very artificial exercise of winning a competitive debate. It was quite theory-oriented; it looked just like the flow charts in the communication theory textbook. Has the affirmative initiated each of these claims? If yes, continue. Has negative refutation succeeded in reducing any of them to zero? If yes, vote negative. If no, vote affirmative. If it's close, vote negative. That last step in the formula came from a consensus in debate's early days that involving the government was like calling 911: self-evidently irrational if any other response would do.

Then came the New Deal, and a couple of decades later, the civil rights movement. A number of debate coaches who coached through that era, including Baylor's Glenn Capp, trace the emergence of policy-making to those two watersheds in government problem-solving. If government is no longer the actor of last resort, then the high bar of proving a compelling need for change drops down quite far. If, for example, wellness visits promote greater health in the long run than stoic refusal to involve a doctor for anything short of a bitten-off limb, then it becomes rational to involve the doctor in little touches at all the early stages, because the outcome will be better. With the new debate paradigm of policymaking came advocacy, in large part because its popularizers, Allan Lichtman and Daniel Rohrer, were tied to their schema of bill-vetting in Congress, in which sponsorship was a huge, important factor. And here, debate went back to being an applied art, because debate's purpose was to enable debaters to hone their chops at drafting and defending actual proposals to make the world a better place.

But then, in the late sixties and early seventies, debate finally caught up with the explosion in the social sciences that had begun in about the first third of the century. All of a sudden, debaters started spending entire CXs and big chunks of speech time on "Where did that statistic come from? What was the study's methodology?" People carried files with long strings of evidenced indicts for various studies. And David Zarefsky from Northwestern, and J. W. Patterson from Kentucky, laid out their own debate paradigm which borrowed heavily from social science methods: hypothesis testing. The resolution was a hypothesis, and the negative was conducting experiments to disprove it. The affirmative and negative served as research associates, with the affirmative trying to punch holes in the negative's experiments. If, by the end of the round, all the experiments had failed, then the hypothesis that topical action was desirable was proven. Daniel's position is in this neighborhood. And conditional counterplans, the sacrilege of advocacy, fit with hypothesis testing just because an experimenter is never constrained by previous experiments. If my hypothesis is that a rock dropped from the roof of the building will fall ten feet per second, then I can experimentally try to create conditions to make it fall slower than that, or faster than that, and the inconsistency between the assumptions of the two experiments doesn't invalidate them. Similarly, if you propose government action in a certain domain, I can propose stricter (competitive) government action, or no action at all, and the fact that the two proposals contradict doesn't strip their value as tests of the hypothesis. Here, once again, debate moved back to the theoretical end of things: the resolution was an idea, and the objective of debate was to test its truth-value, not to rehearse any particular procedure.

But social science started to show shortcomings; Thomas Szasz savaged psychology, and all sorts of devastating critiques were leveled at economics, and debate's flirtation with hypothesis-testing lasted only eight years. Then, Bill Balthrop, the debate coach at North Carolina, proposed that the role of a debate judge was to serve as an argument critic, in the same way we have film critics, restaurant critics, movie critics, and so forth. The judge would simply point out which moves in the debate succeeded as high-quality arguments, and why. And, obviously, this is back to the applied end of the spectrum; the resolution isn't an idea to be proven true or false, but is instead a useful arguing-prompt deployed to create an argumentative encounter. The debate's objective might be to teach speaking and reasoning skills (most popular answer), or to enjoy the aesthetics of a fine debate, or to build the kinds of respectful relationships that come out of weathering functional controversy, but whatever it is, the judge is simply the respondent who provides feedback, including a judgment.

I'm not in the mainstream of college debate these days, but my sense is that nothing replaced the critic of argument stance -- and it turns thirty years old this year. Balthrop's reinvention was, in some ways, the end of history for college debate, and it mostly dismissed the idea that the resolution was a statement whose truth value needed to be measured. And I have to say, that's where I come down as well. The debate topic is part of the setup for having a debate. For years, when I've gone out to socialize with friends by bowling, or having a game night, or anything along those lines, I've had to remind the more hyper-competitive ones that unless you're a professional bowler, a game of bowling is really just something to do with your hands while you enjoy the company of your loved ones. I think of debate topics as something in that ambit. I can't honestly say I care too terribly much about UN reform, or military presence overhaul, or any of the zillion topics I've coached, except that some were works of art that set up excellent, well-balanced debates, and some were a pain in the hiney. But as for their truth? I don't guess I get what would drive anyone to thinking that was the point of the process in the first place.

That's my contribution. I skipped over all the back-and-forth upthread, which I suspect you already knew. But if that moves your discussion along any further, or you want to probe parts of it to understand it better, I'll be in and out.


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

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited