Parametrics

Parametrics is a framework for interpreting the resolution that incorporates elements of both plancentrism and rezcentrism. It argues that, when the Affirmative presents their plan, the resolution shrinks to become just the plan, and everything else becomes Negative ground. Thus, the Affirmative still affirms the resolution and the Negative still negates it (as in rezcentrism), but the Affirmative must only defend their own plan (as in plancentrism.)

Parametrics is one of the most controversial theory topics in NCFCA/Stoa debate. In-round, it is most commonly used to justify topical counterplans.

Explanation
Parametrics holds that, at the beginning of the round, the resolution consists of all topical cases. When the Affirmative presents their case, however, the resolution shrinks to consist only of their case. All the other formerly-topical cases that the Affirmative is not running are no longer topical, for the duration of the round. The judge still votes for or against the resolution; but in effect, the resolution now equals the Affirmative case.

Parametrics legitimizes topical counterplans, because once the Affirmative presents their case, "topical" counterplans are technically no longer topical.

Offtopic disadvantages
Parametrics was originally developed by Affirmative teams to protect themselves from offtopic disadvantages. According to proponents, if the resolution is not shrunk, the Affirmative must justify all topical cases - not just their own. The Negative is perfectly justified in running disadvantages against completely different cases, and saying "Their idea may be good, but these other ideas aren't! Voting for the whole resolution endorses these other ideas too, so you shouldn't vote Affirmative."

Opponents argue that a resolutional framework does not require the Affirmative to justify all topical cases. In generic form, the resolution says "Resolved: That we should reform the status quo." This is an entirely different statement from "Resolved: That we should reform the status quo in every possible way." If there are 10 possible reforms to the status quo, and Reform #4 is worthwhile, should we reform the status quo? Yes. We should do Reform #4. Whether or not Reforms #5 and #9 are terrible ideas is irrelevant, because we should still reform the status quo.

Dr. Doyle Srader invented the following popular analogy to explain this position:

"We should go to McDonald's."

"They don't have anything good there."

"The cheeseburgers are good. Last week you had a McDonald's cheeseburger, and you said it was really good."

"True, but the soft serve ice cream is really nasty. It's just lard with sugar."

"So don't get the soft serve ice cream."

"But how can you say we should go to McDonald's if the ice cream is bad? If there are bad items on the menu, then we shouldn't go."

"That makes no sense! If there's something good you could order and enjoy, then it's irrelevant whether other things on the menu are gross."

"Look, you're the one who said we should go to McDonald's. Soft serve ice cream at McDonald's is nasty, so I can't accept that I should eat at McDonald's. Someone might slip me some of that nasty ice cream, and if I said eating at McDonald's is a good idea, I would have no choice but to choke it down."

"Okay, okay, this is crazy, but here's a suggestion: pick your one good thing off the menu, and we'll put it in a McDonald's bag, and then we'll go outside and sit with our backs to the restaurant, and you can pretend that the word 'McDonald's' only means the contents of your bag. Then would you agree with me that we should eat at McDonald's?"

"At last, you're talking sense!"

Some proponents argue that this way of viewing the resolution is unfair to the Negative, because there will always be an Affirmative case somewhere that is a good idea, so the resolution would always be true. Opponents respond that the judge has to evaluate the round based on what is actually presented, not on hypothetical cases that only might exist; until the Affirmative actually presents a good idea, the assumption that a good case must exist is only an unproven conjecture.

Arguments based on topical counterplans
Some proponents start by arguing that topical counterplans are necessary (for various theoretical and intuitive reasons), and then advocate parametrics as the simplest way to theoretically justify them. For an in-depth discussion of arguments relating to topical counterplans, see the topical counterplans page.

Parliamentary analogy
Some proponents, particularly Isaiah McPeak, have used the analogy of parliamentary debate resolutions to justify parametrics. In parliamentary debate, resolutions are often highly metaphorical, like "Resolved: That This House should mute the red phone." This resolution can be interpreted in thousands of possible ways. No matter what interpretation the Affirmative chooses, the Negative's position could arguably also be endorsing "muting the red phone", in some other metaphorical way. It seems reasonable to say that whatever the Affirmative advocates defines the resolution, and that everything else thenceforth becomes valid Negative ground.

Such situations may also arise in policy debate, proponents argue, so the use of parametrics makes sense.

Opponents respond that parliamentary resolutions are entirely different from policy resolutions; while parliamentary resolutions are often meant to be taken metaphorically, policy resolutions are meant to be taken literally, and have much more distinct boundaries. Thus, the analogy is not useful. Daniel Gaskell has also argued that standard topicality arguments can be used to resolve disputes of this nature.