MV Theory A2: Punishment. Daniel Lubarov (__) TURN: Punishment does not deter bad debate, it only encourages debaters to manipulate theoretical arguments in more abusive ways. Doug Sigel writes: [Doug Sigel, Northwestern University. Punishment: Does It Fit the Crime? 1985; http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Sigel985Water.htm] First, punishment arguments do not deter bad debate. It has already been argued that sophisticated debaters who run "junk" arguments " will eagerly latch onto punishment as another way to avoid research. Some elaboration seems in order. Suppose you and your partner plan on running a world government counterplan nearly every round. Your response to the threat of punishment will be to write detailed briefs ) defending the legitimacy of your counterplan. When another [debater] team initiates a punishment argument [debaters] you will "TURN" the argument and make it a reverse voting issue. When the 1AR drops numbers 11, 21 and 26 because of time pressure [the negative] you will likely win the debate. It seems clear that for teams that systematically abuse the activity punishment isn't really a problem. At worst they can muddle up the issue and at best they can win on reverse-punishment. Second, losing bad arguments is normally: an adequate disincentive. Most competitive debaters stop using arguments that don't win. It is not at all clear that a ridiculous hypothetical counterplan, for example, deserves more than a few intelligent presses to be defeated. Fairness Fairness Voter (__) A fair playing field is necessary to adjudicate the round in terms of which side did the better debating, and voting on theory is necessary because forcing me into a theoretical discussion hinders my ability to engage any other arguments. (__) Dropping debaters as punishment is a necessary check against abuse, otherwise debaters would always have an incentive to utilize unfair arguments as no-risk issues. (__) Fairness is more important than substance or any theoretical standards because if debaters can’t fairly engage is substantive discussion they won’t have any incentive to debate, meaning that we can’t access the benefits of education or any other standards. A2: Fairness. 1. Doug Sigel explains why arguments should not be rejected on fairness: [Doug Sigel, Northwestern University. Punishment: Does It Fit the Crime? 1985; http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Sigel985Water.htm] First, fairness is almost entirely situational. The fairness argument in debate is always made when a [debater] team can't think of anything better to say. A new case is going to place an unfair burden on [the other debater.] any negative team. If the affirmative can talk faster than the negative an unfair situation exists. If the negative has four really good counterplans against a case an unfair situation exists. In debate there is no objective way to tell what is and isn't fair because the activity by nature favors those participants who stay one step ahead of anyone else. ... There is no reason to punish the [debater] team for trying to maximize their own advantages. 2. There's no brightline for how much fairness is enough, so judge intervention is necessary to determine when to pull the trigger. This is unfair because I can't predict where a subjective threshold will lie. 3. His theory is unfair because it's conditional; he only needs to win one link to fairness and I can't predict which one he'll go for. 4. Fairness is uncontrollable as it's influenced by external factors like coaching staff or money for books, so there’s no point in discussing fairness because we don’t know when we have a fair playing field. 5. Fairness is unfair; my only predictable burden is to prove my side of the resolution, so it's fundamentally unfair to punish debaters according to fairness standards since I couldn't have predicted any theoretical burden. 6. TURN: Maximizing fairness is bad - the most fair thing would be to flip a coin as then there's no room for abuse, but this destroys any form of education as we’re no longer rewarding debaters for making real arguments. 7. Fairness is unfair because I can't cover theory perfectly; I don’t have infinite cross-x or prep time, and I shouldn't automatically lose the round because I mishandled one argument. 8. Trivializing debate is unfair; if we pull the trigger on one argument then my ground loss includes all substantive arguments I make, which means I always outweigh. 9. Fairness is unfair because fairness debates go to the debater with the last word, so the result reflects who has better theory blocks rather than who actually is more fair. 10. There’s no such thing as unique ground loss; he can use the same strategies I did so that the playing field is still even. 11. TURN: He always has an incentive to cry abuse; fairness encourages debaters to fake ignorance, constraining the potential for education. (__) As a last resort, we can sustain a fair playing field by kicking the unfair argument; there's no need to pull the trigger. Education Education Voter (__) Education is a voter because it contains actual out-of-round implications; substantive discussion of the topic is valuable only insofar as it garners a link to education. (__) Education is more important than text or any other standards because if debate isn’t educational then schools won’t have an incentive to fund debate and debaters would quit if they weren’t doing anything productive. A2: Education Voter 1. There's no brightline for how much education is enough to vote on; we don’t know when to pull the trigger. 2. TURN: Voting on theory is uneducational. Doug Sigel writes: [Doug Sigel, Northwestern University. Punishment: Does It Fit the Crime? 1985; http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Sigel985Water.htm] First, the practical impact of punishment arguments is to destroy education. The punish tactic is so subjective and open to abuse, as we have seen earlier, that it hurts the activity. The advocate of punishment isn't really concerned about education anyway. S/he is just whining about arguments s/he can't answer. ... Third, punishment arguments create an esoteric activity with little real world applicability. 3. TURN: His argumentation attempts to make debate trivial, as it asks you to vote independent of any substantive discussion. This devalues the development of real arguments, giving debaters an incentive to focus on easy theory arguments instead. 4. TURN: Maximizing education would result in debaters quitting, as no one would be interested in reading dictionaries for an hour. This is the most important theoretical implication since it means we can no longer receive the benefits of other standards. 5. TURN: Rejecting arguments on theory creates a chill effect, preventing innovation and destroying the strategic educational value of LD. 6. TURN: All theory arguments are equally valid so the debate always goes to the debater with the last word which destroys any conception of fairness or education. 7. TURN: Theory is uneducational, as it moves our attention away from real-world issues and shifts it onto a hypothetical space with no real significance. 8. Wrong forum. LD is centered on debating the resolution, and the judge is asked to evaluate the resolution, not which side was more educational. Discourse Discourse Voter (__) Discourse is a voter because rational thought is constructed through discourse, so the discourse we use shapes our mindset as rational agents which is most important as it extends beyond the debate round. A2: Discourse 1. Debate is not political; ballot solvency is illusory. Rico in 03 In the era of discursive arguments, debaters have become very comfortable making claims that the debate round has real-world implications and that debaters are really political activists. Judges have also become very comfortable signing themselves onto political movements and intellectually endorsing critical paradigms. Who are we fooling? I have never seen a judge who signs a ballot as an individual agent of action and then takes that ideological stance outside of the round. 2. TURN: He’s delegitimizing his own discourse by running it within a debate round, since no one takes debate arguments seriously, so we’re just going to come to think of it as ―that stupid argument‖ that I lost to. 3. TURN: By running discourse he gives me an incentive to argue against it, even if I agree with the argument outside of debate. He thus forces me to change my perception of it, and also encourages me to convince others that his discourse is bad, which TURNs his own solvency. 4. Perm: You can endorse the discourse argument but still give me the ballot; the ballot isn't necessary to make a discursive statement. Rico in 03 Now I’m sure there are debaters out there who loudly proclaim that they or somebody they know really believes in the kritiks they run and unflinchingly advocates their position regardless of the constraints of the debate round. Or they have an inspiring story of the judge who signed the ballot neg and then burned down a corporation to really drive the point home. But this simply begs the question: if these movements really have genuine real world implications, then why the hell would you need the ballot? Advocates of the individual agency paradigm are caught in an interesting double bind. If all they really wanted from the round was an intellectual endorsement to contribute to some sort of global revolution, then the ballot, part of the game we‟re playing, should really be quite trivial. The fact that they even want the ballot in the first place proves that their movement isn't genuine and that they're just manipulating information to win the game. This point forces the judge to make a decision. If they really believe in the cause, put sign the ballot for [me] us and give the other [debater] team your genuine personal endorsement. Otherwise, sign the ballot in [my] our favor because [I‟ve] we’ve proven that their advocacy is bogus meaning you'd err on the side of the fiat world. (__) Discourse is unfair because one advocacy is always going to be discursively better or worse than the other, IE if the resolution is in fact false then it's discursively bad to affirm it, but I shouldn't be dropped because I lost the coin flip. Fairness is evaluated first because a fair playing field is necessary to adjudicate other argumentation. (__) The criticism does absolutely nothing because we're both going to have to link into his arguments in the future outside of this particular round, so he's not actually discouraging destructive discourse. (__) The text of the resolution is the only thing I have to prepare with before the round, so it's fundamentally unfair to hold me to anything other than the resolution. Theory RVI (__) I shouldn’t have to waste valuable speech and preparation time in answering theory; theory prevents me from effectively engaging in substantive discussion. (__) Theory being a no-risk issue is unfair because I have to win theory as well as the substantive debate while my opponent only has to win one, so the RVI is necessary to avoid unfair burdens. Doug Sigel writes: [Doug Sigel, Northwestern University. The Punishment Theory: Illegitimate Styles and Theories as Voting Issues, 1984; http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/Sigle1984Poverty.htm] It makes sense that once the round is moved onto the theory plane, it ought to stay there and be resolved at that level. To indict one theory is to support another; if the indicted theory is defended then the superiority of that theory over its competitor is a voting issue. It seems fair that when a [debater] team is put in extreme peril--they can lose solely on the punishment argument made against them-their opponent should be put in the same peril. … Teams making punishment arguments should be held responsible for those arguments--if they lose them they should pay. Narratives A2: Narrative (Textual) (__) The resolution is a statement of truth. Gottlob Frege writes: It is worthy of notice that the sentence "I smell the scent of violets" has the same content as the sentence "it is true that I smell the scent of violets". So it seems, then, that nothing is added to the thought by my ascribing to it the property of truth. A narrative doesn't seek to attain any truth, rather it is a projection of the ideas of the individual. Thus reject his advocacy as he's not meeting his burden. (__) The narrative only represents a particular; a particular affirmation isn’t sufficient to affirm. Peter Lipton writes, (Philosophy and Problems) If we have a hypothesis of universal conditional form, no number of positive instances will entail that the hypothesis is true, but a single negative instance will entail that it is false. No number of black ravens entails that the hypothesis that all ravens are black is true, but a single white raven entails that the hypothesis is false. Thus if I win the neg case you negate. A2: Emotion trumps rationality. (__) Rationality is the most evident influence in practical decision-making. Roger Solt writes, (Demystifying the Critique. <http://evansexperientialism.freewebspace.com/solt.htm>) It can never he established logically that logic is correct; to do so would be circular. But the elementary rules of logic are simply self-evident. If I was in Lexington, Kentucky at the time which someone was stabbed to death in Austin, Texas, I couldn't have been the one to do the stabbing. Similarly, given the way in which our minds are constructed, empiricism seems to be by nature compelling. Logically, we can't know that the sun will rise tomorrow; the future may not repeat the past. But our past experience is the best thing that we have to go on; life requires that we act and judge with some degree of uncertainty. (__) Even if emotional feeling trumps rationality, our emotions are still shaped on a rational basis; we intuitively recognize significant advantages to be more compelling than less significant advantages. A2: Narrative (Discursive) 1. Narratives kill structural change by focusing on individual experiences rather than systemic problems. This distracts us from the broader picture and skews our decision-making towards the individual. By focusing on including a few marginalized voices, the narrative excludes all the rest, TURNing its own solvency. 2. Endorsing irrational criticism is socially destructive. Roger Solt writes, (Demystifying the Critique. <http://evansexperientialism.freewebspace.com/solt.htm>) But rationality clearly has a vital place in human life. If you had been falsely accused of murder, you would want the jury to listen to the reasons you could give for your innocence, not just vote on whether they like you or not. The fact that you were in Lexington at the time that this murder was being committed in Austin is a sound logical reason for why you couldn't have committed it. 3. Narratives are unfair; there’s no way I could have predicted a narrative debate, so I’m not prepared with a counter-narrative to run, meaning that I can’t fairly engage his position. 4. The narrative framework makes the ballot arbitrary, destroying objectivity which is key to education fairness. Rico in 03 In a fiat framework, the judge votes based on the quality of the evidence, the warrants behind the claims, and ultimately decides the probability of the policy having net costs or benefits. It doesn’t matter whether the judge likes the policy or not--the only criteria for the round is the strength of the arguments on the flow. However, in a contest of competing advocacies, debaters consciously ask the judge to abandon any concept of objectivity and to personally endorse an advocacy in some kind of real-world political statement. … A fundamental precursor to policy debate (or any competitive activity) is objective standards. If an umpire walks into Fenway with the preconceived notion that the Yankees will win because he’s a huge Jeter fan, it’s over before it begins. Likewise, if a judge decides he‟ll vote on capitalism bad before the round starts, there‟s really no point to the debate, from either a competitive or educational standpoint. In both examples, the activity is destroyed by letting personal opinions influence the outcome. We demand objectivity from judges in debate because it is absolutely essential to maintain any fairness in the debate. (__) The narrative framework skews ground because I can’t predict whether he’ll go for the narrative or kick the framework and extend the narrative as a substantive argument. This is unfair because I have to win both framework and substance while he only has to win one. A2: Objectivity doesn’t exist >> must allow subjectivity. (__) Even if rationality isn’t perfect, traditional debate is better than arbitrary ballot-casting. Roger Solt writes, (Demystifying the Critique. <http://evansexperientialism.freewebspace.com/solt.htm>) My point is that no critique of rationality can discredit all forms of rational thought. … It should be next to impossible for the negative to win that rational reasons have no probative value. It's better to decide on the basis of a flawed rationality than it is to flip a coin. Micropolitics A2: Micropolitics. (__) Micropolitics destroys objectivity which is key to education and fairness. Rico in 03 In a fiat framework, the judge votes based on the quality of the evidence, the warrants behind the claims, and ultimately decides the probability of the policy having net costs or benefits. It doesn’t matter whether the judge likes the policy or not--the only criteria for the round is the strength of the arguments on the flow. However, in a contest of competing advocacies, debaters consciously ask the judge to abandon any concept of objectivity and to personally endorse an advocacy in some kind of real-world political statement. … A fundamental precursor to policy debate (or any competitive activity) is objective standards. If an umpire walks into Fenway with the preconceived notion that the Yankees will win because he’s a huge Jeter fan, it’s over before it begins. Likewise, if a judge decides he‟ll vote on capitalism bad before the round starts, there‟s really no point to the debate, from either a competitive or educational standpoint. In both examples, the activity is destroyed by letting personal opinions influence the outcome. We demand objectivity from judges in debate because it is absolutely essential to maintain any fairness in the debate. Topicality Generics (__) Topicality perpetuates the harms of the status quo. Drawing limits on academic discourse reproduces the isolation, disempowerment, and victimization of those identified in the AC by telling us that we should exclude them from discussion. Roland Bleiker writes: [Roland Bleiker, Senior Lecturer at the University of Queensland, ―Forget IR Theory‖, ALTERNATIVES: SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION AND HUMANE GOVERNANCE, Jan-Mar 1997, Vol. 22, Issue 1] The doorkeepers of IR are those who, knowingly or unknowingly, make sure that the discipline’s discursive boundaries remain intact. Discourses are subtle mechanisms that frame our thinking process. They determine the limits of what can be thought, talked and written. They create systems of exclusion that elevate one group of discourses to a hegemonic status while condemning others to exile. The discursive power of academic disciplines works thus: a statement has to be ―within the true‖ before one can even start to judge whether it is true, false, legitimate or illegitimate. Hence, the doorkeepers inform us what distinguishes serious research about the ―facts of the real world‖ from casual observation is the search for ―valid inferences by the systematic use of well-established procedures of inquiry.‖ Such procedures not only suggest on what grounds things can be studied legitimately, but also decide what issues are worth being assessed in the first place. The doorkeepers remind those who pray for admittance to the temple of IR that only those who abide by the established rules will gain access. Admittance cannot be granted to those who are eager to investigate the process of knowing, to those who intend to redraw the boundaries of “good” and “evil” research. These allegedly unimportant research topics need to be silenced precisely because they run the risk of TURNing into politically significant questions. The systems of exclusion that door-keeping functions uphold are sustained by a whole range of discipline-related procedures. Academic disciplines discipline the production of discourse. They force the creation and exchange of knowledge into preconceived spaces, called debates. (__) Affirmative definitions should be preferred over negative ones because the NC has the opportunity to adapt to the AC, whereas if topicality goes negative then I lose 6 minutes of speech time. A2: Text / Predictability (__) Predictability focuses on only one word of the resolution, exaggerating the importance of a narrow segment and ignoring the meaning implicit in the way the words are used. (__) Words are contextually defined; the resolution is framed within the context of the case, so the topicality argument is searching for a meaning that doesn’t exist. (__) My interpretation doesn’t have to be perfect in order to be predictable; the fact that they ran T shows that they were prepared for my interpretation. (__) The negative has all of cross-x and prep time to adapt to my interpretation, so they can fairly engage it even if they couldn’t have predicted it pre-round. (__) Predictability is an impossible standard to meet; I can’t know what framework my opponent is capable of predicting. A2: Ground (__) TURN: I can’t prove he has ground without making arguments for him – this is unfair because (A) it forces me to waste time with arguments that aren’t constructive to my advocacy and (B) it forces me to contradict my own position so that I can never win the round. (__) TURN: The ground argument hinders education as it gives debaters an incentive to fake ignorance for an easy win rather than actively engaging in substantive discussion. A2: Jurisdiction (__) Jurisdiction is a tool of social control. It suggests that an arbitrary appeal to power, rather than the rightness of method or outcome, ought to prevail. If jurisdiction mattered as my opponent described, there would be no intellectual development in law, resulting in stagnancy. T is an RVI (__) I shouldn’t have to waste valuable speech and preparation time in answering T; topicality prevents me from effectively engaging in substantive discussion. (__) T being a no-risk issue is unfair because I have to win topicality as well as substance while my opponent only has to win one, so the RVI is necessary to prevent unfair burdens. (__) If I win that my interpretation is preferable then you vote for me based on the same logic contained within the T voter. Extratopicality Bad Extratopical cases are unpredictable; there are an infinite number of additions that could be made to the resolution, and I have no way of knowing what his case is going to fiat. AT: Topicality argumentation is bad (technical/legalistic) (__) The case is technical, as it’s formalized with specific burdens of proof, explicit and implied jurisdiction, etc.—that’s the same kind of discourse being criticized. (__) TURN: The argument masks social exclusion. Topicality is peculiar to intercollegiate debate. The issue is exchanged only among those who are trained to discuss the issue. There is training for new practitioners. Their argument concerns those who might not have access to education, to college, to class and social privilege. The premise is that moderation in topicality argumentation will open doors for the disempowered. That is nonsense. It ignores the multiple, institutionalized barriers to social inclusion for many peoples. They are mollifying the audience with banal rhetoric regarding topicality, intending to obscure systemic exclusion. (__) TURN: Precision in language promotes empowerment as it assists identity formation, focuses attention on discrete public policy matters, and helps mobilize activists. People who are socially marginalized need language that is directed to their specific needs in a direct and powerful manner. The logic of the exclusion argument is that general, reasonable language will suffice, inhibiting directed action. Indeterminacy in the language of the law and politicians only inhibits social reform. (__) TURN: He links harder. According to the argument, technical language excludes some as it includes others. The argument criticizes exclusion while ignoring the implications of inclusion. The argument ensures that those in authority will be able to exclusively use such language for their own benefit, continuing to rig the game against any competing social forces. Generic Discursive Kritik Answers (__) TURN: The discourse of the AC is more important than the critique because it translates into political reality. Roland Bleiker writes: [Roland; Professor at the Pusan National University. Popular Dissent, Human Agency and Global Politics. Publication Year: 2000, Pg 209] An approach that perceives language as human activity, rather than a way of categorising phenomena, opens a whole range of opportunities to study the relationship between language and human agency. Hanna Pitkin, for instance, shows how our understanding of action may be enriched by asking no longer what action is or how it functions, but how we talk about it, how language games guide the implementation of this particular aspect of practice. Language thus becomes action itself because 'we use language not merely to talk about action, but to act — to carry on actions, to teach actions, to plan or produce actions, to assess actions done and redress any ways in which they have gone wrong'. [__] TURN: Criticism in academic debate only perpetuates social problems by offering unrealistic accounts of the status quo, undermining the conditions for effective social critique. Alan Sokal writes: (Professor of Physics at New York University. ―A Plea for Reason, Evidence and Logic,‖ 1997 <http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/s...yu_forum.html>) I'm worried about [Critical] trends in the American Left -- particularly here in academia –that at a minimum divert us from the task of formulating a progressive social critique, by leading smart and committed people into trendy but ultimately empty intellectual fashions, and that can in fact undermine the prospects for such a critique, by promoting subjectivist and relativist philosophies that in my view are inconsistent with producing a realistic analysis of society that we and our fellow citizens will find compelling. David Whiteis, in a recent article, said it well: Too many academics, secure in their ivory towers and insulated from the real-world consequences of the ideas they espouse, seem blind to the fact that non-rationality has historically been among the most powerful weapons in the ideological arsenals of oppressors. (__) TURN: The fact that he’s advocating a major shift from the status quo means that there’s a high probability that the status quo is in fact better than his critical advocacy, otherwise his critical advocacy would already be the status quo. This means that even if he wins the substantive reasons why his position is better, he’s only winning them because he was better prepared for that specific debate, while what he’s advocating is actually bad. We can combat stagnancy with small changes when corrections are necessary, so we shouldn’t endorse a radical criticism which will just make us worse off than the status quo. A2: Case harms are illusory and just a product of illegit power relations. TURN: Criticism of power without a clear policy solution creates a power void that leaves society with more oppression than the status quo. Anthony Cook writes: ("A Symposium on Feminist Critical Legal Studies and Postmodernism: Part One: A Diversity of Influence: Reflections on Postmodernism" New England Journal of Law, Spring 1992, Lexis-Nexis.) Moreover, the approach is debilitating because deconstruction without material rootedness, without goals and vision, creates a political and spiritual void into which the socially real power we theoretically deconstruct steps and steps on the disempowered and dispossessed. To those dying from AIDs, stifled by poverty, dehumanized by sexism and racism, crippled by drugs and brutalized by the many forms of physical, political and economic violence that characterizes our narcissistic culture, power hardly seems a matter of illegitimate theoretical privileging. When vision, social theory and political struggle do not accompany critique, the void will be filled by the rich, the powerful and the charismatic, those who influence us through their eloquence, prestige, wealth and power. A2: Rejection theory / substantive kritik. 1. Reciprocal burdens are key to fairness; my advocacy is bound to the resolution so he shouldn’t be able to argue on a critical level because I don’t have that ability. 2. Double-bind: The AC rests upon infinite assumptions, and I can’t predict which one he’s going to criticize, so either I have an infinite research burden or I only have my prep time to understand the position and come up with responses while he has infinite time pre-round. 3. He has to win one assumption is wrong I have to defend every assumption is correct, these issues aren’t topic specific so really there’s a 50/50 chance of winning any of these arguments which puts me at a significant strategic disadvantage. 4. Rejection theory kills topic-specific research by focusing research on asinine theories, IE the debate about whether or not cause and effect exists which has no implications in political reality. This prioritizes generics over specific arguments and encourages the same arguments to be run on any topic. A2: Realm of Discourse (__) TURN: There's no brightline on what qualifies as an assumption I shouldn't be able to attack, so the only alternative is to allow the affirmative the assert anything including the resolution to be true, resulting in zero negative ground. (__) TURN: Negation theory states that I can negate by attacking any assumption that the resolution rests on. I shouldn’t be excluded from attacking such assumptions, as I can’t predict a dynamic and arbitrary qualifier on what I can attack. (__) TURN: I’m being more educational by encouraging debaters to research and discuss critical philosophy, thus broadening the topic area to be more inclusive. In addition, many debaters go on to study philosophy etc. so my education is actually valuable, whereas not many debaters become the president of the US. Ellipsis Ellipsis Bad 1. Ellipsis allow him to infinitely remove author’s intent, producing the same effect as fabrication. This prevent debaters from becoming familiar with academic writers, which hinders education as we’re no longer receiving the benefits of philosophical reading etc. 2. Ellipsis removes the constraint of academic literature as a check on fallacious and abusive positions. This harms education because we're no longer talking about real-world issues. This also skews ground as I no longer have the ability to block out his arguments. 3. Ellipsis destroy my ground because I no longer have the ability to criticize him for misrepresenting academic literature. Either I have an infinite research burden or I lose my ability to indict his consistency with the intent of his author. (__) Ellipsis allows him to exaggerate empirical evidence or the credibility thereof; I lost ground on which I could have been clashing with his empirical warrants. A2: Ellipsis Bad 1. TURN: It's uneducational to force me to type up full sections of a book or a JSTOR article as then I have to waste hours of time in which we’re not learning anything. 2. TURN: Disallowing ellipsis gives debaters an incentive to fabricate evidence as an alternative; this outweighs because when we use ellipsis we at least know that there might be some deviation from author's intent whereas with fabrication we can’t verify anything. Also, ellipsis check misrepresentation because debaters don’t want to have a ton of ellipsis visible in their cards, whereas with fabrication it doesn’t matter, so he links into the impacts on a greater scale. 3. TURN: Ellipsis solve elitism. Requiring that debaters only run cards if we have the full texts unfairly skews the round towards the debater that can spend more money on books, or the debater with the bigger backpack. 4. TURN: By running ellipsis bad he’s only encouraging the future use of ellipsis, because debaters can easily win off of TURNs or RVIs, so he’s giving us an incentive to use more ellipsis. (__) I'm not claiming any offense from having an academic authority; my use of ellipsis is the same as using analytics, so since he uses analytics himself I’m not linking any more than him. (__) TURN: He gives no specific link; I don't know which of my cards he's going to go for and it's unfair to force me to defend consistency with author's intent for all my cards; that's the same as "Group all his arguments - no warrant." (__) The author’s intent is obvious given the context within the card, meaning that I don’t actually link into the implications. (__) The intent is obvious given that we’re all familiar with the author’s position, so I don’t link. Vagueness Vagueness Bad (__) Vagueness is unfair because I can’t effectively engage his position if I don’t know what it is until his later speeches. (__) Vagueness is unfair because he can just kick out of all my responses by narrowing his advocacy down to something that they don’t apply to. A2: Vagueness bad. (__) Cross-x solves; he can pin down my position by just asking a few questions. (__) The argument is paradoxical. The standards used for creating the distinctions between the ambiguous and the non-ambiguous are themselves vague, indeterminate, and recursive, undermining one's ability to bring coherence to expression. The call to eliminate vagueness is a call to undermine reasoning in debate. (__) TURN: The call to remove vagueness from debate would render all argumentation vacuous. Words and concepts are inherently vague, that’s why there are multiple definitions of terms in dictionaries. Herbert Wells writes: [First and Last Things, 1908] Every species is vague, every term goes cloudy at its edges, and so in my way of thinking, relentless logic is only another name for stupidity - for a sort of intellectual pigheadedness. If you push a philosophical or metaphysical enquiry through a series of valid syllogisms - never committing any generally recognized fallacy - you nevertheless leave behind you at each step a certain rubbing and marginal loss of objective truth and you get deflections that are difficult to trace, at each phase in the process. (__) TURN: The argument forces an impossible burden on me. Not only does debate has time limits for the presentation of information, but there are a potentially infinite number of premises I would have to specify to meet the vagueness standard. John Searle writes: The thesis of the Background is simply this: Intentional phenomena such as meanings, understandings, interpretations, beliefs, desires, and experiences only function within a set of Background capacities that are not themselves intentional. Another way to state this thesis is to say that all representation, whether in language, thought, or experience, only succeeds in representing given a set of nonrepresentational capacities. … Suppose I go into the restaurant and order a meal. Suppose I say, speaking literally, „Bring me a steak with fried potatoes.‟ Even though the utterance is meant and understood literally, the number of possible misinterpretations is strictly limitless. I take it for granted that they will not deliver the meal to my house, or to my place of work. I take it for granted that the steak will not be encased in concrete, or petrified. It will not be stuffed into my pockets or spread over my head. But none of these assumptions was made explicit in the literal utterance. The temptation is to think that I could make them fully explicit by simply adding them as further restrictions, making my original order more precise. But that is also a mistake. First, it is a mistake because there is no limit to the number of additions I would have to make to the original order to block possible misinterpretations, and second, each of the additions is itself subject to different interpretations. (__) Debate is self-disambiguating as it contextualizes argumentation. If specific clauses within the case are vague, it is only because of their isolation from the rest of the debate. (__) At worst I’m forcing him to make a double-bind, so there’s no substantial abuse. Conditionality Conditionality Bad (Theoretical) (__) He skews ground by forcing me to debate the entirety of the resolution, while he only has to debate a narrow section of the topic. (__) Conditionality creates unfair burdens as it allows him to select a portion of the topic that’s easy to win. (__) Conditionality allows him to assume any one of infinitely many positions within the topic, meaning that I can’t predict what part of the resolution I’m going to have to debate. This is unfair as it means I can’t prepare evidence or blocks to effectively engage his case. (__) Conditionality forces me to make a limited set of attacks to his case since it is restricted to one area of the topic. Conditionality Bad (Substantive) (__) Conditionality is fundamentally flawed because a conditional affirmation or negation of the resolution doesn’t prove the resolution as a whole, only part of it, and the judge is unable to make a logical decision. (__) Conditionality is logically irresolvable because if both debaters assume conflicting conditional positions, there is no way for the judge to resolve between the two claims since they affirm or negate separate aspects of the topic. Lots of NC Aprioris are Evil (__) He shouldn’t be able to make the debate into an apriori discussion in the NC, because then the six-minute AC is rendered useless or almost useless, giving him a huge unfair time advantage. (__) Conditional aprioris create unfair burdens; he has to win one issue to get the ballot while I have to win all of them. Counterplans Counterplans Bad 1. It’s not reciprocal if he has a magic wand with which he can fiat new policies while I’m bound strictly to the resolution, as he can select whatever advocacy he wants. 2. Counterplans explode my research burden; I can’t predict what his new advocacy or advocacies will be, so he has infinite pre-round prep while I only have six minutes. (__) Conditional counterplans are unfair because I don’t know whether he’ll go for a counterplan or kick it, so he has multiple outs while I’m bound to a single advocacy. OV: Conditional Counterplans Bad 1. There's no brightline for how many counterplans are too many. 2. TURN: It's fundamentally unfair to hold me to anything other than the text of the resolution because that's the only thing I have to prepare with before the round. 3. TURN: I'm not preventing him from covering my case, I'm only preventing him from blip spreading the crap out of my case, so I'm preventing abuse. If he makes actual good responses rather than blip spreading then he should be able to win with a thin coverage. 4. TURN: He links on a higher level by running theory because theory precludes all my counterplans and is conditional. This is evaluated first because at that point where his ability to make his fairness argument came from an unfair advantage, we can't evaluate the content of his fairness argument. (__) TURN: He's linking on a higher level by running critical arguments that preclude my counterplans and are conditional. (__) He bites into his own argument by making responses to my standard, because I can't predict which one he'll go for and each one precludes my counterplans. (__) There's no unique ground loss because he can run multiple advocacies too, IE he can read Nietzsche or run normativity with 5 alternatives. A2: Counterplans >> !Education. 1. There's no reason why he has to spend more time on counterplans than any other argument; if his responses are good then that isn’t the case. 2. TURN: Counterplans are most educational because I’m advocating actual real-world alternatives to escape the harms. Conditional Standards Conditional Standards Bad His standards create nonreciprocal burdens; he only has to win one standard while I have to win all of them, so he can shift out of negative offense. A2: Conditional Standards Bad 1. There's no brightline for how many standards are too many. 2. There's no unique ground loss because he can use multiple standards too. 3. He's biting into his own argument by running multiple theoretical arguments that function independently of one another, because he only has to win one of them and I can't predict what ones he'll go for. 4. He has a seven-minute speech; he has plenty of time to respond to multiple standards; if his arguments are actually good he should be able to cover my standards with one- or two-line responses. 5. T: I'm not preventing him from covering my case, I'm only preventing him from unfairly spreading tons of bad answers to each of my arguments, so I'm preventing time abuse that he's trying to utilize. 6. T: Restricting me to one standard is unfair because forcing me to use such a narrow advocacy destroys ground with which I could be affirming the resolution. 7. T: Restricting me to one standard hinders education because then in order to make relevant arguments I'm forced to use a vague standard which wouldn't provide a good mechanism for weighing arguments. (Education is a voter...) (__) He's biting into his own argument by running a standard with multiple justifications, because I can't predict which link he'll extend and he potentially only needs to win one of them. Shady Cross-X Sux (__) It is unfair for me to be forced to waste an excess of cross-ex time trying to understand my opponent’s case. I thus lose my ability to engage in substantive debate as I don’t know what my opponent’s arguments are. (__) Being shady in cross-x sets a precedent for abusive positions. If we don’t preserve checks on cross-x then we’re encouraging lack of clarity and unfocused cases followed by clear extensions in the rebuttals that shift out of responses. (__) It’s uneducational to have a debate in which I can’t understand the other case. Any value from case-level debate is mitigated by non-responsiveness and wasted prep time, and we can’t effectively clash on substantive issues that we don’t understand. Mislabeled TURNs Bad He skews ground by forcing me to take out arguments labeled as TURNs that are actually defensive when I should be able to kick the arguments. This allows him to label anything as a TURN and force me to answer every part of the flow, which gives me an absurd burden. Term Specification A. My interpretation is that we have to specify our reading of all terms that carry technical significance in our evidence. B. They don’t. [Specifics.] C. Standards. (__) His arguments are indeterminate because he never makes his interpretation of his terms explicit. Given that there are different interpretations, it’s impossible to gauge what his arguments actually say, rendering his advocacy vacuous. (__) I can’t contest his interpretation of those words without entering into an assertion war which makes the debate impossible to evaluate. (__) He explodes my research burden; I shouldn’t have to read all his books to be able to answer his arguments because I can’t predict which text their newest case is going to be based on, so without term specification I can’t fairly engage their position. If he calls my arguments on his case non-responsive to what the arguments ―actually say‖ then he only feeds the abuse story. Lying is Uncool (__) Lying is unfair; my opponent can claim anything he wants to and manipulate it to his advantage, infinitely expanding his own ground. (__) Lies hurt education by instilling the wrong facts and values into people’s heads. (__) Lies are unpredictable, because there is only one truth and many lies, meaning that I can’t fairly engage his position. Theory Weighing Aff > Neg 1. Err aff on theory because time skew is against me; I have four minutes to answer a sevenminute NC and preempt six minutes of NR responses. Always err aff otherwise the negative can take advantage of the time skew by forcing me to cover bad theory. (__) Default aff on theory to counteract negative presumption in the round. The negative traditionally has presumption as adopted from policy and this automatically restricts affirmative ground, warranting a reciprocal affirmative advantage in theory. Neg > Aff (__) Err neg on theory because the affirmative ability to get the last word in the 2AR allows them to sneak in new responses and give the perception that they’re winning when they’re really losing. (__) Prefer negative theory because the negative lacks cross-ex after the 1AR as a check against confusing theory, so the negative always outweighs on risk. Education > Fairness (__) Education is more important because it has outside value; the educational value attained through debate helps us in the real world, whereas fairness is only valuable in a hypothetical debate setting. (__) Education is evaluated first because if debates aren’t educational then school will lose their incentive to fund teams and debaters will lose their incentive to compete, meaning that we can no longer access the benefits of any other theoretical standards. A2: A fair playing field is necessary to adjudicate education. (__) He can still engage my education arguments; he doesn’t need 10 minutes to cover some theory. (__) At best he’s only winning a fairness deficit, not a takeout, meaning that I can still access the benefits of education. Fairness > Education (__) Fairness always comes first as it indicts our ability to evaluate education; we can’t assess other theoretical standards without first securing a fair playing field. (__) Fairness comes first because without fairness debaters won’t have any incentive to debate, as decisions would be arbitrary; thus we wouldn’t be able to access the benefits of education as there would be no one debating. (__) I outweigh on time frame. Checks on fairness are vital this round because after that it’s too late to fix any problems. School systems and classes, on the other hand, can easily have solvency after the round for deficiencies in education. (__) Fairness comes first because an unfair debater that tries to take advantage of the rules and exploit loopholes without being checked has no incentive to try to educate the judge or other competitors.