[eDebate] Korcok round 2
Sat May 13 15:04:55 CDT 2006
Ok, took me a while to sort out.
1. I do think that your argument necessitates intrinsicness.
The argument that the judge is somehow ?constrained? to only evaluating
actions taken by the ?appropriate actor? depends upon a view of the judge
that I think makes intrinsicness inevitable. The classic McKinney/Cheshier
defense of intrinsicness rests on the idea that impact arguments which
derive from other actions (or inactions) by the ?appropriate actor? should
be considered irrelevant to our evaluations. For instance, imagine someone
getting up on the floor of Congress and saying that ?we shouldn?t sanction
China because that might then cause us to pass the India deal, which would
be really stupid of us?.? No, any rational person charged with deciding what
the ?appropriate authority? should do (in this Congress) would obviously say
that instead we should sanction AND we should refuse to pass the India deal.
The link between this and your argument, I admit, is pretty complicated, but
I think it becomes clearer if/when you ever draw out a terminal offensive
impact argument for why people should prefer your conception of the judge.
I?ll put aside your wax museum ground DA for a second, and examine your
other offensive arg. I think you have two.
1) You say that it?s ?natural.? The critic is simply ?naturally? evaluating
whether the appropriate agent should take an action. It is this argument
that I think builds in the link to intrinsicness---an appeal to
?naturalness? or just our common sense (as you do with lots of your
examples) is precisely what would eliminate about 50% of the stupid
contrived DAs that debaters run. What about the DA that says environmental
regulations trigger protectionism and cause a trade war? If you were truly
to posit yourself as the critic who is solely tasked with evaluating whether
or not Congress should pass environmental regulation, then the fact that it
may cause the agent in question (Congress) to start a trade war in the
future is NOT a reason to REJECT environmental protection.
I?m surprised you don?t see the link to intrinsicness---your post is full of
the same rhetoric used to justify intrinsicness? ?"France invades Iran"
might well COMPETE with ?The US attacks Iran? in a simple sense of COMPETE,
but that doesn't, by itself, make it a legitimate reason to reject "The US
?Not by itself, make it a legitimate reason to REJECT? is exactly the
argument in favor of intrinsicness.
Lastly, I?ll run with your Burger example to explain this. You say that if
I?m deciding whether or not I want to eat a burger, the idea that Zarefsky
might throw me a banquet (a great idea by the way) is pretty silly for me to
consider. Well, imagine this DA---if I eat this burger, I?ll want a coke to
go along with it, and once I drink the Coke, I?ll be up all night because of
the Caffeine and that will cause me to be tired in the morning for the
Well obviously, just as it would be stupid to consider the Oxfam CP, it
would be stupid for me to consider the Coke DA, as it is not a reason to
REJECT eating the burger, it is just a reason to eat the burger and forego
Now if you want to get really high-tech, maybe this is only a defense of
logical intrinsicness and NOT empirical intrinsicness (you?re not the only
one who?s studied up on his Solt in ?89), but we can leave that discussion
for later. I?m just saying that you should think through the overall effects
on neg ground that your theory of the decision-maker would have.
2) The Wax Museum DA.
I don?t think the role of the resolution is to constrain the scope of
affirmative fiat. For one, in debates, if you won T, did you make a
presumption impact argument, saying that if we win you?re not T, then the
judge lacks fiat power over your plan, so nothing happens, vote neg? That?s
pretty stupid---no instead you said ?their interpretation of the topic is
bad for debate, kills ground, is uneducational, etc etc.? The resolution is
to make debate predictable, not to grant fiat power. Fiat is just an
invention that we use to overcome inherency. It is not ?granted? to us by
the resolution or by any higher power?..it exists only if you can prove in
the debate that it should exist.
Yes, the neg has many more options than the aff does, because the aff has to
be topical. I don?t really think that the Solt ?89 ev gets you very far
here, for a few reasons
A) Yes there might be the potential for some abusive CP?s---but you need to
prove that Congress CP is one such example. I think it is possible to
establish a coherent theory of fiat that disallows the Japanese Geisha CP
while still allowing for the Congress CP. I also think that some of the
worst examples of neg CP?s---consultation, line item veto, any CP that
Sparky ever came up with, etc?.can be beat by targeted Ground/Fairness
arguments---they don?t require a wholesale elimination of any
B) My evidence post-dates---debate has evolved a little since 1989---I?m
sure you can find some Patterson in ?67 evidence that says stock issues are
sweet too, but we?ve had some experience since then. I think that on the
whole, the last 15 years of debate have proven that the potential wax museum
of abusive neg CP?s have not been that bad. In fact, my experience is that
agent CP?s were the least of my worries on the aff the last few years.
You also make the argument that my interp allows for the fiat criminals to
stop being mean CP. This is precisely why included that big discussion of
terminal education/policy impact in my first post. I think the reason that
these CP?s are bad are
A) No literature---as I?m sure you know, theres a TON of literature on
Courts v. Congress or Executive vs. Congress or states vs. FG (although I
might be with you on 50 state fiat illegit). When I said that ?agent debates
matter,? I meant all the evidence (I?m sure I can email DHeidt or anybody
from Wake and get about 500 cards on the subject if pressed) that says
Courts vs. Congress is both crucial to the literature base and essential to
policy outcomes. As I?m sure you know, nobody for any reputable source would
advocate Commies be nice CP.
B) We have no capacity as judges or debaters to ever contribute to the
?Commies be nice? CP. If we are to take seriously the idea that debate
MATTERS in the larger sense (other than simply educating some kids and
having fun), then the main I/L to ?real-world? change I think is that
debaters become trained in the ways of policy advocacy and in the future
join some field that might contribute the evolution of policy/law. And in
this context, the CHOICE between the courts and the congress is different
than the ?choice? between the criminals be nice and the government. If you
vote neg for the Congress CP a bunch, and everyone walks away convinced that
the Courts are a dead-end for progressive social reform, then it might
matter in the future when people like me want to go into policy. See
OR maybe you think that debate matters little except as a fun game which is
educational. If that?s true, then I think all the evidence about agent
debates being educational and important becomes offense (see Calvert ?89 or
other better versions of Elmore), and it seems that there?s little impact to
any of your args (other than the Wax Museum DA). If you?ve got some external
impact that you can articulate, then let me know.
C) Actually, a team in 2k2 won the NDT and the Copeland on the Criminals be
nice CP. They called it the ?globe kritik.? And it was pretty much the only
argument they went for.
3) To return to the Prius example?.it was getting a little too complicated,
but I will reply to your burger analogy here.
plan: "Josh should eat that burger"cplan1: "Two starving children from Sudan
are flown by Oxfam to Chicago to eat the burger."
cplan2: "Jesus should offer Josh salvation if he fasts today"
cplan3: "President Bush should invite Josh to the White House for dinner."
cplan4: "Zarefsky should throw an impromptu College of Communication banquet
Again, if I am Josh, and I am making that decision, then of course those
CP?s are stupid. BUT, lets say that you are the Duck, and you are debating
among those potential options. Then CP #4 I think is a legitimate test of
the plan. Because after you debate it out, and decide that the Zarefsky CP
solves the case and avoids the cholesterol DA, then you can go to Zarefsky
and lobby him to throw me a party, while also telling me not to eat the
Again, it all comes down to what do you think the role of the judge is. All
of your arguments do presume that somehow they model themselves as the
?appropriate decision-maker? and nobody else. Even if they don?t play
dress-up in supreme court robes, that?s what they are mentally and
implicitly doing under your theory of debate.
My ?cogent theory of negative fiat:? it is the negative imagining a
STATE-BASED alternative that forces a choice with the plan. Obviously, this
is subject to some restrictions (object fiat and maybe others, depending on
the context). The offense: better protects neg ground, is more educational
in terms of institutional politics, and articulates a role of the judge that
is less vulnerable to intrinsicness (although I will admit a possible impact
turn on the 3rd).
More information about the Mailman