[eDebate] Fwd: Consult - Ans. Hardy

Steven D'Amico stevendamico
Tue Oct 9 08:53:57 CDT 2007


Does this mean I'm now going to have to listen to Scott Phillips evidnece in
my Consult rounds?





On 10/9/07, Scott Phillips <scottyp431 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Cyrus Ghavi <cghavi at gmail.com>
> Date: Oct 8, 2007 1:01 PM
> Subject: Consult - Ans. Hardy
> To: Scott Phillips <scottyp431 at gmail.com>
>
> Could you post this for me?
> Thanks,
> Cyrus
>
>
>
>
> Since this might as well be called the Emory CG judge philosophy rule,
> and I have read consultation counterplans as much as anyone in debate,
> I thought I would take a few moments to chime in here.
>
> Knowing that most people won't make it through this whole thing, I'll
> put this at the beginning instead of the end: While I won't judge at
> nearly as many tournaments as Hardy to make this an effective
> counterbalance.  as long as Hardy has this policy is in place I will
> give 30s to each negative speaker if a consultation counterplan is
> presented in the 1NC.  I think this is justified because if he can
> decide to discourage arguments that he doesn't like, I should be able
> to encourage arguments that I do like using speaker points.
>
> Also I'll note that I'm puzzled by a lot of these posts because it
> seems that you only make arguments why PICs are bad and not making
> arguments that are unique to consult. By this logic you should have
> you speaker point rules for every PIC and we should just call you the
> Duck.
>
> First of all ? even if consultation is the least educational argument
> in the history of debate, In terms of maintaining a healthy community,
> setting a precedent for judges to dictate the arguments the debaters
> in this fashion is FAR more dangerous than having debaters read an
> argument like this.
>
> You surely disagree, so consider what your reasons are for thinking it
> is wrong to simply say "I will not vote for consultation
> counterplans?" Whatever the reason is, it is equally applicable to
> putting a speaker point cap at 26.  Analogize this situation to
> policies regarding freedom of speech: would it be appropriate for a
> government to say "we won't throw you in jail for making statements
> against the government, we'll just fine you $1000." Also you should
> realize that speaker points are not all that innocent of a check
> because your little point bomb could prevent teams from clearing,
> quite literally because you didn't like the argument they went for (or
> according to your posted philosophy, perhaps only read in the 1NC).
>
> Fairness is something that should be decided in the round. It is a
> question to be resolved for the debaters.  When you were debating
> wouldn't you be upset at a judge that said he would dock points for
> anyone who read a PIC? Conditional CP? Topicality? Politics DA? Lopez
> CP? These can be construed by judges to be uneducational and unfair.
> It's an arbitrary line for you to draw, the only solution is to let
> the debaters sort it out in the round. Debate is for the debaters, not
> the judges. To be sure, there is no need for judges without debaters.
> This activity should be about what the participants want it to be and
> not subject to restrictions that are akin to behavior of someone on an
> immature power trip.
>
> What are speaker points for?
> You are right that content is relevant for speaker points, but not in
> the way you explain. People get high speaker points, not just for
> making intelligent arguments, but for making intelligent and strategic
> arguments in the response to what your opponent has said. This is
> also why people don't usually get good points for reading their 1AC if
> the aff is really good.  Most debaters can make a smart argument, but
> it's a whole other story to make smart arguments to preserve your
> position in response to an attack by your opponent.
>
> In this context, you don't punish someone for taking a position that
> you think is stupid, you punish them for not making good, smart
> arguments to people's response to your position. It's debate, not
> original oratory, meaning that the entire point is responding to the
> other side?that's where the speaker points should focus.
>
> The Debaters Should Fix It
> This entire discussion is absurd because if consultation counterplans
> are so bad, the affirmative should just beat them. The fact that they
> don't do this makes all your arguments suspect.
>
> You say it's a tough call to go for theory. That would not be true if
> they are so indisputable bad as you claim.  I've obviously had a ton
> of these debates. There have been exactly ZERO debates that the other
> team went for consultation illegit against us. There ARE, however,
> several debates in which the other teams decided to go for dispo bad
> instead. This seems to indicate that the affirmatives DO NOT fear
> going for theory, rather that when it gets down to the arguments and
> the nitty-gritty they feel consultation illegit is not as great of an
> argument as you think.
>
> You also say that we live in an age of "neg flex" bias etc.
> Does this also mean that when you decide theory debates you will find
> arguments like neg flex unpersuasive in the context of other theory
> debates (conditionality, etc)?
>
> The problem with the way consultation is debated today is that
> everybody just writes them off as "stupid counterplans" without having
> a discussion about why that is true.  The result is that there are
> multiple generations of debaters that have irrational knee-jerk
> reactions to the counterplan, saying it is illegitimate when they can
> either give no reason why or can only make arguments about why it is
> at a very basic, shallow level.  IF this is not true and IF
> consultation counterplans are really that bad, then there is literally
> NO REASON why the affirmative would not be winning every single
> consultation debate.  I'd like to believe that we made good enough,
> and specific enough, arguments on this issue to deter other teams,
> like yourself Aaron, from ever going for this.
>
> Perhaps that is also why the claims that the counterplan is "dumb"
> have been pretty baseless in the edebate discussion?.
>
> AT: Dumb Counterplan with No Value
> Before I get to the more substantive arguments here, let me just say
> that as much as you hate consultation counterplans, I love them. And I
> mean love.  During my college career there were a lot of times that I
> didn't like debate very much, and to be quite frank, Consult Japan
> made me love the activity again because it was fun.  While my
> experience is admittedly rare and the extreme, the point remains: if
> people enjoy consultation counterplans and causes them to participate
> in the activity more, then this is a benefit of the counterplan that
> should be considered. I particularly think that if there are debaters
> that enjoy the counterplan, that should be enough to have a VERY
> STRONG bias against judges taking measures to reign in those
> arguments.
>
> This is also similar to non-traditional debate.  I am as adamant as
> anyone that affirmatives should have plans, be topical, etc. but I
> have still voted for teams that do not fall within this framework and
> if they have performed well, given them good speaker points.  Just
> because I believe in and enjoy traditional policy debate, I don't
> think that means I should impose those beliefs on the debaters?I'm
> simply there to evaluate the arguments they make against each other.
> Do you believe that a judge like myself should be able to say "if you
> don't read a plan in the 1AC you can not get more than 26 speaker
> points?"
>
>      You say: There are a million of them.
>
> This is simply not true. There is not evidence that binding
> consultation is necessary for the seven consultation counterplans that
> you mentioned.  If you are dumb enough to lose these counterplans you
> definitely deserve to lose.  It's like reading a politics disad
> without internal link evidence.  Affirmatives simply need to use the
> argument that there is no evidence that binding consultation is needed
> as a tool to bolster their theory and policy based objections.
>
> This is also no different than saying politics disads are bad because
> there are so many scenarios?and before you say that the affirmative
> can prepare for the politics links regardless of scenario, affs can
> prepare for "consultation bad" disads?there are a ton of these,
> including ones the community has not really put to use yet.
>
> You say that even when there is "binding consultation" evidence it is
> never in the context of the aff.  That is no different than the fact
> that you never have a politics DA link that assumes your
> scenario?.i.e. "if the aff passed it would kill X bill" ? this is
> always two separate pieces of evidence.
>
>     You say: Anti-educational.
>
> This seems to be the brunt of your argument and also the most
> ridiculous. I'll first note that many accepted debate arguments are
> similar in terms of education.  I'll go with the politics example
> again.  It's a stock negative strategy that is often a crutch for 2N's
> that requires non-topic related research.  You'll say that at least
> they have to do research before the tournament, but good consultation
> debaters will do the same (uniqueness updates, say yes updates) and I
> don't think that research for the sake of research is a good standard
> by which we exclude or include arguments in the community. Politics
> disads are only specific to the aff via their link argument, just like
> consult counterplans are specific to affs with their say yes evidence.
>
> It is short-sighted to argue that these debaters will ignore the topic
> completely.  No one reads one-off consultation counterplans.  You have
> to have a strategy outside of the 90 seconds it takes to read you
> Mochizuki cards.
>
> Granted it's not the same, but there is also much to learn from
> reading consultation counterplans, and indeed I feel that I have. In
> my research I have become educated on Japan's population, political
> structure, extended deterrence, military alliances, etc. Also a
> benefit that people might not realize is that when looking for say yes
> evidence it requires you to delve into the policy specifics of
> affirmatives, giving you a detailed look at what the affs are all
> about.
>
> And let's get rid of the blinders and make one thing perfectly clear
> about debate: people are there to win.  How many times to you remember
> walking into a round, seeing your opponent and thinking "gee, I really
> I hope I get to learn something new in this debate!" Highly unlikely,
> I think most debaters are busy thinking about how they are going to
> beat their opponent into submission.  This education business smacks
> of a convenient ruse to eliminate an argument that you just don't care
> for.
>
> AT/ Same bad blocks.
> This reminds me of high school LDers screaming about how uneducational
> policy debate is because they just spew cards bla blab la. The reason
> their argument is stupid is because they are taking example of bad
> policy debate to discredit the whole.
>
> That is analogous to what is going on here. I'm sure that there are
> lots of consultation debaters that use the "same bad blocks" every
> round, but in order to compete at a higher level those blocks can not
> stay stagnate. I changed my blocks continuously?reviewing them after
> each tournament that I had debated a particular answer to the CP. This
> is good practice in general and all debaters should probably do it for
> all arguments, but they don't.
>
> Again, we don't punish people for using "the same bad blocks" in their
> 2AC/2NCs for arguments except by beating them.  The same should hold
> true here.
>
> PREFER OUR EVIDENCE
>
> The bottom line is that none of this really surfaced from anyone who
> wasn't involved in the string of losses by MSU against us on Consult
> Japan on the energy topic. In fact, if I'm not mistaken this speaker
> point adjustment for consult was started by Will Repko that year.  The
> fact that this is the only source of such a backlash is highly suspect
> to me, and honestly sounds like you're holding a grudge against an
> argument that you had no success against despite having a tremendous
> amount of success overall.  Perhaps that's not the case, and if it's
> not then it seems there needs to be a lot more hard thinking about
> this policy and its ramifications for the community.
>
> _______________________________________________
> eDebate mailing list
> eDebate at www.ndtceda.com
> http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071009/42ba4916/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list