[eDebate] States CP- Voting Issue and Recirprocity

Scott Phillips scottyp431
Mon Apr 6 15:09:31 CDT 2009


1. Theory arguments must once again become voting issues- it is less judge
bias for the negative and more judge bias against theory being a legitimate
avenue of argument that has allowed absurd counterplans to proliferate. Many
judges will now reject the argument not the team (RANT) without the negative
even making that as an argument. This makes pursuing theory have an
extremely low ROI for the aff. Particularly the more unconventional their
theory argument, such as no solvency advocate or multi actor illegit etc.
Ironically, people like Mahoney who dismiss theory in this way have created
the problem they now lament. If judges would actually vote on conditionality
bad when the negative read 3 counterplans, or PICS bad vs the constitutional
amendment CP this wouldn't be a problem. But they don't, and so debaters
have evolved to the point where they don't even make theory arguments vs the
delay counterplan because they think it will be a waste of their time. The
pendulum has swung too far towards the negative, the states cp , while
emblematic of this, is by no means close to the worst example. The downside
might be proliferation of stupid theory arguments, but a balance will
eventually be struck.  These absurd counterplans fundamentally alter the
nature of other arguments in the debate- bad disads that could be beat on
defense and case outweighs are now net benefits to counterplans that solve
the case 100%. Simply rejecting the argument creates a system of incentives
for the negative to run as many "bad" arguments as they can get away with.
It was not so long ago that teams were losing on "dispo bad", the pendulum
has swung to far from there, and we should attempt to push it to the
middle.
2. Reciprocity must guide theory arguments. The states CP is illegitimate
because it is not reciprocal- the affirmative is limited to one agent. The
do 500 things including 30 that spike out of your literature based responses
to our CP strategy is illegitimate because it is not reciprocal. Kritik
alternatives that have everyone withdraw from capitalism are illegitimate
because they are not reciprocal. It should be obvious that if the negative
is not limited to a (closely) reciprocal action to the affirmative the aff
will never be able to prove that their solution is the "best policy option".
Likewise when the negative is allowed to critique representations while not
being burdened with presenting an alternative way of representing it is
difficult for the affirmative to prove their representations are desirable.
Other standards like evidence and allegedly objective interpretations of
opportunity cost will never EVER provide as clear or as fair a guide as
reciprocity.

Related to 2- being "non topical" is not a defense of a counterplans
theoretical legitimacy in any way,and there can be no logical reason why it
would be. Also, agent counterplans are plan inclusive- while in the "real
world" a different agent may do something differently and therefore make it
a different policy, in debate the nature of negative fiat eliminates this
differential. The states CP is only different in how it would be implemented
or enforced- 2 areas that are not part of the plan, but are instead an
effect of the plan (bracketing off for a second that any time the aff
actually has a reason ( never) where a federal agency is needed for the plan
that the neg either lopezez that agency or has the states  contract them out
etc). Furthermore, "literature does not check". This should be obvious given
the fact that it exists on anything  (especially given the lowering of
author qualification standards to zero and the interweb) from the anarchy cp
to the world government CP. Because of this, literature as a standard is
useless. To use it as a tool to exclude states, legitimizes it as a defense
of other absurd cp's that happen to have a card.



Random Asides
3. No one has to "justify" the term federal government- this is not South
Dakota, and the year is not 1964. The states cp as a "topic limiting" tool
fails. Teams read affs that can't beat regular states (rps) and lopez etc
let states do anything else.

4. The "1 state" cp is a joke, stop talking about it. It's not a viable
alternative, and never will be.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20090406/f18a4260/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list