The Illogic of Representational Critique

[caseyharrigan]

Available here: http://www.georgiadebate.org/2009/11...ional-critique

[meanmedianmode]

In accepting certain premises about the function of the representational critique, the debate community has become something of a deliberative enclave. Terms like “severance” and ideas about the one-to-one impact ratio of “discourse” to “policy” are bandied about with little critical reflection about its meaning for policy-making. This post is an attempt to examine the theory and practice of the Reps K, demonstrate shortcomings in its logic, and introduce the method of “judge choice” as a remedy.
First – let me define what I mean by “representational critique”. By this, I refer to any argument that takes issue with justification for action that is not necessarily tied to outcome of action. This can become blurred, so let me give an example. If a team reads a Disarm plan with two advantages: proliferation and environmental destruction (with a species loss = human extinction impact), and the Neg team critiques Apocalyptic depictions of the environment, that is a Reps K.
Why? Because the Aff team justified the plan by using apocalypticism – but such terminology is not necessarily an outcome of Disarmament. The same plan could be justified solely because of the prolif advantage – or for many other potential reasons.
On the other hand, if a Neg team said “Arms control is bad because it consolidates U.S. security and preserves capitalism”, that is a critique of outcome. Disarming necessarily causes (albeit indirectly) capitalism.
Now, as a student of rhetoric (MA in Comm., WFU, 2008), I find it nearly impossible to say that justifications for acting do not matter. Evidence, such as that commonly read from Doty or other rhetoricians/philosophers, makes a very persuasive case that representation shapes both implementation and reaction to the plan. To set the record straight, I agree this genre of argument nearly 100%.
However, to say that representations matter—insofar as the determine/influence policy outcomes—says little or nothing about which justifications should be used for policymaking. The representations presented by the 1AC that are justifications for action, instead of outcomes of the plan are neither *mandatory* nor *inevitable* outcomes of voting Aff.
Thus, the judge, at the end of the debate, should be able to choose (for themselves) why to vote Aff or Neg. Logically, one can choose the best arguments from the set of available reasons presented in the debate. Not every 1AC justification needs to be part of the final “package” of voting Aff. If one or more representations for voting for the plan is undesirable, they should not be used. If, at the end of the debate, positive/beneficial justifications for acting remain, the plan is desirable and the Aff should win.
In nearly every “Reps debate” that I have seen, the Neg has implicitly indicted the above method by using the language of “severance”. The judging community, unfortunately, has imported the logic of counterplan competition and ascribed to the dogma that every representation forwarded by the 1AC must be featured in a final evaluation of the plan – with little attendant reasoning for why this must be the case.
In my opinion, importing the theory of CP competition into these debates is a clear misapplication of the term. “Severance” implies an initial attachment—that the plan initially required that certain justifications be used for acting. In other words, the Neg assumes that the Aff had said that voting for the plan mandates that certain representations be used.
This is false. As the above example about Disarm and Environmental Rhetoric demonstrates, justifications for action are frequently disconnected from outcome. Banning the bomb may affect the environment, but it doesn’t dictate how we choose to speak about/represent ecology. In this way, representations are different than, say, a policy advantage to the plan. Banning the bomb may necessarily stop proliferation. Then, “prolif good”, would be an inescapable disadvantage of the plan.
The outcome/justification distinction is highly important. If the Neg straight impact-turns the prolif advantage, there’s nothing to concede to “sever” the link to the advantage. If the Neg only says “Prolif representations are racist” with no reason that the *plan* causes such depicts (only a link about how the Aff team used them), the impact is much more uncertain. Commonly, judges assess an impact to the Reps K (“How bad are those justfications?”) and then weighs that against the case. This is a fundamental logical error. If a certain set of justifications is flawed, then the judge should simply not use them, not *require* the Aff to use them and assess it a value similar to the plan’s outcomes – an entirely different category of argument.
Why? Because the judge is a dynamic thinker, like any engaged decision-maker. At a town hall meeting, if a speaker proposed a policy for three reasons, two of which were excellent and one was crap, you *should* agree with their proposal for the two good reasons and ignore the third. Good ideas are good if they have beneficial outcomes, regardless of how they are justified.
Interestingly, the contrary position—that you should hold speakers to every reason they cite as justification and use it to assess their policy—is one of the most reactionary and anti-critical stances one could take. It prioritizes who speaks over what is spoken about. It ignores content for form. It punishes instead of compromises. And, fundamentally, it is a tactic used by conservative political forces to crush progressivism. Do the critique folk really want to be in this company?
The debate judge should be treated like an intelligent and dynamic policy-maker. The affirmative should forward a proposal with a set of justifications. The Neg can criticize (via DAs, a counterplan, a K, etc.) the plan or the justifications. If the Neg wins that the plan is a bad idea, they win. If the Neg wins that the plan is a bad idea, then the judge should reject that justification and determine whether the plan is a good idea for any other potential reason.
There isn’t “no cost” to presenting poor justifications for action on the Aff. In all likelihood, you’d lose your entire advantage. The disarm aff that spots the Environment Reps K would no longer be able to claim the environment advantage as a reason for acting. The K still has value—but it’s meaning changes to a “reason not to use such representation” instead of a DA to the plan. If the Aff *only* had an environment advantage, the K would be a reason to vote Neg on presumption. The Reps K isn’t a DA to the plan. It can never be “Environmental Reps cause extinction – outweighs the case”, because the conclusion of that statement is that those justifications should never be used for acting in the first place. Translation: “No Link, Judge”.
Finally, what about the Doty card and other “reps matter” style arguments that I mentioned before? Well, representations matter—but those arguments presume that the reps actually used influence policy. My position is that the judge can choose which representations to use for policy enactment, so Doty et al. applies to the 1AC but not the final position chosen by the judge that is a reason to vote Aff because it affirms the plan.
In the end: let the judge choose. It’s a far more coherent model of decision-making.

I think I disagree. You say "no link", but I don't remember the neg making a defensive argument that allows the aff to kick the advantage (although the neg sometimes makes defensive args on case as well as reading the reps K, you certainly didn't argue that this was necessary...) The aff has argued that plan saves the environment from apocalypse. If the negative concedes this to be true, the aff must continue to defend it because they chose to make the argument initially. This form of argument responsibility is fundamental to the game of debate. If the neg concedes the advantage, then they would weigh the impacts of their links against the impacts of the advantage, which is what you have described as the status quo.
You have defined the reps K as basically a dirty word kritik. In those cases, the K is fundamentally an (internal and) external impact turn to the advantage, which doesn't give the aff any opportunity to kick. Even if the Doty evidence etc is written in the context of advocating X by using warrant Y, the K evidence is written in the context of "saying Y is bad". At best, your argument should mean that the aff can escape the link to the reps K by kicking the advantage if the neg makes a claim on the K (presumably it would be on the K) that "claims of environmental apocalypse are unwarranted", which would allow the aff to say "Fine, there's no legitimate/unbiased warrant to the claim, that means the claim isn't an argument, so it goes away."
More probably, your model would mean the neg goes for the "pre-fiat" framework that "rhetoric in the round has more consequence than illusory enactment of government policies", and excludes the aff's impact evaluation entirely.

[caseyharrigan]

1. Justifications are not a mandate of the plan. You "impact turned" something that was necessary result of the plan, so its not a reason to reject it.

2. Its not a matter of "severance" (bad term, anyway) or of "kicking the advantage". Its a matter of what arguments should determine who wins the debate. Outcomes should be relevant - not *every* justification. To assess otherwise is a model of decision-making that is both illogical and reactionary -- see original post.

3. You missed the point -- and its right there in the name. "Judge choice". The Aff doesn't choose what justifications matter - they present them .

[meanmedianmode]

Originally Posted by caseyharrigan

2. Its not a matter of "severance" (bad term, anyone) or of "kicking the advantage". Its a matter of what arguments should determine who wins the debate. Outcomes should be relevant - not *every* justification. To assess otherwise is a model of decision-making that is both illogical and reactionary -- see original post.

Key point, obviously. This is a disad to a framework that allows links to the aff's reps. All your other args stem from winning this - if the judge isn't a policy maker, she needn't only think about endorsing the aff policy, her job description is broader. So, since I haven't had framework blocks in my possession for about 4 years, I'll leave it to someone else to copy-paste the 2nc framework offense and defense. But let's do cross-x based on the stock "we need to be able to drop teams for racist/sexist rhetoric" argument:

1. Does your framework allow the judge to drop a team for misogynist language if their opponents are girls who appear upset by this language?

2. Does your framework allow the judge to drop a team for misogynist language if their opponents are girls who appear unphased by this language?

3. Does your framework allow the judge to drop a team for misogynist language if everyone (else) able to hear their language self-identifies in a way (some persuasion of male raised in a man cave by men, I suppose?) that causes them to not be personally injured/bothered by misogynist language? After all, this justification isn't in any way intrinsic to the plan.
(If you have answered "no" to anything so far... Seriously? I think that's a prima facie reason to reject this proposal.)

4. If yes so far, is that because there is some inherent 'badness' in using misogynist language?

5a. If 4-yes, explain how the neg reading "dirty word" evidence about a word/rep used in the 1ac does not constitute the same thing.

5b. If 4-no, what's the reasoning and how does it avoid the need to answer question 5a?

Also, just because this is "illogical and reactionary" in a town hall context doesn't mean it is so in a policy debate context. Generally I don't think people lose arguments because they don't respond to a point right away, for example, but that is nevertheless an important part of making debate a playable game.

[caseyharrigan]

Alex --

I'm glad you're enjoying the writing. I've got several more topics planned. I'll try to do some writing every week, with slight deviations depending on the college schedule.

Also - I'm not sure why I'm thinking of this now, but there are probably a bunch of typos in my writing that Word didn't catch. I don't have enough time to proof everything. If anyone notices an easily fixable error, shoot me an email (charrigan at gmail.com).


MMM --

Its important to distinguish Judge Choice from the traditional framework argument. Even assuming that a fairly critical set of evaluative criteria is used by the judge, not every 1AC representation must be part of the statement "I vote Aff because...".

RE: Questions 1-3

Three issues:

1. Sometimes who a person is and what they say have nothing to do with whether they have an occasional good idea or not. Even the biggest mysogenist may have a policy that has beneficial outcomes. Would you reject a good idea because of who the person was who advocated it? If who someone was influenced their idea to make it bad, that would be included withing Judge Choice (they would reject the plan because it was undesirable).

2. Policy debate is more like a town hall discussion than you think. Or, at least, it should be. After all, the point is not to teach people to argue, its to teach students to *decide*. Consult any basic text on argumentation or debate theory for further justification of this model.

3. *Procedural* limits obviously apply. No judge, regardless of ideological persuasion or political leaning, would tolerate a debate team that physically abused the other. Nor would they allow overt harassment or discrimination -- as such is prohibited by virtually every competitive debate organization, the standards of basic human decency, and norms of "civil" discourse.

[caseyharrigan]

Also - to show that we here at UGA are equal-opportunity haters, John Turner is currently drafting a piece defending the practice and theory of representational critique. Look for that on the georgiadebate.org blog soon.

ch

[meanmedianmode]

Originally Posted by caseyharrigan

MMM --

Its important to distinguish Judge Choice from the traditional framework argument. Even assuming that a fairly critical set of evaluative criteria is used by the judge, not every 1AC representation must be part of the statement "I vote Aff because...".

It is important to acknowledge that Judge Choice is not distinct from a plan focus framework argument. If the negative wins that there is a consequence to making the representations that the aff made, the only reason that could be irrelevant to the decision is if the affs reps aren't subject to criticism, ie plan focus. Or, put another way, that the only thing the judge does at the end of the round is endorse the aff plan or not endorse the aff plan. Literally every framework argument and role of the ballot card that the negative reads in round is an answer to this claim.

If the neg doesn't win that there is a consequence to making the representations that the aff made, well, I just judged a round where the 2nr went for the K without extending an impact, and I voted aff pretty quickly.

Originally Posted by caseyharrigan

RE: Questions 1-3

Three issues:

See, cross-x generally doesn't involve the cross-examinee commenting on the questions. It usually involves the cross-examinee answering the sequence of questions posed by the cross-examiner. And if s/he doesn't answer, it usually implies either an intent to deceive/obstruct, or an inability to defend the argument under examination.

Originally Posted by caseyharrigan

1. Sometimes who a person is and what they say have nothing to do with whether they have an occasional good idea or not. Even the biggest mysogenist may have a policy that has beneficial outcomes. Would you reject a good idea because of who the person was who advocated it? If who someone was influenced their idea to make it bad, that would be included withing Judge Choice (they would reject the plan because it was undesirable).

I... wasn't talking about ad hominems. I was talking about discourse that has consequences. IE, I wasn't saying you should vote against a team that misogynizes because they are misogynists. I was saying you should vote against a team that misogynizes because their language commits violence. And I was then drawing a parallel between the self-evident violence of misogynist language and the explained violence of dirty-word-K-of-the-day language.

Originally Posted by caseyharrigan

2. Policy debate is more like a town hall discussion than you think. Or, at least, it should be. After all, the point is not to teach people to argue, its to teach students to *decide*. Consult any basic text on argumentation or debate theory for further justification of this model.

I will admit I haven't read a lot of such texts, but I was under the impression that they say debate teachers students to research and to think. Never heard them say debate teaches us all how to be The Decider.
Either way, see above, every role of the ballot card answers this framework arg. Saying "debate is like a town hall meeting" will get you more SAT points than it will speaker points.

Originally Posted by caseyharrigan

*Procedural* limits obviously apply. No judge, regardless of ideological persuasion or political leaning, would tolerate a debate team that physically abused the other. Nor would they allow overt harassment or discrimination -- as such is prohibited by virtually every competitive debate organization, the standards of basic human decency, and norms of "civil" discourse.

So, that's a no to question 3, then? I'm not allowed to reject misogynist discourse if the other team is entirely unfazed by it? Seriously?

[caseyharrigan]

MMM --

Thanks for the reply. I'm not going to do a line-by-line type response (I know what kind of a life-suck that breeds -- and its clearer if I don't).

I didn't mean to purposefully dodge your earlier questions. The problem with a yes/no answer is that people have heavily sedimented views about what is and should be the "remedy" to critical objections and how certain decision values should be assigned. I wanted to first clarify and establish my position before getting to Step Two: Application.

To be more direct, if you believe a Reps K to be a "procedural: stop the round" type objection, then yes. You, as a judge, would be fully within your rights to set aside the usual role of the ballot and address that issue by voting Negative. The same is true if the Aff walked over and punched the Neg in the face, etc. There are certainly "red lines", past which productive deliberation cannot continue.

However, if you believe that the Neg's argument is "X justification is undesirable / has negative consequences" (i.e. my post's discussion of Environmental Doomsaying, the Prolif/Racism K, etc.), then I don't think there's a persuasive logical case for connecting this with the ballot.

Regardless of the focus of the debate, the judge can choose (thus, distinguishing my argument from "plan focus, Judge"). Representations matter -- they determine policy outcomes, etc. The question, though, is *which* representations matter. Which representations have "decision value". Not every argument presented in the 1AC does. Many have no mandatory link to the plan / affirmation. They are merely potential. Ask yourself: does anything about the statement, "Disarmament is good" require use of apocalyptic imagery in relation to the environment? Clearly no. Well, we, as judges, should stop acting like there is a necessary connection between affirmation and *every* 1AC justification. Language like "severance" is clearly an inapplicable import from similar but distinct debates about counterplans. Its time to evolve our critical language.

You say "The judge should vote against a misogynist team because their language does violence". This requires a reply that will be outside of the scope of my post -- but one that I intend to write soon. You should check out some of the debate occurring at GeorgiaDebate.org -- it may be helpful.

To quickly preview, though, two arguments. First, voting Aff rejects such language as much as voting Neg does. It clearly renounces it -- and renders it no part of the decision. Any justification based on sexist thought (if proven to be damaging) would not be a reason to vote Aff. Second, the model of decision-making that says "You did it, you're held accountable, I will then reject your policy regardless of how desirable it may be" seems profoundly reactionary. I hope that you spend some time considering how such logic is deployed frequently to prioritize form over content, character over idea, etc.

[meanmedianmode]

Originally Posted by caseyharrigan

MMM --

Thanks for the reply. I'm not going to do a line-by-line type response (I know what kind of a life-suck that breeds -- and its clearer if I don't).

Clarify "it's clearer if I don't", please?
The only reason it could be clearer if you don't l-x-l is if your position doesn't hold up to scrutiny. That's why we l-x-l, because it makes it clear what the holes in an argument are, and that's why we tell debaters not to only do an overview for any position, ever. And I don't think l-x-l is really good analogy to answering direct questions directly.

Originally Posted by caseyharrigan

I didn't mean to purposefully dodge your earlier questions. The problem with a yes/no answer is that people have heavily sedimented views about what is and should be the "remedy" to critical objections and how certain decision values should be assigned. I wanted to first clarify and establish my position before getting to Step Two: Application.

I honestly don't see why that means you couldn't answer the questions, since the purpose of the questions was clarifying what your position is. But this makes sense as a general plan. Just, you know, do answer the questions in some way at some point, in some blog or cx post?
EDIT - Admittedly, the questions are a bit confrontational, because I'm pretty sure your argument doesn't hold together without failing to give the answers that decency and dignity require it to give on the misogyny questions. Specifically question 3, where no one else in the round is at all bothered. That seems like a clear-cut case for your argument that "You did this, so even if it doesn't affect your policy I will punish you" is a reactionary stance. And saying misogyny unrelated to the outcome of the flow isn't in and of itself a reason to reject a policy debate team... bad stance. That just flat out, straight up IS a way for a team to lose a round.
...Anyway, confrontational, so I can see your reluctance to answer the questions. But if you could give the correct answers, it wouldn't matter that I've prejudged a position that isn't yours. And if you can't give the correct answers, your argument has bigger problems than just failing to directly answer cross-x questions. /EDIT

Originally Posted by caseyharrigan

To be more direct, if you believe a Reps K to be a "procedural: stop the round" type objection, then yes. You, as a judge, would be fully within your rights to set aside the usual role of the ballot and address that issue by voting Negative. The same is true if the Aff walked over and punched the Neg in the face, etc. There are certainly "red lines", past which productive deliberation cannot continue.

So this is a Yes to question 1, and a Maybe/Depends to question 2? It's a reasonably direct answer, but it's not signposted...

Originally Posted by caseyharrigan

However, if you believe that the Neg's argument is "X justification is undesirable / has negative consequences" (i.e. my post's discussion of Environmental Doomsaying, the Prolif/Racism K, etc.), then I don't think there's a persuasive logical case for connecting this with the ballot.

Regardless of the focus of the debate, the judge can choose (thus, distinguishing my argument from "plan focus, Judge"). Representations matter -- they determine policy outcomes, etc. The question, though, is *which* representations matter. Which representations have "decision value". Not every argument presented in the 1AC does. Many have no mandatory link to the plan / affirmation. They are merely potential. Ask yourself: does anything about the statement, "Disarmament is good" require use of apocalyptic imagery in relation to the environment? Clearly no. Well, we, as judges, should stop acting like there is a necessary connection between affirmation and *every* 1AC justification. Language like "severance" is clearly an inapplicable import from similar but distinct debates about counterplans. Its time to evolve our critical language.

New terms for critical discussion seem like a good idea.
I do see your point that this isn't "plan focus framework" like I was saying. It's a role of the ballot or role of the forum, not a framework. However, it is still a plan-focus arg, just meta-ed one step up in the round. And thus it may be a re-concepton/clarification of "policy-making" role of the ballot.

Originally Posted by caseyharrigan

You say "The judge should vote against a misogynist team because their language does violence". This requires a reply that will be outside of the scope of my post -- but one that I intend to write soon. You should check out some of the debate occurring at GeorgiaDebate.org -- it may be helpful.

I eagerly await the 2ac in which you "will answer that argument if I make it"
But seriously, all (worth their salt) dirty-word Ks claim that the use of the language did violence. So I'm not sure what Ks you were indicting in your first post, except Ks that we didn't need a new paradigm to laugh at.

Originally Posted by caseyharrigan

To quickly preview, though, two arguments. First, voting Aff rejects such language as much as voting Neg does. It clearly renounces it -- and renders it no part of the decision. Any justification based on sexist thought (if proven to be damaging) would not be a reason to vote Aff. Second, the model of decision-making that says "You did it, you're held accountable, I will then reject your policy regardless of how desirable it may be" seems profoundly reactionary. I hope that you spend some time considering how such logic is deployed frequently to prioritize form over content, character over idea, etc.

Your statement should really read: This is a profoundly reactionary model for debate, IF.
Specifically, if the purpose of debate is to decide whether or not to endorse the plan. But I haven't seen your defense of why debate rounds should do this. Every role of the ballot card that the 1nc and 2nc read will be an answer to this framing of the forum, and you haven't defended the framing, you've just asserted it. Further, (I believe that) it is a pretty basic idea that in policy debate rounds, every time a debater talks in round there is not just a positing of arguments that may or may not make sense, but also a SPEECH ACT that is immutable and irrevocable. You seem to only dismiss this idea (at least on the GD.org page; I guess I haven't really made that arg yet).
I accept that these issues may have been outside the scope of your first post. But you will need to make a defense your Town-Hall-citizen role of the ballot, and contextualize speech acts rather than dismissing them, before it makes sense to keep talking about this.

[koslow]

Originally Posted by caseyharrigan

1. Sometimes who a person is and what they say have nothing to do with whether they have an occasional good idea or not. Even the biggest mysogenist may have a policy that has beneficial outcomes. Would you reject a good idea because of who the person was who advocated it? If who someone was influenced their idea to make it bad, that would be included withing Judge Choice (they would reject the plan because it was undesirable).

This is a rather restricted account of the policy-making paradigm that went out of vogue 15-20 years ago. Like MMM clarified, there's no argument about who a person is, but about how a policy is justified, and the ballot need not be framed as "X policy is preferable" but could be "X did the better debating," "X best affirmed/negated the resolution," etc. Particularly with in the mode of game-playing, your paradigm seems like nothing BUT an argument for judge intervention.

You may argue that policy-making is the best paradigm to adopt, but I think MMM's questions provide a good proof why that isn't true, and why your judge choice paradigm is interventionist. You seem to sidestep the question, and finally you say that a judge could vote for a sexist team even if the other side won that sexism is a form of violence and outweighs everything else. Would you really vote for a team that won their policy was good, when they spent the whole round saying racist or sexist things, and the negative won that you should reject those representations? At the very least, you have to admit that's a form of intervention that always privileges one type of debate over all others.

In fact, let me ask a further question: What if the aff read's an orientalist case - every advantage, and a large part of the evidence is orientalist, the plan is obviously shaped by orientalism, that the US should declare no-first-use against every country except North Korea, India, and Pakistan (because they're brown proliferators) - and then in the 2AC they kick the entire 1AC, read an environment add-on, and say those three countries happen to be places without keystone species. Does judge choice allow you to pretend the 1AC didn't happen?

Procedural limits aren't enough, for example, what if the opposing team and the judge spend a round calling a team of two girls "guys". I've certainly done it myself, unintentionally, and I know a lot of women who don't care, but some who are really offended by it. Should that team be able to make arguments about that?

2. Policy debate is more like a town hall discussion than you think. Or, at least, it should be. After all, the point is not to teach people to argue, its to teach students to *decide*. Consult any basic text on argumentation or debate theory for further justification of this model.

Having spent this week reading through back-issues of CEDA's journal, Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, I can only laugh at this.

[caseyharrigan]

Koslow --

Accusing Judge Choice as being a restricted policy-making paradigm that "went out of vogue 20 years ago" is:
a) false - given that it integrates many of the themes of the importance of representation (namely, that justification influences/determines outcome of policy). You may want to re-read my earlier distinction here
and
b) partially the point - not every development in debate theory is really an "advancement". Part of what I'm saying is that we've "regressed" - theory of representational critique has evolved without an attendant logical foundation.

Regardless of how you view debate (group discussion, rhetorical evaluation, town hall meeting, role-playing of Congressional debate, or else), considering what criteria for evaluation should be used is essential. In Judge Choice, the 1AC does not end the debate. This has a logical basis: regardless of form of debate, there is a difference (or should be - later post) between statement and advocacy. Many representations are statements -- that never had a mandatory connection to advocacy. Some justifications DO have a mandatory link. Batterman's post on the3nr.com provides some useful development here--either there must be *at least some* consideration of advocacy or a defense of punishment as an appropriate response to representational harm.

The examples about orientalism and sexist language are all backwards. Imagine Batterman's example: a team states that the US should not send troops to Iraq. Would you, as a decider (citizen, individual, legislator, whatever), look a soldier in the face and say "Well, the idea is no good -- Iraq is a quagmire where you face a decent chance of dying for a rotten cause -- BUT the person advocating the idea was such a jerk that I had to vote against them, so off you go!"?

The idea that we should set aside ideas to focus on form, or to say that good "advocacy" should not be affirmed because it was done in a poor manner, is profoundly regressive.

You might ask: "Well, this seems chicken-egg. Why do we choose content over form, when one necessarily forgoes the other?" That -- and your statement that the judge would "just ignore what happened in the 1AC" misses the point. Judge Choice is fundamentally about ACKNOWLEDGING representational error -- not ignoring it. The remedy, though, is to *reject such representations*. Do not use them as justification. Ever. Because they are bankrupt. Sexism is wrong. Orientalism is wrong. They should never used a reasoning to adopt an idea. The judge can choose that. You have *no reason* (other than "punish" - which links to the "regression DA" above) for connecting this with a snap-win for the Neg.

Good talk. I appreciate all the comments. This is a relatively undertheorized issue. Regardless of your ideological persuasion, I hope you take seriously my comment about evolving the *language* used for these arguments. Even if you don't agree with Judge Choice, you should be able to see that the debate about the critique would be substantially clarified by using terminology that isn't an imperfect import from distinct debates about counterplans.

I apologize if I'm slow to reply -- Wake prep calls.

Best,
Casey

[meanmedianmode]

Originally Posted by caseyharrigan

The examples about orientalism and sexist language are all backwards. Imagine Batterman's example...

See, this is the sort of thing you have to fix. You are claiming to answer our counter-examples (ie, in which your paradigm would produce wrong results), but actually only discussing the cherry-picked examples in which your paradigm produces the right results. That's a logical fallacy, not a logical argument.
And yes, our examples are cherry-picked too, but a) your proof by induction only lasts until we demonstrate a case in which your argument is false, whereas further examples of when your argument is true don't reprove the induction, and b) our examples (not misogyny so much, but the substantive K examples) honestly represent the vast majority of reps K debates, whereas yours are pretty unusual. In particular, you keep using examples in which the impact of the K is an ad hominem, but that's never the impact.

Originally Posted by caseyharrigan

Good talk. I appreciate all the comments. This is a relatively undertheorized issue. Regardless of your ideological persuasion, I hope you take seriously my comment about evolving the *language* used for these arguments. Even if you don't agree with Judge Choice, you should be able to see that the debate about the critique would be substantially clarified by using terminology that isn't an imperfect import from distinct debates about counterplans.

This is a really good point.

[caseyharrigan]

MMM --

Could you provide a counter-example that departs from the cases that Bill and I have talked about? I'd be happy to discuss.

The reason I have focused on situations where there is:
a) a policy with beneficial consequences ("Disarmament", "Don't Invade Iraq")
and
b) dangerous justifications ("Environmental Apocalypse", "Sexist Language", etc.)

is that traditional decision-making seems to deal with everything else.

If the K proves the Aff advocacy is bad - then a judge would not choose to affirm it *even if they could*.

If both the outcomes and justifications for a policy are desirable, then there's no reason to vote Neg.

Only in the "positive outcome, bad justification" category is there debate on what decision should result -- thus the need for resolution via Judge Choice.


ch

[caseyharrigan]

By the way:

MMM - could you backchannel or email me your actual name? I'd be interested to know who I'm talking to.


ch

[meanmedianmode]

Originally Posted by caseyharrigan

MMM --

Could you provide a counter-example that departs from the cases that Bill and I have talked about? I'd be happy to discuss.

I rather thought I had, when I asked you questions about misogyny, which you seemed rather reluctant to discuss, as seen here:

Originally Posted by caseyharrigan

I didn't mean to purposefully dodge your earlier questions. The problem with a yes/no answer is that people have heavily sedimented views about what is and should be the "remedy" to critical objections and how certain decision values should be assigned. I wanted to first clarify and establish my position before getting to Step Two: Application.

To be more direct, if you believe a Reps K to be a "procedural: stop the round" type objection, then yes. You, as a judge, would be fully within your rights to set aside the usual role of the ballot and address that issue by voting Negative. The same is true if the Aff walked over and punched the Neg in the face, etc. There are certainly "red lines", past which productive deliberation cannot continue.

Even when "being direct" you just gave a vague discussion that may or may not have been related to my questions, rather than actually answering them (and, btw, you never answered/confirmed any of my "so {was this, this was} an answer to question #" questions/guesses either).

But anyway, I think it may be more to the point that when you give examples, you talk about how a "real world policy maker" would go about making the analysis. Even if you are saying "1ac" and "1nc" and "judge", you are just pasting those terms onto the 'real world' model. By contrast, your critics have been giving examples that are grounded in the actual world of debate, and saying things like "every role of the ballot card that the 1/2nc reads would answer this position" (scott was nicer at 3nr, he said it as "[that position] is the central focus that evidence supporting reps K’s object to"), to which you don't actually respond. Now admittedly, that "JUDGE CHOICE PARADIGM v. ROLE OF THE BALLOT CARDS" question would of course have to be debated out in every damn round on a case-by-case basis, but you could actually answer the warrants that we are referencing rather than glossing over them. None of us are saying that this isn't a logical model for Senators to use, we are saying "its being a logical model for Senators doesn't mean it is a good model for debate judges to use, and in fact here are some reasons it would be bad for debate judges to use it." So you can't just keep giving Senator examples.

When we say 'role of the ballot cards answer this', you should either a) show that role of the ballot cards don't respond to it, or b) give some reasons that your paradigm makes more sense than does following the reasoning of the role of the ballot cards. You don't. So maybe you are right that this paradigm doesn't assume policy-making (doubt it, but maybe), but it definitely assumes that the role of the ballot cards being written and read by the reps K folks are not important. Maybe your paradigm has some magic answer to this cards. Saying "this is the paradigm" is not such a magc answer.

Originally Posted by caseyharrigan

By the way:

MMM - could you backchannel or email me your actual name? I'd be interested to know who I'm talking to.
ch

Done.

[meanmedianmode]

Having just come up with this analogy that shows why your claims about the-act-formerly-known-as-severability are false, I feel like sharing the wealth.
You say, the judge is basically a Senator, having a policy (the plan) debated out in front of him on the floor of the Senate, and then casting his role-call vote for or against the plan. This is why that role of the ballot is actually a warrant for why the justifications of the aff are not severable:
The 1ac is the proposal of the plan, along with a story about why the plan is a good idea (inherency, harms/advantages, solvency). Of course the text of the plan is not what would be enacted in the Senate: there would be lots of specific language to portions of other relevant bills, and there would be lots of meaningless scripted S's with sections numbers and paragraph letters. Lots of mumbo jumbo.
At the very top of that mumbo jumbo, the Senators proposing the bill actually tell their 1ac, ie their story of why the bill is a good idea. These are the whereas clauses of the bill, and while they are not "enforceable", the courts do look to them to determine legislative intent in enacting the policy, so they definitely shape the way the policy is implemented.
When floor debate on a bill is opened, the bill from the whereas clauses down to the bottom is read aloud (although this is often waved by vote of acclamation, since no one wants to actually hear the legislation). So the 1ac is this reading of the text of the bill that opens debate. In which case, the advantages, including the advantage the neg Ks, are codified into the legislation in the whereas clauses. And when a Senator votes Yay/Nay on the passage of the bill, whatever his/her personal intentions or reasons for voting that way, the original justifications of the bill remain in place, except as modified by a particular process (real world: amendment; debate world: negative reads kick-enabling defense).
I'll say it again: when the Senator votes Yay for the reasons that haven't been critiqued, the reason that was critiqued is still part of the legislation, because the whereas clause that specifies it has not been amended out of the bill. So severance actually is the correct term, and the 1ac justifications actually aren't severable.

[caseyharrigan]

To be clear -- I used the *example* of a town hall meeting and the *example* of Congress. Judge Choice does not *require* any assumption about the framework of the debate -- other than that their be *some form* of advocacy. More discussion/explanation of this is on the3nr.com

[caseyharrigan]

John Turner (coach at UGA) has written a reply, "The Illogic of Judge Choice". Available here: http://www.georgiadebate.org/2009/11...of-judgechoice

[TheScuSpeaks]

My response http://wrongforum.wordpress.com/2009/11/08/reps-ks/

[meanmedianmode]

Originally Posted by caseyharrigan

To be clear -- I used the *example* of a town hall meeting and the *example* of Congress. Judge Choice does not *require* any assumption about the framework of the debate -- other than that their be *some form* of advocacy. More discussion/explanation of this is on the3nr.com

Yea, they were pretty cool examples.
1. "town hall" and "congress" are not "frameworks", they are roles of the ballot. Since your argument is about precision of language, and since this distinction is crucial to your position, getting this right is pretty important.
2. I agree, clarity is important, so let's clarify further:
Did those examples mean anything about the utility of the paradigm?
If you say "no": a) you would be lying, and b) why did you bring them up?
If you say "yes": To be clear - I just straight-turned all of your examples.

[caseyharrigan]

James --

I posted a short reply (more later) on georgiadebate.org

Semi-related question (open to anyone): in an alternative conception of debate and the role of the judge (non-Judge Choice), does the plan have any value outside of representation? With or without a plan, is there something about the aff that is "advocacy" that is distinct from every other word in the 1AC? Or, does each word have exactly the same value -- "Plan: The United States Federal Government should..." has representational worth that should be evaluated the same was as "Contention One: Inherency"?

[caseyharrigan]

MMM --

Framework is an argument that determines the role of the ballot. I used examples about town hall and Congressional debate because they most clearly demonstrate the bankruptcy of the decision-making model taught by representational critiques, as currently practiced. However, I believe the same basic idea applies in alternative "roles", such as judge-as-critic-of-rhetoric, judge-as-activist, etc.