Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
KTownLockingItDown

why do counterplans warrant a negative vote

Recommended Posts

uhhh, thats not a paradigm. thats the way the argument works.

 

uhhh thats just more debate dogma. so what you are telling me is that your interpretation of the counterplan is the only one? i am sure many a judge with policy paradigms disagree with the fact that a negative vote is a vote for the status quo not the cp text.

 

 

note its the mutual exclusivity that determines whether the counterplan is an advocacy of the status quo or a new policy. assuming we are talking about a mutually exclusive CP which is functionally an advocacy of the status quo, we care about the counterplan because it is an advocacy of the status quo - that the status quo is a better option than the plan.

 

if the status quo prevents the CP and the plan prevents the CP then why does the CP prove the SQ better?

 

 

by voting for the plan, the plan is not going to get done. by voting for the counterplan, the counterplan doesnt get done. nothing gets accomplished by debate.

 

brilliant. do you think that by randomly spouting off things about debate will make me forget you are being non responsive about the actual issue?

 

a counterplan simply asserts that the loss of a superior option is a rejection of the affirmative case. the affirmative must defend their policy advoacy. if the counterplan is superior, they have failed to uphold their advocacy. you shouldnt do plan. you should do counterplan and the only way to do the counterplan is by NOT doing the plan.

 

okay i am assuming you are sticking by your previous comments that stated a vote for the neg is a vote for the status quo(i will readdress what you said if you decide to change your mind and say that a neg vote can also be for the counterplan, but i will also call you a flip flopper). based on this assumption how can a counterplan that cannot happen in either the status quo or post plan have any bearing on the round? what does having a counterplan that is superior prove? it certainly doesn't prove the status quo is more desirable since the status quo will not result in the counterplan.

 

ankur i think you are getting pretty repetitive and falling back on semantics that focus the discussion on issues that you can talk about such as what you think mutually exclusivity is and what you think fiat is. your nonresponsiveness to the central question here, which is, "if the only options the judge can vote for are plan and SQ, neither of which will lead to the CP why does the CP enter into the decision making." has led me to believe that you don't have anything constructive to say about the issue so i am going to ignore your posts until you actually have something of substance to say.

 

habit

 

i think you are on to something

 

You were correct in this statement - although I agree with most of what Ankur is saying, this is the ultimate question that gets around all the semantics and blah of the rest of this thread. Negative fiat is founded on competitive equity -if the negative didn't have the ability to "magically" fiat a competitive option to the plan, the affirmative would have an unfair edge that would make debate unfair, and thus bad. This is reinforced by a couple of facts - the affirmative gets to fiat, so it makes sense that the negative should have a similair ability - what is a world without negative fiat founded on? Who magically determined it was better for debate if the negative couldn't fiat? Second is ground - the aff already wins more, and thats in a world where counterplans are more-or-less accepted. Neg fiat is essential to negative strategy. An example - the aff could read an endless supply of non-intrinsic add-ons, such as politics, that the negative wouldn't be prepared for (without the ability to counterplan out). Third is education - most topics are designed for education to be gained through counterplans - the resolution presents one way of doing things. Counterplans express the other side of the literature. Without counterplans, the negative would have no incentive to read that literature.

 

That's one opinion anyway.

 

i appreciate the germane reply. it is true that negative fiat can be argued for, but this brings up another question. is a counterplan a prima facia(sp?) reason to vote neg if the arguments for negative fiat are never made in round? lets say you are a tab judge, you don't bring these assumptions on neg fiat into the debate round does the negative gain access to negative fiat by default or should they have to preface their counterplan with some blip like:

 

the negative fiat is legit for reasons of competitive equity ground and education

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i shall say this in first grade english since the middle school version was clearly beyond your level of comprehension...

 

 

 

i am TELLING you that a counterplan is defined as a foregone policy option by the enactment of the affirmative policy. if it is anything but, determined by debaters or the judge, it is NO LONGER A COUNTERPLAN - it is a negplan, and if topical, the subset, plan plan. it is not semantics because neg plans and counterplans are evaluated VERY DIFFERENTLY. it is IMPOSSIBLE to evaluate the CP and P2 in the same paradigm. so yes, there is only ONE way in which a counterplan can be run/evaluated. we can go into the differences if you want, but thats completely unnecessary because it has no relevance to this conversation. if you want to redefine what a counterplan is, then go right ahead, but you better be able to warrant it. if you cant, then go by the definition above, which is the definition debaters have been using for an eternity.

 

 

 

there is only one question in debate which is answered by each debate round - should the affirmative policy be done? a counterplan asserts that you SHOULDNT do the plan because you SHOULD do the CP and the ONLY way to possibly do the CP is by NOT doing the plan. this in accordance with the responsibilities of both teams - the affirmative to uphold a policy which should be done and the negative to negate that policy and assert it should not be done. the negative's responsibility is NOT to advocate that the counterplan should be done. they advocate that the STATUS QUO should be done because that is the only way to do the CP. by doing the plan, you forfeit a better opportunity.

 

 

 

resolution: you should eat one more bite of food (but only one because more will make you explode).

advisor 1: you should eat a bite of this fresh steamy pile of dog crap. it has some undigested corn!

advisor 2: you should NOT eat the crap. there are other plates with tasty morsels like turkish delight which do not taste like dog crap!

 

the question is not which food to eat. the question being answered by the debate is should you eat the dog crap i.e. should the judge advocate doing the plan. the answer is no, you shouldnt do the plan because better options exist.

if you cant figure out why saying "turkish delight is better than dog crap" is a negation of "eat the dog crap" then you need to simply step outside the box until it clicks.

 

 

 

of course, thats not anything every single person (myself included) has not already said repeatedly.

 

 

PS -

i find it funny that your idea of "responsive" is if i write a theory shell complete with standards and voters. because that has NOTHING to do with actual theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ankur i know i said i would ignore your posts but you said somethings in a way that wouldn't allow me to let you keep on thinking you were right

 

i shall say this in first grade english since the middle school version was clearly beyond your level of comprehension...

 

 

 

i am TELLING you that a counterplan is defined as a foregone policy option by the enactment of the affirmative policy. if it is anything but, determined by debaters or the judge, it is NO LONGER A COUNTERPLAN - it is a negplan, and if topical, the subset, plan plan. it is not semantics because neg plans and counterplans are evaluated VERY DIFFERENTLY. it is IMPOSSIBLE to evaluate the CP and P2 in the same paradigm. so yes, there is only ONE way in which a counterplan can be run/evaluated. we can go into the differences if you want, but thats completely unnecessary because it has no relevance to this conversation. if you want to redefine what a counterplan is, then go right ahead, but you better be able to warrant it. if you cant, then go by the definition above, which is the definition debaters have been using for an eternity.

 

the key word you use here is foregone, if the status quo will not result in the counterplan then it is not foregone.

 

 

 

there is only one question in debate which is answered by each debate round - should the affirmative policy be done? a counterplan asserts that you SHOULDNT do the plan because you SHOULD do the CP and the ONLY way to possibly do the CP is by NOT doing the plan. this in accordance with the responsibilities of both teams - the affirmative to uphold a policy which should be done and the negative to negate that policy and assert it should not be done. the negative's responsibility is NOT to advocate that the counterplan should be done. they advocate that the STATUS QUO should be done because that is the only way to do the CP. by doing the plan, you forfeit a better opportunity.

 

but the premise of everything we are talking about is that the status quo prevents the counterplan from happening also so it is a wash.

 

 

 

 

 

resolution: you should eat one more bite of food (but only one because more will make you explode).

advisor 1: you should eat a bite of this fresh steamy pile of dog crap. it has some undigested corn!

advisor 2: you should NOT eat the crap. there are other plates with tasty morsels like turkish delight which do not taste like dog crap!

 

but if this scenario matches the one we are talking about in debate (that is a cp with no propensity) advisor 2 would be making his suggestion to a person who has a horrible phobia of all food (that is a status quo that will not result in either advisor 1 or advisor 2's plans of action). so undigested corn(if cleaned properly) is better than nothing.

 

the question is not which food to eat. the question being answered by the debate is should you eat the dog crap i.e. should the judge advocate doing the plan. the answer is no, you shouldnt do the plan because better options exist.

if you cant figure out why saying "turkish delight is better than dog crap" is a negation of "eat the dog crap" then you need to simply step outside the box until it clicks.

 

yes a better option exists, but you have said that the options are status quo and plan, the better option is not a part of either of these options (and the better option is prevented by both plan and status quo)

 

of course, thats not anything every single person (myself included) has not already said repeatedly.

 

its sad that you repeatedly ignore the fact that a counterplan that is prevented by both options the judge can choose from warrants any thought

 

 

PS -

i find it funny that your idea of "responsive" is if i write a theory shell complete with standards and voters. because that has NOTHING to do with actual theory.

 

you are right that is hilarious.

you know what else is funny is that i have been so starved for a responsive post, that i settled for theory shell. at least conditional kritik directly answerred something i had said.

 

 

i have got an idea since you are a coach and all i bet you have a judged a round or two why don't you tell tell me which policy option is best in this situation

 

policy1, prevents harms and prevents some awesome policy3

policy2, causes harms and prevents some awesome policy3

 

which one is better? 1 or 2?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the key word you use here is foregone, if the status quo will not result in the counterplan then it is not foregone.

AFFIRMATIVE action MAKES the CP foregone. if you dont agree with that, then you have no business in debate.

 

 

but the premise of everything we are talking about is that the status quo prevents the counterplan from happening also so it is a wash.

this is irrelevant. the fact that the status quo prevents both is 100% irrelevant. it is irrelevant because of the word SHOULD in the resolution. the word should DEMANDS that the SQ is not doing X but should be doing X (where X is the action of should)

 

 

 

but if this scenario matches the one we are talking about in debate (that is a cp with no propensity) advisor 2 would be making his suggestion to a person who has a horrible phobia of all food (that is a status quo that will not result in either advisor 1 or advisor 2's plans of action). so undigested corn(if cleaned properly) is better than nothing.

very very very very very very very very very wrong. undigested corn is NEVER better than turkish delight.

 

 

 

yes a better option exists, but you have said that the options are status quo and plan, the better option is not a part of either of these options (and the better option is prevented by both plan and status quo)

in order to uphold the counterplan, the judge is REQUIRED to uphold the status quo. the judge cannot say "the CP is better" but i vote for plan. its 100% nonsensical. you are still missing the point - the question in debate has nothing to do with the counterplan!

its ENTIRELY about the plan! should we do the plan? NO because we should be doing something else. the fact that something else may or may not happen anyways is irrelevant - we should not do X because we should be doing Y because Y is better than X and it is impossible to do Y if you do X. where x is the plan and Y is the CP.

 

a vote for the counterplan is an affirmation of the NEGATION of the affirmative policy proposal.

 

in order for you to understand this you need to stop being a debater taught to debate in a BPO world and look at debate theory from a root objective perspective.

 

the neg NEGATES the affirmative. the affirmative affirms a position. the affirmative says X policy should be done. the negative says no, Y should be done and by doing X Y cant be done. Y is better than X. thus, by illustrating that Y is better and Y should be done, the affirmative has failed the objective by failing to prove that X should be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the key word you use here is foregone, if the status quo will not result in the counterplan then it is not foregone.

AFFIRMATIVE action MAKES the CP foregone. if you dont agree with that, then you have no business in debate.

 

how is the cp a foregone oppurtunity if it was never an oppurtunity to start with? sure the affirmative plan prevents the cp, but the cp is already preprevented.

 

but the premise of everything we are talking about is that the status quo prevents the counterplan from happening also so it is a wash.

this is irrelevant. the fact that the status quo prevents both is 100% irrelevant. it is irrelevant because of the word SHOULD in the resolution. the word should DEMANDS that the SQ is not doing X but should be doing X (where X is the action of should)

 

no no this is not irrelevant because should thing only applies to the affirmative plan. you are on record as saying the judge can only pick between plan and status quo, so it does matter. so it is not a question of should we do the counterplan, its a matter of should we do the plan over the status quo, and since the counterplan is just as likely to happen in both post plan and status quo worlds then the counterplan doesn't confer a comparative advantage upon the status quo, therefore it is a wash.

 

 

but if this scenario matches the one we are talking about in debate (that is a cp with no propensity) advisor 2 would be making his suggestion to a person who has a horrible phobia of all food (that is a status quo that will not result in either advisor 1 or advisor 2's plans of action). so undigested corn(if cleaned properly) is better than nothing.

very very very very very very very very very wrong. undigested corn is NEVER better than turkish delight.

 

yeah but turkish delight is a scenario that will never ever ever happen, our agent is too afraid of it, so it is back to a decision between corn and nothing

 

yes a better option exists, but you have said that the options are status quo and plan, the better option is not a part of either of these options (and the better option is prevented by both plan and status quo)

in order to uphold the counterplan, the judge is REQUIRED to uphold the status quo. the judge cannot say "the CP is better" but i vote for plan. its 100% nonsensical. you are still missing the point - the question in debate has nothing to do with the counterplan!

its ENTIRELY about the plan! should we do the plan? NO because we should be doing something else. the fact that something else may or may not happen anyways is irrelevant - we should not do X because we should be doing Y because Y is better than X and it is impossible to do Y if you do X. where x is the plan and Y is the CP.

 

you are right about the question of debate being should we do the plan. my argument here is that a counterplan is not an effective means of showing the plan shouldn't be done. how can we determine if the plan shoudl be done? we ask the question is doign the plan better than not doing the plan. barring arguments besides the counterplan(with no propensity) the plan is always better than no plan. the question of debate is not, "is the plan the best possible option" it is, "is the plan better than not doing the plan" and here the counterplan is moot.

 

 

a vote for the counterplan is an affirmation of the NEGATION of the affirmative policy proposal.

 

in order for you to understand this you need to stop being a debater taught to debate in a BPO world and look at debate theory from a root objective perspective.

 

the neg NEGATES the affirmative. the affirmative affirms a position. the affirmative says X policy should be done. the negative says no, Y should be done and by doing X Y cant be done. Y is better than X. thus, by illustrating that Y is better and Y should be done, the affirmative has failed the objective by failing to prove that X should be done.

 

i think you are the one falling back on BPO ideas. let us look at debate from a root objective perspective (i regret doing this because it opens up the door for more semantics that are un related to the issue at hand, so please forgive my misconceptions coach).

 

there is a resolution. there is an affirmative team trying to prove that the resolution is true i.e. affirm it. there is a negative team trying to show that the affirmative team does not prove the resolution true. traditionally the first speech carves out the ground with the affirmative team presenting a policy that is an example of a resolutional action they attempt to prove that the policy should be done by showing its comparative advantages over the status quo, it follows that if the affirmative policy should be done the resolution is true.

 

if at the end of the round there is still a comparative advantage that the aff policy has over the status quo then it shows the policy should be done. as i have shown a counterplan with no propensity confers no comparative advantage or disadvantage to the plan or the status quo, thus it is a wash.

 

do you remember my last post, coach, the one where i gave you a round to judge? what was your decision?

 

okay you agree that an aff vote is a vote for the plan, and a neg vote is a vote for the status quo right? plan and status quo are the only options right?

 

"we should not do X because we should be doing Y because Y is better than X and it is impossible to do Y if you do X. where x is the plan and Y is the CP."

 

you can also replace x with the status quo, which would mean we should not do the status quo, once again in terms of the counterplan, the status quo and the plan are a wash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as this discussion is happily in circles, i'm going to point out one thing. i don't know if this was intentional or not on Ankur's part, but as i''ll maintain, a neg vote is not a vote for the status quo, but a vote against the affirmative plan.

 

the status quo being good or the counterplan being good are simply reasons that the plan is bad (different frames of reference, if you will.)

 

this is part of the premise behind the idea of negation theory, which holds that all the negative has to do is prove the aff wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
as this discussion is happily in circles, i'm going to point out one thing. i don't know if this was intentional or not on Ankur's part, but as i''ll maintain, a neg vote is not a vote for the status quo, but a vote against the affirmative plan.

 

the status quo being good or the counterplan being good are simply reasons that the plan is bad (different frames of reference, if you will.)

 

this is part of the premise behind the idea of negation theory, which holds that all the negative has to do is prove the aff wrong.

 

a vote against the plan is a vote for doing nothing i e the status quo.

 

like i have said in a situation that a negative vote is a vote for the counterplan everything that has been said by me or ankur is thrown out the window. but i don't understand how that paradigm woudl be justified as a default. and as a tab i think a team should at least give some neg fiat good blips before they read a counterplan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there is a resolution. there is an affirmative team trying to prove that the resolution is true i.e. affirm it. there is a negative team trying to show that the affirmative team does not prove the resolution true. traditionally the first speech carves out the ground with the affirmative team presenting a policy that is an example of a resolutional action they attempt to prove that the policy should be done by showing its comparative advantages over the status quo, it follows that if the affirmative policy should be done the resolution is true.

 

wrong. that would be a huge part to whole fallacy. the resolution is a topic limiting factor. thats it and thats all. the only instance in which the resolution is the object of analysis is in a whole rez case which has gone the way of the dodo. there are no truth claims to the resolution in modern debate.

 

the ENTIRE conversation in debate is strictly related to the question "should the plan be done?" the affirmative states "the plan should be done." the negative states "the plan should NOT be done." your arguments happily ignore the should not.

 

 

furthermore, you continue to say that the plan happens but the CP doesnt. your arguments here are based on fiat regardless of how you try and disguise them. well guess what, the plan DOESNT happen. fiat doesnt come from the word should. fiat doesnt make plan pass.

fiat is a tool which helps you envision a world in which the plan exists to determine the effects of a policy which has no chance of existing in the present under current legal conditions and attitudes. it allows you to freeze the status quo, change the necessary variables in order to put plan into law/policy, and then restart the status quo with the change.

 

if the judge retains the ability to consider the option of doing something which the SQ forbids, why can that same judge not consider the CP? just because the neg doesnt have a resolution of their own?

 

 

 

hopefully that takes care of all your questions.

 

 

PS - your sample round is really quite meaningless because that assumes that only plan is done and counterplan isnt done. but thats not true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a vote against the plan is a vote for doing nothing i e the status quo.

 

like i have said in a situation that a negative vote is a vote for the counterplan everything that has been said by me or ankur is thrown out the window. but i don't understand how that paradigm woudl be justified as a default. and as a tab i think a team should at least give some neg fiat good blips before they read a counterplan.

 

keep in mind that this discussion is a bit different than yours with ankur but you seem wrong either way. anways, you just quoted me and then said the opposite and didn't give any reason why. that's silly. if you are right that the negative does NOT get a resolution, then they certainly shouldn't be obligated to defend anything by default. binding the negative to the entire status quo and only the status quo is a bullshit division of ground. of course, this will just sart going in circles again.

 

if you were a real tab judge then you clearly woudl not set arbitrary standards for what is requried to be read for certain things introduced in round. perhaps affs should read some aff fiat good blocks before the plan. and maybe also they should put some t blocks in before you default that they are topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>>>>>>>>wrong. that would be a huge part to whole fallacy. the resolution is a topic limiting factor. thats it and thats all. the only instance in which the resolution is the object of analysis is in a whole rez case which has gone the way of the dodo. there are no truth claims to the resolution in modern debate.>>>>>>>>>

 

like i said coach the rez is analyzed through the plan. how do you think the plan was invented? it was invented to show the resolution to be true.

 

>>>>>>>>the ENTIRE conversation in debate is strictly related to the question "should the plan be done?" the affirmative states "the plan should be done." the negative states "the plan should NOT be done." your arguments happily ignore the should not.>>>>>>>>

 

the negative need not show the plan should not be done, merely that there is no evidence the plan should be done. imagine a 1ac that doesn't say anything but a plan, a negative team may read some disads or whatever but thats just to make certain they win but its not necessary.

 

>>>>>>furthermore, you continue to say that the plan happens but the CP doesnt. your arguments here are based on fiat regardless of how you try and disguise them.>>>>>>>>>>>

 

in a little world we like to call postfiat the plan does happen, but in no world does the cp happen.

 

<<<<well guess what, the plan DOESNT happen. fiat doesnt come from the word should. fiat doesnt make plan pass.

fiat is a tool which helps you envision a world in which the plan exists to determine the effects of a policy which has no chance of existing in the present under current legal conditions and attitudes.>>>>>>

 

now lets think about why we would want to envision a world in which the plan exists to determine the effects of a policy? oh, thats right to determine whether said plan should be done, thats why fiat comes from teh word should.

 

<<<<<if the judge retains the ability to consider the option of doing something which the SQ forbids, why can that same judge not consider the CP? just because the neg doesnt have a resolution of their own?>>>>>>

 

because the question of debate is should we do the affirmative plan, thats why the judge gets to consider the plan. you have stated plainly (and i think at this point your are trying to flip on it) it comes down to plan versus status quo and the point still remains, the counterplan doesn't make the status quo more appealing than the plan.

 

<<<<<PS - your sample round is really quite meaningless because that assumes that only plan is done and counterplan isnt done. but thats not true.>>>>>>

 

come on, i am just working with the assumptions you have given me ,that we are dealing with plan versus status quo, under such assumptions the counterplan isnt' done. if you want to change the assumptions just come out and say it don't dance around it, i'll only make one post making fun of you for inconsistency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the most convincing theory of why counterplans are justified that i have heard is that they are an oppurtunity cost, in that the plan prevents something good (the counterplan) from happenning. It seems to me that is merely a disad without uniqueness, in that the negative never proves the counterplan would happen. so why should the plan be voted down because it prevents something from happenning that wouldn't have happenned anyway. so my question is why does merely presenting a fantasy scenario for something that is better than the plan justify a negative ballot?

 

if that is the most convincing argument you have heard than sadly you do not have enough debaters around you. It is simple negation theory, all the negative has to do is prove why the affirmative plan is a bad idea. This theory is what legitmizes counterplans and kritiks, for they are both non unique, but they do give reasons why you vote the affirmative down with an alternative reason to vote for the negative team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
keep in mind that this discussion is a bit different than yours with ankur but you seem wrong either way. anways, you just quoted me and then said the opposite and didn't give any reason why. that's silly.

 

my bad after rereading your previous post i see that the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs were reasons for what you are saying i thought they were seperate ideas (which i think is reasonable since they are seperate paragraphs.) any way so i thought you didn't give any reasons so i responded in kind. so now i'll go back and readdress those

 

<<<<the status quo being good or the counterplan being good are simply reasons that the plan is bad (different frames of reference, if you will.)>>>>

 

thats a huge jump, it assumes negative fiat power (you could argue oppurtunity cost but i think i have shown that oppurtunity costs from counterplans don't work without negative fiat)(when you respond don't put your arguments for negative fiat power here we'll come to that later). and i agree in a round where the negative has fiat power a negative vote is not a vote for the status quo.

 

<<<<<<this is part of the premise behind the idea of negation theory, which holds that all the negative has to do is prove the aff wrong.>>>>>

 

right, but proving the affirmative wrong implies different things depending on whether the negative has fiat power or not. in a round with negative fiat the aff says they are teh best policy option(assuming they are competitive) so proving the aff wrong could entail defending a non status quo policy option. in a round in which there is no negative fiat power the aff says they are better than nothing, in which case the status quo does have to be defended.

 

 

if you are right that the negative does NOT get a resolution, then they certainly shouldn't be obligated to defend anything by default.

 

you are a fan of negation theory right? and negation theory holds that the neg merely need to prove the aff wrong, and the aff is saying that the plan is better than the status quo then yes they would have to defend the status quo by default.

 

binding the negative to the entire status quo and only the status quo is a bullshit division of ground.

 

bullshit why? you think its bullshit that the negative has to prove that the affirmative is a bad idea? is it fair? well with modern topics probably not, but fairness is an argument you make during the round (an argument that you would win 9 times out of 10), i think that the default views we have as judges should be based on things that are not debateable(like fairness) but are solid like the fact that there is a team call the affirmative a team called the negative and a resolution that contains the word should.

 

of course, this will just sart going in circles again.

 

without a doubt.

 

 

 

 

if you were a real tab judge then you clearly woudl not set arbitrary standards for what is requried to be read for certain things introduced in round.

 

the standards are not at all arbitrary. teams still have burdens when there is a tab judge, in fact they there are more burdens since there are no pre made assumptions. certain things have to be said for things to make sense an weigh in a round. how many tab judges would vote on T without a voter? so there is a violation so what? same thing applies for a counterplan so there is a policy that is better that won't happen, who gives a shit what does that prove, unless you show me you have negative fiat power.

 

perhaps affs should read some aff fiat good blocks before the plan. and maybe also they should put some t blocks in before you default that they are topical.

 

the difference here is that tab judges still know there is a resolution and an aff team and a neg team, it follows from the word shoudl in the resolution that the affirmative team has fiat. and my default is they dont' have to be topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if that is the most convincing argument you have heard than sadly you do not have enough debaters around you. It is simple negation theory, all the negative has to do is prove why the affirmative plan is a bad idea. This theory is what legitmizes counterplans and kritiks, for they are both non unique, but they do give reasons why you vote the affirmative down with an alternative reason to vote for the negative team.

 

thats not very convincing. why does a judge start from negation theory position (don't get me wrong, i think negation theory can be justified in round). "all the negative has to do is prove why the affirmative plan is a bad idea." what the fuck does that even mean? things aren't bad and good they are relatively bad and good the question is relative to what? now justify why the negative gets to pick what the affirmative's goodness/badness is relative to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

like i said coach the rez is analyzed through the plan. how do you think the plan was invented? it was invented to show the resolution to be true.

still wrong and more wrong. the plan does NOT prove the resolution true. its a very basic logical fallacy. at no point in the past has the plan meant that, despite what some debaters have argued in the past. it is literally illogical to suggest what you are suggesting. the plan is invented because the alternative, whole rez, was too easy to defeat by the negative because all it took was a simple illustration that particular topical policies are bad. hence, plan focused debate evolved. the resolution is a topic limiting factor.

 

 

the negative need not show the plan should not be done, merely that there is no evidence the plan should be done. imagine a 1ac that doesn't say anything but a plan, a negative team may read some disads or whatever but thats just to make certain they win but its not necessary.

by stating that there is insufficient evidence in support of doing the plan IS a statement that the judge should not do the plan.

entire 1ac: open ANWR to oil drilling (all three seconds it took to say that)

neg: the affirmative provides insufficient rationale justifying the opening of ANWR, thus the judge is not obligated to uphold said policy.

a.k.a. the judge should not accept the policy.

 

 

in a little world we like to call postfiat the plan does happen, but in no world does the cp happen.

there is no such thing as post fiat. its a term which means absolutely nothing. post fiat means "after the time of fiat" but there is no time of fiat. there is no timescale on which fiat can be placed. there are only two worlds: pre-plan adoption (aka status quo) and post-plan adoption.

fiat is the mathematical step function used to bridge two incompatible worlds operating on different equations. there is nothing in debate which suggests that a tool which allows core assumptions to be made should be limited to one side. to do so means a 100% win rate for that side. your position leaves the negative at a functional competitive disadvantage reduced to 0% win rate.

 

 

now lets think about why we would want to envision a world in which the plan exists to determine the effects of a policy? oh, thats right to determine whether said plan should be done, thats why fiat comes from teh word should.

more no. inherency exists to level the playing field in a competitive sport. in the real world, inherency serves little to no purpose whatsoever. however it exists in debate because debate is a game and we must keep the playing field as even as possible. as such, inherency fundamentally creates a no-solvency argument against the affirmative case. fiat exists to bridge this gap and eliminate the functional "nuclear option" the negative would retain otherwise.

the word should establishes advocacy on the resolution. should do X should not do X. absent the word should, the resolution allows for mixed advocacies. anyone who told you fiat comes from should has a very novice knowledge of debate theory.

coaches use should and "fiat means plan passes" as elementary explanations of a highly complex argument in order to simplify things for debaters who are often too young and too unanalytical to appreciate the nature of the tool. the first thing that is taught in upper division chemistry is that the bulk of all lower chemistry theories, like orbitals and bonds, is not real. there is no bond and there is no space called an orbital. an orbital is actually a mathematical probability function and a bond is simply a collaboration of physical forces which are also phsyical equations and not real. in the same way, coaches give debaters a very simplistic view of fiat in order to advance the game at the sacrifice of truth. developing the truth could take a month of rigorous explanations.

 

 

because the question of debate is should we do the affirmative plan, thats why the judge gets to consider the plan. you have stated plainly (and i think at this point your are trying to flip on it) it comes down to plan versus status quo and the point still remains, the counterplan doesn't make the status quo more appealing than the plan.

it absolutely does. the negative is stating there is "something better to do" and the only way to do it is by rejecting the aff. the vote for the status quo is an INDIRECT advocacy of the status quo. it is an option for the status quo to preserve the ability to do something better.

your interpretation destroys debate entirely by eliminating the should NOT statement.

 

 

come on, i am just working with the assumptions you have given me ,that we are dealing with plan versus status quo, under such assumptions the counterplan isnt' done. if you want to change the assumptions just come out and say it don't dance around it, i'll only make one post making fun of you for inconsistency.

there is complete consistency. i have never deviated once. you have been non responsive and choose to answer statements with questions.

i am done here. my position is clear and if your arguments made sense to anyone they would leap in at any opportunity to aide you in a battle against me. im a resident pain in the ass, and everyone knows it. the sad part about this is that you're choosing a really bad theory position and supporting it with no actual theory and insteal using some morphing questions to supposedly shake the theoretical ground on which debate has established counterplan theory. unfortunately for you, your position is nonsensical and illogical and rooted in some incredibly bad positions (no neg fiat, fiat comes from should, debate is a truth statement, etc) as pointed out previously. if you want to make false applications of arguments within debate, go right ahead, just dont expect me to care to respond any further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
now lets think about why we would want to envision a world in which the plan exists to determine the effects of a policy? oh, thats right to determine whether said plan should be done, thats why fiat comes from teh word should.

more no. inherency exists to level the playing field in a competitive sport. in the real world, inherency serves little to no purpose whatsoever. however it exists in debate because debate is a game and we must keep the playing field as even as possible. as such, inherency fundamentally creates a no-solvency argument against the affirmative case. fiat exists to bridge this gap and eliminate the functional "nuclear option" the negative would retain otherwise.

the word should establishes advocacy on the resolution. should do X should not do X. absent the word should, the resolution allows for mixed advocacies. anyone who told you should comes from fiat has a very novice knowledge of debate theory.

 

so this means that inherency is the reason fiat was developed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot disprove a statement merely through your frustration at it's implications. "you are assuming that the negative gets fiat power" seems to be your stock response each time someone points out a reason why the negative should indeed have fiat power. once this conclusion is reached you tend to say "alas! i've refuted all of your reasons, you can no longer make this claim..."

 

this is why the conversation keeps oging in circles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

apparently I'm a cheerleader for this previous post, even though it sparked an actual response. trigger happy bitches.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no. i understand perfectly what he was saying, and back when i was young, thought the same thing. my freshman and sophomore years, i never once believed a counterplan illustrated reasons to reject the affirmative policy. why does doing something else represent a reason why you should not to the plan. plan is good. CP is better. so? the question is whether plan is good not whether there are better things to do.

 

the problem is that those questions are rooted in a very poor understanding of debate as a game and the theory which is constructed to afford both teams an even playing field. when you learn the theory which must be constant throughout all debate then you begin to realize how a CP interacts with the affirmative policy.

 

for example, topicality. people say "T is a voter for education, fairness, clash and jurisdiction." but really, its not. T is a voter for preserved advocacy. it is the act of violating the right to preserved advocacy which when given an interpretation offers the impacts of education, fairness, and clash. topicality, as an argument, exists to preserve advocacy for the second team because an aff which advocates topical action with non-topical means has usurped all stable advocacy ground. thats the difference between theory and interp.

 

the key thing to remember is that debate is a competitive game and that theory cannot be twisted to suit the whims of one team. the playing field must remain even. thats why its called theory, and not interpretation. topicality theory is the reason topicality exists as an argument and where it establishes its roots as an argument and a reason to vote. topicality interp is what debaters do with a definition violation and standards. arguments that T isnt a voter is a twist of debate theory to suit their own needs and arguments. one can argue that T isnt a voter for those particular interpretations, however, one cannot argue that the judge cannot vote on T. and that sort of redefinition of debate theory is what is going on in this thread. ktown is twisting the rights of the negative team to suit the needs of the affirmative.

 

 

the core assumptions ktown makes:

1) fiat comes from the word should

2) since only aff advocates the resolution, the neg does not receive fiat

3) the affirmative plan proves the resolution true through as a subset

4) and a general lack of understanding how fiat operates.

5) the judge is only bound to act as an actor in favor of topical action or SQ

 

really the third doesnt matter. well, it can, depending on how you want to interpret the game, but the end result of any of those interpretations is the same. his understanding is correct in one part and that is one major step forward which many people still do not realize today - a vote for a mutually exclusive counterplan, topical or non-topical, is a vote for the status quo, not for the counterplan.

 

1) as mentioned previously, fiat doesnt come from should. should is designed to create advocacies. fiat originated with the inherency-solvency gap.

2) the neg receives the ability to fiat, or else they cannot argue so much as a disad. there are NO good reasons why a neg cannot use fiat and still preserve competitive equity.

3) plans arent truth statements. the resolution is a topic limiting factor to make debate competitive.

4) if you want to read more on how fiat operates, look up my mathematical description. it goes through a very very basic elementary description of the background math involved in constructing fiat before launching into the theory and its implications.

5) fiat allows the construction of a counterfactual world. a judge which has the authority to vote for a topical plan, is assumed to have the ability to vote for a counterplan. neither would happen in the SQ. the judge closes the fiat equation by providing the ABILITY to vote for something which cannot exist.

 

 

anyone can "destroy someone's ass" if their answers arent answers and are questions instead. he isnt deconstructing anything. he is redefining something without warranting it. he is defining what a counterplan IS by changing the core assumptions to what a counterplan is. but those regressions are BAD for debate. he has yet to actually justify ANYTHING he says. he has yet to give a single reason why the negative doesnt get fiat other than his redefinition that the neg doesnt get fiat because they dont have access to "should" which i refuted in triplicate

 

 

you, dave, are a fool contributing absolutely nothing to this conversation. at least ktown makes an effort. you are a waste of space and oxygen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so this means that inherency is the reason fiat was developed?

 

functionally, yes.

 

affirmative 1ac

harms - harms X

inh - congress doesnt like Y

plan - do Y

solvency - doing Y solves harms X and creates advantage Z

 

negative

the aff has no solvency because the inherency proves that even were the judge to advocate doing plan Y, the status quo would not do the plan thus there is no solvency.

 

in order to bridge that gap, fiat is required. fiat overcomes the gap of solvency created in order to make plan a reality. technically, its not a gap of solvency. its a gap of workability. but thats a more detailed conversation which i dont think is necessary to prove the point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
like i said coach the rez is analyzed through the plan. how do you think the plan was invented? it was invented to show the resolution to be true.

still wrong and more wrong. the plan does NOT prove the resolution true. its a very basic logical fallacy. at no point in the past has the plan meant that, despite what some debaters have argued in the past. it is literally illogical to suggest what you are suggesting. the plan is invented because the alternative, whole rez, was too easy to defeat by the negative because all it took was a simple illustration that particular topical policies are bad. hence, plan focused debate evolved. the resolution is a topic limiting factor.

 

wow that was awfully long to not have any warrants in it. resolved: you should pick a jellybean, plan: pick a red one, adv: red ones are tasty. well if you prove you should pick a red one it proves that you should pick a jellybean. and who gives a fuck, this has nothing to do with anything we are talking about, all the arguments made apply plan focused or not.

 

by stating that there is insufficient evidence in support of doing the plan IS a statement that the judge should not do the plan.

 

okay i can agree with this. the neg merely need to show there is no reason you should do the plan, not necessarily that there are reasons that the plan shouldn't be done, but the resulting conclusion the judge draws from that is the plan shouldn't be done.

 

in a little world we like to call postfiat the plan does happen, but in no world does the cp happen.

there is no such thing as post fiat. its a term which means absolutely nothing. post fiat means "after the time of fiat" but there is no time of fiat. there is no timescale on which fiat can be placed. there are only two worlds: pre-plan adoption (aka status quo) and post-plan adoption.

 

okay whatever call it what you want to call it. postplan whatever.

 

fiat is the mathematical step function used to bridge two incompatible worlds operating on different equations.

 

i have no idea why you would say this. it totally undermines you point that there is no "after the time of fiat". if you graph time along the x axis and your fiat step function occurs at T=0 (the value is arbitrary) then "after the time of fiat" would be all T greater than 0. that being said we can still use whatever definition of fiat you want.

 

there is nothing in debate which suggests that a tool which allows core assumptions to be made should be limited to one side. to do so means a 100% win rate for that side. your position leaves the negative at a functional competitive disadvantage reduced to 0% win rate.

 

okay we have coverred this. the negative has access to this tool we(you) call fiat but only to evaluate the plan. (this is kind of a short response because i have a lot of stuff to answer and finite time, and because i think this resolves your concern about the negatives ability to evaluate the impacts of the plan, if however your concern was that the negative shoudl get to create a policy to compare the aff plan to, just say so and i'll address that in my next post)

 

now lets think about why we would want to envision a world in which the plan exists to determine the effects of a policy? oh, thats right to determine whether said plan should be done, thats why fiat comes from teh word should.

more no. inherency exists to level the playing field in a competitive sport. in the real world, inherency serves little to no purpose whatsoever. however it exists in debate because debate is a game and we must keep the playing field as even as possible. as such, inherency fundamentally creates a no-solvency argument against the affirmative case. fiat exists to bridge this gap and eliminate the functional "nuclear option" the negative would retain otherwise.

 

you could simplify inherency to a playing field leveler, but i think that would be baseless. inherencey exists because in order to show that you should take an action to solve a problem you have to show the problem won't solve its self.

 

the word should establishes advocacy on the resolution. should do X should not do X. absent the word should, the resolution allows for mixed advocacies. anyone who told you fiat comes from should has a very novice knowledge of debate theory.

 

here we are not necessarily talking about the word should in the resolution. here we are talking about the should in the question "should we do plan." if you claim that fiat just allows us to envision the world after the plan, then please tell me why we would need to envision such a world? i'll give you a hint, its not to over come inherency, its to compare postplan and statusquo so a decision of which should be done can be made.

 

 

 

because the question of debate is should we do the affirmative plan, thats why the judge gets to consider the plan. you have stated plainly (and i think at this point your are trying to flip on it) it comes down to plan versus status quo and the point still remains, the counterplan doesn't make the status quo more appealing than the plan.

it absolutely does. the negative is stating there is "something better to do" and the only way to do it is by rejecting the aff. the vote for the status quo is an INDIRECT advocacy of the status quo. it is an option for the status quo to preserve the ability to do something better.

your interpretation destroys debate entirely by eliminating the should NOT statement.

 

the premise of this entire discusion is that the status quo doesnt' have the ability to do counterplan (remember no propensity) so rejecting a plan inorder to get a 0% chance of the counterplan doesn't make sense. now do enlighten me, how do i eliminate teh should not statement, and how does that destroy debate??

 

come on, i am just working with the assumptions you have given me ,that we are dealing with plan versus status quo, under such assumptions the counterplan isnt' done. if you want to change the assumptions just come out and say it don't dance around it, i'll only make one post making fun of you for inconsistency.

there is complete consistency. i have never deviated once. you have been non responsive and choose to answer statements with questions.

 

you are inconsistent in that you claim my example is wrong because i claim the counterplan is never done. you say the neg ballot = status quo, i say status quo=no coutnerplan done, my claim is the basis of this entire discussion (no propensity) so i figure the only thing that could be changing is your claim that a negative ballot=status quo.

 

i have responded to everythign you have said, and i ask questions because this is a discussion not a debate (and because we clearly aren't on the same page so things need clarifying).

 

i am done here. my position is clear and if your arguments made sense to anyone they would leap in at any opportunity to aide you in a battle against me. im a resident pain in the ass, and everyone knows it.

 

you are a pain in the ass to argue with and thats why no one is leaping (also because you make yourself out to be an authority me out to be some kid)

 

the sad part about this is that you're choosing a really bad theory position and supporting it with no actual theory and insteal using some morphing questions to supposedly shake the theoretical ground on which debate has established counterplan theory.

 

morphing questions?

 

here i will lay it out one more time.

 

both the plan and the status quo prevent the counterplan, so counterplans don't matter unless the negative has the power to give the judge another option to vote for.

 

unfortunately for you, your position is nonsensical and illogical and rooted in some incredibly bad positions (no neg fiat, fiat comes from should, debate is a truth statement, etc) as pointed out previously.

 

yeah its to bad i answerred back all of these "bad positions"

 

if you want to make false applications of arguments within debate, go right ahead, just dont expect me to care to respond any further.

 

thats too bad i'll miss your awesome input immensely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You cannot disprove a statement merely through your frustration at it's implications.

 

you are one to talk balonkey "binding the negative to the entire status quo and only the status quo is a bullshit division of ground"

 

"you are assuming that the negative gets fiat power" seems to be your stock response each time someone points out a reason why the negative should indeed have fiat power.

 

i said that in response to "the status quo being good or the counterplan being good are simply reasons that the plan is bad (different frames of reference, if you will.)" which certainly isn't an argument for negative fiat. to clear things up my position is that counterplans don't work unless the negative has fiat power, and i that the negative has the burden of showing a tab judge that they do have negative fiat power. so far we have established you think that is "bullshit division of ground" you can see how i might have a hard time arguing against such clear logic.

 

once this conclusion is reached you tend to say "alas! i've refuted all of your reasons, you can no longer make this claim..."

 

this is why the conversation keeps oging in circles.

 

why don't you actually back up what you have said instead of accusing me of having stock answers.

 

i am especially interested in how you can back up the following claim that all burdens of proof dispear when there is a tab judge.

 

"if you were a real tab judge then you clearly woudl not set arbitrary standards for what is requried to be read for certain things introduced in round."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for example, topicality. people say "T is a voter for education, fairness, clash and jurisdiction." but really, its not. T is a voter for preserved advocacy. it is the act of violating the right to preserved advocacy which when given an interpretation offers the impacts of education, fairness, and clash. topicality, as an argument, exists to preserve advocacy for the second team because an aff which advocates topical action with non-topical means has usurped all stable advocacy ground. thats the difference between theory and interp.

 

you heard it here first folks, T is always a voter, its a rule of debate, don't even bother adding voters to your violations because T is a voter its has been spoken by the great (arbitrary)rule maker of debate the great coach ankur!!!!!

 

 

the core assumptions ktown makes:

1) fiat comes from the word should

 

ankur says it comes from inherency (because he says so) of course he knows this because he is old just knows such things.

 

2) since only aff advocates the resolution, the neg does not receive fiat

 

ankur thinks this means that the negative doesn't get to talk about the effects of the plan, since fiat means envisioning the plan keeping all other things constant.

 

3) the affirmative plan proves the resolution true through as a subset

 

ankur thinks that one day there was a debating meeting and everyone decided that plan focus was okay since rez focus is too hard on the aff.

 

4) and a general lack of understanding how fiat operates.

 

yeah that ktown is such a dumbass, he thought fiat was merely a way to usurp the would debate and get on to the should debate, boy was he wrong it actually comes from inherency.

 

5) the judge is only bound to act as an actor in favor of topical action or SQ

 

wait a second, you said that one ankur, i can quote you if you want. wait you say it in your next paragraph

 

really the third doesnt matter. well, it can, depending on how you want to interpret the game, but the end result of any of those interpretations is the same. his understanding is correct in one part and that is one major step forward which many people still do not realize today - a vote for a mutually exclusive counterplan, topical or non-topical, is a vote for the status quo, not for the counterplan.

 

aff- solves harms prevents counterplan

status quo- causes harms, and prevents counterplan(unless propensity cards are read in which case this debate is moot)

 

 

 

1) as mentioned previously, fiat doesnt come from should. should is designed to create advocacies. fiat originated with the inherency-solvency gap.

 

come on, the inherency-solvency gap doesn't matter because we are debating whether we should do the plan not whether we would do the plan. fiat solves the inherency - solvency gap, but only because it comes from the word should. i remember i used to think about fiat the same way you did ankur... back when i was a freshman/sophomore.

 

 

2) the neg receives the ability to fiat, or else they cannot argue so much as a disad. there are NO good reasons why a neg cannot use fiat and still preserve competitive equity.

 

by a show of hands(or posts), how many other people reading this thread think that if the negative doesn't have fiat power the lose the ability to evaluate the advantages/disadvantages of the plan?

 

you have the worst interpretation of fiat i have ever heard. fiat is not the evaluation of the impacts of a fictional action, its the positing of a fictional action for evaluation. thats why the affirmative fiats the plan not the judge.

 

oh by the way since congress doesn't have inherency-solvency gaps, do they still get to talk about what would happen if the bill passes?

 

 

3) plans arent truth statements. the resolution is a topic limiting factor to make debate competitive.

 

of course this was established in great rules of debate convention chaired by ankur.

 

 

4) if you want to read more on how fiat operates, look up my mathematical description. it goes through a very very basic elementary description of the background math involved in constructing fiat before launching into the theory and its implications.

 

yeah its a step function right? lol

 

5) fiat allows the construction of a counterfactual world. a judge which has the authority to vote for a topical plan, is assumed to have the ability to vote for a counterplan. neither would happen in the SQ. the judge closes the fiat equation by providing the ABILITY to vote for something which cannot exist.

 

i could have sworn you said the judge only has to ability to vote for the plan or the status quo. which is it?

 

functionally, yes.

 

 

affirmative 1ac

harms - harms X

inh - congress doesnt like Y

plan - do Y

solvency - doing Y solves harms X and creates advantage Z

 

negative

the aff has no solvency because the inherency proves that even were the judge to advocate doing plan Y, the status quo would not do the plan thus there is no solvency.

 

in order to bridge that gap, fiat is required. fiat overcomes the gap of solvency created in order to make plan a reality. technically, its not a gap of solvency. its a gap of workability. but thats a more detailed conversation which i dont think is necessary to prove the point.

 

or the fact that we are debating whether we should do teh plan rather than whether we would do it.

 

here you only prove that fiat over comes the inherency-solvency gap not that it was invented for it. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

only once more. for closure's sake.

you are one to talk balonkey

Tu quoque

 

 

"binding the negative to the entire status quo and only the status quo is a bullshit division of ground"

it is. and this is not an issue of being bothered by the implications. it is an impact to an interpreation where the negative doesn't have the ability to test opportunity costs to plan. if you really need this clarified (and you'll eagerly and ignorantly line-by-line these, but your answers just won't be that good)

1. the aff gets 9 minutes to indict the status quo, the negative doesn't have 9 to defend it and 9 to attack plan.

2. there is no logical reason why an intelligent actor (when you butcherd the hypotheticals yhou could never understand this concept that the judge acts as ONE decisionmaker, meaning the propensity to chagne arguments don't apply) would elect to choose an inferior competing policy option just because it is better htan the status quo.

3. none of this is essential to proving the negative has fiat power, it simply shows why such a power is fair; in fact, the lack thereof is unfair.

 

 

 

i said that in response to "the status quo being good or the counterplan being good are simply reasons that the plan is bad (different frames of reference, if you will.)" which certainly isn't an argument for negative fiat.

actually, it is. if the counterplan is good, and that is a reason that the plan is bad, then you should reject the plan. Watch the logic on this one:

P1. Either plan, or not plan

P2. If counterplan is better then plan, not plan

P3. If not plan, vote neg

P4 counterplan is better than plan

C. not plan

to clear things up my position is that counterplans don't work unless the negative has fiat power, and i that the negative has the burden of showing a tab judge that they do have negative fiat power. so far we have established you think that is "bullshit division of ground" you can see how i might have a hard time arguing against such clear logic.

 

no one is arguing that counterplans work without fiat power. that's because, get this, fiat doesn't exist. plans don't work if the aff doesn't have fiat power, and aside from repititiona and tradition, there is really no reason that "should" gives that power in the first place (this is why infinitely regressive "why's" disguised as offensive no warrants can cut both ways) remember the consequences of viewing the issue (does aff get fiat? does neg get fiat?) as a mere fairness one is that there is no no stable basis for, well anything. if there is conclusive reason to give the aff fiat on the basis of "should" that reasonign will certainly not be extensive enough to deny the negative the ability to fiat on the basis that we "should not" do the plan.

 

not done yet. to be technical, fiat doesn't justify an affirmation of the resolution in the sense that it "shoudl" be done, but in the sense that the plan "should". The negative can test that claim by saying the plan "should not" be done (fiat) because it precludes somehting better (the counterplan).

 

The alternative to this is a whole res framework, whereby the aff plan is only a jsutification for the resolution to be supported. Here, the negative would be completely justified in providing non-aff specific reasons that the resolution should be rejected.

 

this has been repeated, and ignored. see the stock answers question above. your tautological reasoning is as follows: "the negative can't justify opp cost theory without getting fiat but there's no reason the negative gets fiat" when someone says that opp cost theory IS what jsutifies fiat we get the never ending why. Ironically, opportuinty costs has a lot more defensible reasons to be correct than "should" in the resolution.

 

 

 

 

why don't you actually back up what you have said instead of accusing me of having stock answers.

I have, several times. Perhaps its no match for your circular reasoning, but since at leas you understand why such reasonign must be rejected, anyone attempting to follow this morass can see all of your arguments fit into the same, flawed pattern.

i am especially interested in how you can back up the following claim that all burdens of proof dispear when there is a tab judge.

 

"if you were a real tab judge then you clearly woudl not set arbitrary standards for what is requried to be read for certain things introduced in round."

 

um, easy. Tabula rasa = blank slate. That means that arguments which are not responded to are considered true and no prejudgements, even slight ones, of truth or falsehood are imposed upon arguments. Hence, no negative team should have to justify behaviors that are not yet challenged by the aff. There is clearly a lack of impartiality when you demand a higher degree of theoretical prejustification on one side than the other. This is just as a tab judge would not be tab if s/he required affirmatives to show how they were topical int he 1ac before s/he would entertain their arguments.

 

i'm sure that was especially interesting.

 

course, perhaps you are retreating from your orignal stance that the negative doesn't have fiat power to, " it is not a clear cut issue whether or not the aff could win on 'no neg fiat'." not only would sucha retreat be more or less meaningless, but it espouses a self contradictory judging philosophy which is clearly ludicrious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. the aff gets 9 minutes to indict the status quo, the negative doesn't have 9 to defend it and 9 to attack plan.

 

9 minutes attacking plan is the same as 9 minutes defendign status quo (i think this is self evident but since you are kind of slow on the up take i'll explain it). the affirmative says they are good compared to the status quo, thus if you attack plan you are making the status quo look comparatively better.

 

2. there is no logical reason why an intelligent actor (when you butcherd the hypotheticals yhou could never understand this concept that the judge acts as ONE decisionmaker, meaning the propensity to chagne arguments don't apply) would elect to choose an inferior competing policy option just because it is better htan the status quo.

 

i think it makes more sense that a judges options to start out limited to plan or not plan than for the judge to have complete agency over the entire government and sometimes ngos. i think a judge's agency comes from the resolution/the question of whether the plan should be done.

 

3. none of this is essential to proving the negative has fiat power, it simply shows why such a power is fair; in fact, the lack thereof is unfair.

 

so tab judges should have no burden of proof, but they should carry into the round a concept of fairness in debate? once again, i fully agree with you that negative fiat is a winnable position, i just think that the position has to be won inside the debate round with arguments like fairness.

 

actually, it is. if the counterplan is good, and that is a reason that the plan is bad, then you should reject the plan. Watch the logic on this one:

P1. Either plan, or not plan

P2. If counterplan is better then plan, not plan

P3. If not plan, vote neg

P4 counterplan is better than plan

C. not plan

 

i reject p2, because i don't think the judge has full agency.

 

<<<no one is arguing that counterplans work without fiat power.>>>

 

i really do think that ankur is

 

<<<<that's because, get this, fiat doesn't exist. plans don't work if the aff doesn't have fiat power, and aside from repititiona and tradition, there is really no reason that "should" gives that power in the first place remember the consequences of viewing the issue (does aff get fiat? does neg get fiat?) as a mere fairness one is that there is no no stable basis for, well anything. if there is conclusive reason to give the aff fiat on the basis of "should" that reasonign will certainly not be extensive enough to deny the negative the ability to fiat on the basis that we "should not" do the plan. >>>>

 

assumptions(that i made): when you say fiat, you don't mean it in the ankurian sense rather the ability to tell the judge what he/she is voting for, i.e. fiating an plan in this case means a vote for the aff is a vote for the plan.(if my assumption is wrong let me know and i'll redo the response)

 

okay the affirmative is trying to show the rez to be true right, in order to show that the usfg should yada yada, they pick an example of that resolution and say that it should be done. so really from this framework the affirmative isn't asserting that a vote for the aff is a vote for plan, what they are really asserting is that a vote for aff is an acknowledgement of the resolution's truth. now in order to show that the resolution is not true(or that the aff hasn't shown it to be true) the negative can't merely pick one scenarioit must show either a reason to reject all topical plans(this would prove the rez false) or that status quo is better than plan(this would show that the affirmative hasn't shown the rez to be true) (this is an assertation now, but i think i warrant it when i warrant whole rez framework below).

 

<<<The alternative to this is a whole res framework, whereby the aff plan is only a jsutification for the resolution to be supported. Here, the negative would be completely justified in providing non-aff specific reasons that the resolution should be rejected. >>>

 

i dont' think the neg would be justified in doing that here is why:

 

lets start with an axiom, you are sick you should go see dr. phillips.

it would follow that it is true that you are sick and that you need to go see a doctor, even though it is not true that you should go see dr. kavorkian(sp?)

 

the deal is you can not show a general statement to be false, by giving an specific example of it being false.

 

<<<<<"the negative can't justify opp cost theory without getting fiat but there's no reason the negative gets fiat" when someone says that opp cost theory IS what jsutifies fiat >>>>>

 

this could be why you are frustrated with me. i never interpretted what you were saying "opp cost theory is what justifies fiat." maybe you could clear that up for me because i am still not seeing the connection. (i know that might seem sarcastic, but it really isn't)

 

if what you are saying is that neg fiat is justified because without opp cost theory doesn't work and since opp cost theory=good then neg fiat must = good, then i think that is an argument that should be made in round and isn't assumption that a judge should take into a round.

 

<<<Ironically, opportuinty costs has a lot more defensible reasons to be correct than "should" in the resolution. >>>>

 

but as a judge thats all i have to go off of is the names of the teams and the resolution. i am sure you are really good at showing opp cost is good in round though.

 

<<<<um, easy. Tabula rasa = blank slate. That means that arguments which are not responded to are considered true and no prejudgements, even slight ones, of truth or falsehood are imposed upon arguments. >>>>

 

which leads to rounds like this

 

1ac reads a monologue

1nc gives reasons why that is bad

2ac 1nc's are bad for debate anything that was said in the 1nc should be ignored

2nc/1nr gives reasons why 1nc's are good

1ar 2nc/1nr bad for debate ignore them

2nr says why thats wrong

2ar says taht 2nrs are bad for debate and should be ignored

 

"arguments which are not responded to are considered true" well since the aff is considerred to be true i should ignore all the neg speeches, but is a monologue good enough win the ballot?

 

i am not judging the truth of the arguments they are making, i am refusing to intervene on the negatives behalf by impacting the argument

 

what if in between disads the negative team chirps like a bird and the aff drops it? do i assume the chirp outweighs case?

 

blank slates aren't really blank just blanker than most, and the writing thats on the slate is easily erasable

 

<<<<<Hence, no negative team should have to justify behaviors that are not yet challenged by the aff.>>>>>>

 

shit i just wasted alot of time arguing about this. i just realized that the aff would have to make a non propensity arguement and the only way what we are talking about (i guess as far as judging goes) matters would be if the neg never brought up fiat as a response to the propensity arguement(which isn't likely). but i maintain in such a highly hypothetical(so much so what i am about to claim is meaning less) world that if the aff merely claims there is no propensity and the negative never brings up negative fiat the the counterplan doesnt' matter

 

i have now lost my passion for talking about this subject, but would probalby respond to any discussion regarding my views on the whole rez framework

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...