Jump to content
jshepard

What "normal means" really means

Recommended Posts

That's up to the neg to define, or to ask about in the cross-x.
Well, Neg is certainly entitled to ask about it in CX, but they don't have a right to unilaterally stipulate the meaning. In general, the phrase is taken to mean just what it sounds like. For example, "normal means" on a spending proposal would NOT involve holding a nationwide referendum, since that is not how such proposals are "normally" handled...

 

In any event, it is kind of a silly thing to argue about in the first place. Resolutional action assumes "normal means" unless the language of the rez specifically suggests otherwise...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually it just means it happens liek it normally would, with no anomalities..

 

 

i never would've guessed....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

normal means... it means optimal means. this interpretation is superior because it forces discussion regarding the value of the policy itself as opposed to the value of the method of implementation which ultimately reduces debate down to a semantics game on the could/can/would debate which the affirmative can never satisfy because of the lack of evidence stipulating such specific solvency etc while demands for greater specification beyond the optimal methods available to the united states federal government is not only non-topical but it is an arbitrary standard demanding specification of one facet of plan text while permitting absolute vagueness on others and this selective enforcement of specification demands warrants an aff ballot by illustrating that the argument ground loss is meaningless in its hypothetical state as the negative is merely trying to coerce the affirmative into coughing up a link to an argument they have prepared (or maybe even not prepared) while relieving themselves of all responsibility of being required to actually respond to the affirmative case.

 

i like long sentences

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normal means is up for debate. Often times, political process DA's like stealth friday will include the debate of what normal means is. Otherwise the affirmative would just say Normal Means means the plan is the counterplan or something stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normal means is exactly that. Normally, steps x, y, and z would be necessary for your plan to pass. I don't think there is anything resolutional that mandates normal means or optimal means. However if you want to stake out ground that is not normal means I think you would need to specify that via plan text.

 

The easiest way to win a normal means debate in my opinion is to have evidence that indicates what the standard way of passing a policy like the plan is and then have evidence indicating the counterplan does it differently.

 

I'm sympathetic to Ankur's argument that "optimal means" focuses on the effect of the policy rather than the method of passage, however I don't think you get that ground unless it's stated explicitly. We run disads and counterplans off method of passage all the time and regardless of its desirability I don't see this changing anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Normal means is exactly that. Normally, steps x, y, and z would be necessary for your plan to pass. I don't think there is anything resolutional that mandates normal means or optimal means. However if you want to stake out ground that is not normal means I think you would need to specify that via plan text.

 

The easiest way to win a normal means debate in my opinion is to have evidence that indicates what the standard way of passing a policy like the plan is and then have evidence indicating the counterplan does it differently.

 

I'm sympathetic to Ankur's argument that "optimal means" focuses on the effect of the policy rather than the method of passage, however I don't think you get that ground unless it's stated explicitly. We run disads and counterplans off method of passage all the time and regardless of its desirability I don't see this changing anytime soon.

 

well if everyone would just run agamben instead debate would be a better place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well if everyone would just run agamben instead debate would be a better place.

 

This gave me nightmares :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just because you win on it, and just because its rather prevalent doesnt mean it should be done. there are lots of bad things in the world which are done more frequently than they should be.... like genocide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just because you win on it, and just because its rather prevalent doesnt mean it should be done. there are lots of bad things in the world which are done more frequently than they should be.... like genocide.

 

I hardly think a pocket pass counterplan with a net benefit of signing ceremonies equates to genocide. While I understand your position, and desire that process counterplans and politics DAs not be legitimate, I would argue that their prevalence indicates that a large proportion of the debate community has a different take on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would argue that their prevalence indicates that a large proportion of the debate community has a different take on the issue.
A large proportion of the debate community needs its head examined on a variety of fronts. And, anyway, when did ad populum appeals suddenly become the order of the day?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no kidding.

it doesnt justify genocide... but it uses the same logic... aka... i dont care as long as it doesnt affect me adversely. if you started losing to the disad all the time, i am sure your tune would change pretty damn quick.

 

and thats the brilliance of the irony in debate... its not until you lose, aka someone else wins, that you care, but then suddenly, the team that wins no longer does.

 

 

the argument is still fundamentally flawed from a debate perspective, irrespective of its winning nature. perhaps it wins because aff's dont take theory as a serious route of attack which is a far stronger position than "pocket pass bad"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*shudder* Me too. :(

only because you'd lose EVERY aff round.

 

The reason we get away with process c/p's is because we have the block to spread the aff out of theory debates and because theory arguments are really hard to articulate, and judges don't vote on them in general, or at least have a very high threshold. Also Sara, you ran "do the plan secretly" all year long, that's just as bad if not worse than pocket passage. And you were cheering GBN on at USC when they beat Notre Damne on pocket passage. Hmmm.......so its genocide, unless it happens to be personally advantageous to you/you like the way its being used. Interesting standard.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cause Mat(supermod)...
Yeah, I saw his fingerprints all over this one. I'm busy shopping for a newer one myself... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elliot, you seem to have misinterpreted my position in this thread. Ankur was the one who was arguing the genocide angle. I have no problem with process counterplans or politics disads. Are there other strats I like more? Yes. Did I rely heavily on the former when debating? No. But I have no problem with it. Additionally, I would generally agree that judges are too reticent to pull the trigger on theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm a big fan of the "normal means means plan gets rolled-back/doesn't happen" argument on a specification debate. This requires evidence. You say fiat, i say reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm.......so its genocide, unless it happens to be personally advantageous to you/you like the way its being used. Interesting standard

elliot gives me nightmares. and i suppose that you agree entirely with agamben's argument? i would have never guessed you to be a follower of messianic theory, elliot.

 

and i'd generally agree with sara. ankur's interpretation means that some pretty funky stuff would be legitimate and it would make it a lot easier to make intrinsic/severance permutations on things like any kind of disadvantage and/or counterplan that doesn't criticise the fundamental basis of the plan.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
elliot gives me nightmares. and i suppose that you agree entirely with agamben's argument? i would have never guessed you to be a follower of messianic theory, elliot.

its not about believing it. Its complete @#$@#$@#$. Its a great debate argument though, so what does that matter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
no kidding.

it doesnt justify genocide... but it uses the same logic... aka... i dont care as long as it doesnt affect me adversely. if you started losing to the disad all the time, i am sure your tune would change pretty damn quick.

 

and thats the brilliance of the irony in debate... its not until you lose, aka someone else wins, that you care, but then suddenly, the team that wins no longer does.

 

So beat the argument either on its merits, or on a theory flow. However until debate (d)evolves quite a bit, I'm thinking my perspective on this one would be a) the most useful, easiest to win in round. B) makes the most sense in context of what the resolution says and what debaters and judges generally perceive as accurate.

 

I understand where you are coming from re: the genocide argument, but using genocide in this sense is detrimental to the logic of your position, in my opinion. There are better, more appropriate analogies, this just makes it seem as though you need to bring in the ultimate big impact in order to win because you don't have other warrants as to why normal means=optimal means. It's unfortunate, because I've seen other posts from you on similar subjects, and I know that isn't the case.

 

 

the argument is still fundamentally flawed from a debate perspective, irrespective of its winning nature. perhaps it wins because aff's dont take theory as a serious route of attack which is a far stronger position than "pocket pass bad"

 

What is the fundamental flaw exactly? Debate has functionally become about whether plan should pass or not, correct? My argument is merely a reason your plan, as written is uniquely bad. You had all the time in the world to come up with it, just defend it. And surely, a person who wants to run Spratley's on every topic can't possibly find fault in the "plan should be the basis for the debate" argument.

 

Cam, thanks. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cam,

how so?

 

sara,

So beat the argument either on its merits, or on a theory flow. However until debate (d)evolves quite a bit, I'm thinking my perspective on this one would be a) the most useful, easiest to win in round. B) makes the most sense in context of what the resolution says and what debaters and judges generally perceive as accurate.

a) if i were a debater, i am sure i could beat it on its merits. but the better question is why should i be forced to debate something that shouldnt exist in the world of debat ein the first place?

B) why does talking about whether the XO does a plan or congress carries out the mandates matter when the question is "is the affirmative plan beneficial or detrimental?" the mechanism, implementation, enforcement, etc provide no positive or negative information to resolve the question. your obvious answer is the disad. but none of the actor disads are unique to the affirmative policy - they are only unique to the element of workability and lets face it. workability went the way of the dodo eons ago because it crushes debate.

c) again, why are you brining in what other people think as a justification for what you are arguing? its really nonfunctional.

 

I understand where you are coming from re: the genocide argument, but using genocide in this sense is detrimental to the logic of your position, in my opinion. There are better, more appropriate analogies, this just makes it seem as though you need to bring in the ultimate big impact in order to win because you don't have other warrants as to why normal means=optimal means. It's unfortunate, because I've seen other posts from you on similar subjects, and I know that isn't the case.

okay. there are people who stand by and watch girls get raped and do nothing about it because it doesnt affect them. oh, and there are people who are too busy to take ten seconds out of their day to help a little old woman across the road. is that better? the point is still the same.

you cant justify something that is incorrect simply because its the prevailing viewpoint. saying "oh but its the 'in' thing" doesnt mean a whole lot in the real world of argument theory. i simply chose genocide because its something we can all identify as a very similar comparison in logic although certainly not impact.

 

What is the fundamental flaw exactly? Debate has functionally become about whether plan should pass or not, correct? My argument is merely a reason your plan, as written is uniquely bad. You had all the time in the world to come up with it, just defend it. And surely, a person who wants to run Spratley's on every topic can't possibly find fault in the "plan should be the basis for the debate" argument.

no. debate is about whether the plan should exist. not pass. to claim passage is to claim a whole world of arguments which the affirmative can literally never satisfy in the topical world.

now we're talking. you see debate as being about the plan. i see it as being about the policy. reducing debate down to the plan level reduces debate down to the would/could/can question. and that is a question NO AFFIRMATIVE can ever satisify. its basically empirically proven. any limitation you establish saying "well your actors is important" is arbitrary. implentation is an all or nothing game. either the aff must specify (and defend) their actor(s) of implementation, enforcement, who signs it, how its passed, which department oversees the enforcement, how the SC rules on its constitutionality upon assumed challenges, how many days it takes to pass and what weight paper the law was printed on and whether it was eco friendly recycled paper or not. ANY differentiation between ALL of those things is illogical (although not impractical).

 

essentially, by you supporting having to force the aff to defend the plan in its entirety, you are supporting all of those ridiculous things. you cant duck out of all of those, and the aff can never satisfy all of those.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So beat the argument either on its merits, or on a theory flow. However until debate (d)evolves quite a bit, I'm thinking my perspective on this one would be a) the most useful, easiest to win in round. B) makes the most sense in context of what the resolution says and what debaters and judges generally perceive as accurate.

a) if i were a debater, i am sure i could beat it on its merits. but the better question is why should i be forced to debate something that shouldnt exist in the world of debat ein the first place?

 

Lots of things shouldn't exist in the world of debate, it doesn't mean we don't have to listen to them weekend in, weekend out. Additionally, the fact that I'll pull the trigger on anything, including theory, solves your offense on this. Everything is up for debate in round, so pick your grounds against it and go.

 

B) why does talking about whether the XO does a plan or congress carries out the mandates matter when the question is "is the affirmative plan beneficial or detrimental?" the mechanism, implementation, enforcement, etc provide no positive or negative information to resolve the question. your obvious answer is the disad. but none of the actor disads are unique to the affirmative policy - they are only unique to the element of workability and lets face it. workability went the way of the dodo eons ago because it crushes debate.

 

The affirmative has infinite prep time. They get to work their plan text to perfection, having an actor that is disadvantageous is something they should be held accountable for. Additionally, while I'd ideally prefer your interpretation of uniquness, that went the way of the Dodo a while back. The fact that the counterplan creates uniqueness for the DA is enough to answer this.

 

c) again, why are you brining in what other people think as a justification for what you are arguing? its really nonfunctional.

 

My argument isn't dependent on what others say. However, I will say that when I answer questions on cross-x the teacher in me feels it necessary to give the most advantageous answer possible. I don't want some kid in highschool X to run something random that I suggested and get worked on it...so I tend to back what is generally accepted in these parts unless I'm talking one on one to someone I know won't take the arguments the wrong way. It's the difference between what I would tell my Novice/JVers to do and what I'd work out with my varsity.

 

I understand where you are coming from re: the genocide argument, but using genocide in this sense is detrimental to the logic of your position, in my opinion. There are better, more appropriate analogies, this just makes it seem as though you need to bring in the ultimate big impact in order to win because you don't have other warrants as to why normal means=optimal means. It's unfortunate, because I've seen other posts from you on similar subjects, and I know that isn't the case.

okay. there are people who stand by and watch girls get raped and do nothing about it because it doesnt affect them. oh, and there are people who are too busy to take ten seconds out of their day to help a little old woman across the road. is that better? the point is still the same.

you cant justify something that is incorrect simply because its the prevailing viewpoint. saying "oh but its the 'in' thing" doesnt mean a whole lot in the real world of argument theory. i simply chose genocide because its something we can all identify as a very similar comparison in logic although certainly not impact.

 

I call bullshit on this. Look, it's a rhetorical device (and in my opinion an ineffective one) to envoke images that are well beyond the question at hand in order to tug heartstrings and win. In my opinion, that's ten times worse than my ad populum argument. There is no reason to compare my argument to rape or genocide. I'm talking about attacking a level of implementation in a highschool debate round, you're talking about actual damage to actual people on a level no one should ever experience. My counterplan won't cause genocide or rape, and to be frank, I find the comparison abhorrent.

 

What is the fundamental flaw exactly? Debate has functionally become about whether plan should pass or not, correct? My argument is merely a reason your plan, as written is uniquely bad. You had all the time in the world to come up with it, just defend it. And surely, a person who wants to run Spratley's on every topic can't possibly find fault in the "plan should be the basis for the debate" argument.

no. debate is about whether the plan should exist. not pass. to claim passage is to claim a whole world of arguments which the affirmative can literally never satisfy in the topical world.

now we're talking. you see debate as being about the plan. i see it as being about the policy. reducing debate down to the plan level reduces debate down to the would/could/can question. and that is a question NO AFFIRMATIVE can ever satisify. its basically empirically proven. any limitation you establish saying "well your actors is important" is arbitrary. implentation is an all or nothing game. either the aff must specify (and defend) their actor(s) of implementation, enforcement, who signs it, how its passed, which department oversees the enforcement, how the SC rules on its constitutionality upon assumed challenges, how many days it takes to pass and what weight paper the law was printed on and whether it was eco friendly recycled paper or not. ANY differentiation between ALL of those things is illogical (although not impractical).

 

essentially, by you supporting having to force the aff to defend the plan in its entirety, you are supporting all of those ridiculous things. you cant duck out of all of those, and the aff can never satisfy all of those.

 

Well, now we are talking. I agree with you to some degree. But in a world where A-Spec takes a bunch of ballots and people specify SCOTUS or Congress or whatever to make sure plan works, why shouldn't they be held accountable for that? I'd hold them accountable for any other part of their plan.

 

I can see the benefit of your interpretation, but I see no resolutional mandate for it. As such that becomes a theory question, that can certainly be raised on the CP/DA and I'll listen to it...but I see nothing in the res that specifies the "means" you have access to, optimal, normal, or otherwise. Unless optimal means is specified in plan text, I don't see why you would access it.

 

From the OED, 2005:

 

Normal: conforming to a standard, usual, typical, expected.

 

Optimal: Best or most favorable.

 

I don't understand why your interpretation wouldn't justify intrinsicness answers on disads that functionally moot any offense the neg could ever gain. The term "Expected" I believe has special relavence as it's the core of pre-round prep. Regardless of what it justifies, it's better for research and predictability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the overarching problem with Ankur's interpretation is that it is infinitely regressive into the elimination of any and all neg ground. If we are allowed to specify the "optimal conditions" in plan, then what exactly could stick? The 1NC is all about pointing out non-optimal conditions resultant from the plan.

Funding disad? Spec where the money comes from.

Politics? Spec optimal votes for the current political atmosphere.

Critiques? Spec the optimal ethics/discourse of passage.

Case turns? It takes more specific knowledge of the turn to say exactly what the spec would be, but we recently impact turned a speciesm bad aff with speciesm good because of dolphin mines - under your interpretation, they could spec that they won't stop speciesm in instances of anti-dolphin speciesm, because that's "optimal". Case turns can be specced out of as well.

Basically, any impacts the neg reads are non-optimal conditions. Allowing the aff to fiat optimal conditions solves all impacts.

The result is that there is nothing the neg can say.

 

Also, quick note on the genocide/rape justification thing - Ankur, you're putting words in her mouth. Sara never, ever said that she didn't care about things that don't affect her, she simply thinks that her interpretation affects everyone in a positive way. Also, even if the claim that Sara doesn't care if people get screwed in high school debate rounds is conceded, to extend that to say that she doesn't care about anything in the world ever that doesn't affect her, and therefore she doesn't care about rape and genocide, is to employ hyperbole for the sole purpose of generating pathos.

It is impossible to warrant why less-than-educational conditions for high school debaters is the same thing as committing an act of genocide.

And again, all of this assumes Sara just decides to concede for some reason your interpretation is better. If she doesn't, than there is not even a hint of a link to this genocide assertion.

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...

×
×
  • Create New...