Jump to content
jshepard

What "normal means" really means

Recommended Posts

The 1NC is all about pointing out non-optimal conditions resultant from the plan.

 

Funding disad? Spec where the money comes from.

 

O.k.

 

Politics? Spec optimal votes for the current political atmosphere.

 

O.k., check.

 

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.

 

Whoa, slow down hoss. Nobody argues you can fiat solvency (your dolphin example) or fiat away fundamental assumptions behind a proposal. I know it's a radical concept, but if the purpose of debate is to decide whether something is a good idea or not, the funding and politics disads do not address this question at all.

 

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa, slow down hoss.

 

Did you just call me hoss? What does that mean?

 

Nobody argues you can fiat solvency (your dolphin example) or fiat away fundamental assumptions behind a proposal.

 

Explain how the dolphins example is fiating solvency, because it's not. Their solvency comes from the evidence that says "Our plan reduces speciesm!" The thing is, the optimal way to go about reducing speciesm is to ignore speciesm in the case of anti-dolphin speciesm, my turn proves that. Therefore, Ankur's interpretation allows them to specify that they will not stop anti-dolphin speciesm. They don't fiat solvency, they fiat that they won't bite the impacts. Read the example more carefully.

 

As far as fiating away fundamental assumptions behind a proposal, I think from reading his posts that this is absolutely Ankur's interpretation, if those fundamental assumptions are not the "optimal" assumptions.

 

I know it's a radical concept, but if the purpose of debate is to decide whether something is a good idea or not,

 

Wow, thanks for telling me that. I always thought it was about showing off how pretty I am...

 

the funding and politics disads do not address this question at all.

 

Why the hell not? The funding disad says your plan would be expensive to maintain after it's passage, and that this would kill everyone (assuming the generic dabait nuclear war scenario). If keeping the plan in place kills everyone, it's pretty bad, right?

As far as politics goes, that argument is simply that the creation of the plan would kill everyone. If we have to kill everyone in order to create something good, then maybe it isn't so good after all...

 

I don't see why either of these would not prove the plan undesirable. I suspect Ankur will make the argument that fiat gets him past implementation concerns, which removes the politics disad from the equation, but does not address the post-plan cost, the spending disad link. There is no reason that something like finances should not be neg ground.

And personally, I don't even buy that fiat gets you past the actual politics of plan passage. I think fiat ensures that the plan will pass, but it's attitude fiat to assume everyone will be happy about it.

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.

An optimal means interpretation wouldn't allow the aff to sever plan text, only to specify how plan text was implemented in an optimal manner. So if you read an xo c/p with a pres powers net benefit I could say perm:do c/p, counterplan just implements the plan in an optimal way. However, if you read the anthro case turns in your example above, I believe the way t-ville's aff is written speciesm is the ADVANTAGE. They claim to decrease specieism in all forms by some specific policy. You then impact turned decreasing speciesm. they can't stand up in the 2AC and sever an advantage they read in the 1AC just because they specced optimal means because to do so they would have to sever part of plan text. (i.e. plan says we give monkeys human rights via optimal implementatioon, advantage is this decreases speciesm in all forms, to get out of your impact turn they would functionally have to sever 1AC solvency claims which I don't think anyone is defending.)

 

The problem with your argument is that you are fundamentally confusing the questions of implementation and solvency. Implementation questions are things like will the president do it? will the congress do it? will the DOD do it? Will the government do the plan secretly? (heh heh heh.) The bright line? LOOK to plan text. if my plan says:

 

Plan: The United States Federal Government should eliminate its authority to search for identification without probable cause. Plan implementation guarenteed through optimal means.

 

I have to defend an elimination of its (the usfg's) authority to search for identification without probable cause by the 'usfg.' (whatever the USFG is.) This gives you links to pretty much any k you want- agamben, statism, etc. all would still exist because you use the state. I've seen specific kritiks of probable cause as a guise for biopower, you'd still get those. Specific disads to stopping searches for identification would still link, i.e. terrorism. A reasonable suspicion counterplan would work because the plan texts specifies probable cause.

 

However if you run counterplan: do the plan secretly, the aff can say perm:do c/p, because PLAN TEXT never specified how plan would be implemented. If you read a politics disad to congressional action then they can say, no link: the supreme court is part of the usfg, optimal means would have the supreme court do it to avoid the da. Optimal means as such creates a brightline in which the affirmative only has to defend their plan text.

 

Note: if the aff read plan: The United States Supreme Court should rule that the United States Federal government does not have the authority to search for identification without probable cause, plan enforcement guarenteed through optimal means, then they would have to defend agent counterplans because they specified agent in the plan text. This disproves any infinite regression arguments because the affirmative still has to defend the ACTION of their plan.

 

Did you just call me hoss? What does that mean?

 

I think its a reference to bonaza, not sure. You kind of do look like hoss anyway. (except like 25 years younger, but w/e.)

 

 

Explain how the dolphins example is fiating solvency, because it's not. Their solvency comes from the evidence that says "Our plan reduces speciesm!" The thing is, the optimal way to go about reducing speciesm is to ignore speciesm in the case of anti-dolphin speciesm, my turn proves that. Therefore, Ankur's interpretation allows them to specify that they will not stop anti-dolphin speciesm. They don't fiat solvency, they fiat that they won't bite the impacts. Read the example more carefully.

 

As far as fiating away fundamental assumptions behind a proposal, I think from reading his posts that this is absolutely Ankur's interpretation, if those fundamental assumptions are not the "optimal" assumptions.

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.... this long sentance has been edited for vacuosity.

Ankur's interpretation clearly requires the affirmative to still defend their "policy itself", which probably implicitly means the plan text. Clearly a world where the aff can sever anything they say is bad, but I don't think that's what he's saying.

 

Regardless, my 'counter-interpretation' that you still have to defend plan text would check this back, they couldn't sever out of solvency claims that stem off an action they mandate in plan text.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why the hell not? The funding disad says your plan would be expensive to maintain after it's passage, and that this would kill everyone (assuming the generic dabait nuclear war scenario). If keeping the plan in place kills everyone, it's pretty bad, right?

As far as politics goes, that argument is simply that the creation of the plan would kill everyone. If we have to kill everyone in order to create something good, then maybe it isn't so good after all...

 

I don't see why either of these would not prove the plan undesirable. I suspect Ankur will make the argument that fiat gets him past implementation concerns, which removes the politics disad from the equation, but does not address the post-plan cost, the spending disad link. There is no reason that something like finances should not be neg ground.

And personally, I don't even buy that fiat gets you past the actual politics of plan passage. I think fiat ensures that the plan will pass, but it's attitude fiat to assume everyone will be happy about it.

 

The funding disad assumes an amount of money being spent to enforce/implement plan NOT SPECIFIED IN PLAN TEXT. Functionally you are putting words in the affirmative's mouth about how plan would be implemented, rather than attacking what they actually said, i.e. plan text.

 

I'm not saying you don't get any spending arguments: If you read evidence saying (in my above scenario) that repealing the federal governments authority to search for identification without probable cause would inevitable cost a billion dollars, then yes, you would have a link, because no matter how "optimal" plan implementation was, it would still cost a billion dollars to do the action the affirmative has to defend (i.e. their plan text.) Now if you read a "the government sucks and would waste a bunch of money on any policy it implements, plan costs a billion dollars" link I could spike out of that by saying plan would be implemented properly, and then read a card saying proper implementation costs 10 cents.

 

As per politics, if you don't allow attitude fiat then plans would never solve because everyone would wake up the next day and repeal the plan because inherency indicates they hate it. The aff would always lose on presumption. Hence "attitude fiat" (which is a theory argument you don't even impact by the way) is necessary to skipping over the issue of plan passage. As such the affirmative should have the right to "attitude fiat" the necessary senators/congressman etc. to pass plan to ensure solvency. If they can do that, why can't they attitude fiat all of them to vote for plan so as to avoid your rediculous politics DA?

 

In the end this debate comes down to a question of "is process debate good/bad?" This is ultimately up for debate, though I think we all know where I stand on this issue:

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

 

To clarify, I'm not literally saying that we should all run biopolitics every round, just that I prefer kritikal debates, or even straight up ones, to semantic process debates like secrecy. Sorry if I scared anyone with my sarcasm. I ran sox this year and I loved impact turning agamben every 2AC, I'm not saying agamben should be the only argument in debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you just call me hoss? What does that mean?

 

A Southern dialectal variant of "horse," which is to say, "You're attempting to draw implications far beyond the logical scope of Ankur's original formulation." It wasn't meant to be particularly insulting, and, yes, I first heard this on Bonanza. Despite having lived in Texas my entire life, I have, shockingly, no first-hand knowledge of horses or cowboys.

 

However, because I have "miles to go before I sleep" (in my case, a stack of essays to grade before tomorrow), I'll content myself with Essariel's response above mine (which is about what I would have said if I weren't being so lazy). I'm sure Ankur himself will also respond in time-- since he is very fond of getting in the last word.

 

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Elliot, you're missing an important point of this conversation, the problem isn't with specifying optimal means, I've already conceded that can be done. The problem is with an interpretation of normal means that defaults to optimal means. That alone solves most of your concerns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What Sara said combined with the fact that plan texts can be changed after the first tournament of the year depending on the neg strats solves pretty much everything you said.

Anything that isn't answered I will type out a response to later when I'm not in a class with my teacher staring suspiciously and checking over the top of my laptop every five seconds, forcing me to hide my web browser really fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Elliot, you're missing an important point of this conversation, the problem isn't with specifying optimal means, I've already conceded that can be done. The problem is with an interpretation of normal means that defaults to optimal means. That alone solves most of your concerns.

 

I interpreted ankur's statement that "normal means is optimal means" to be a normative rather than factual one, i.e. "the aff should say optimal means, not normal means." I agree it would be illegitimate to say "normal means is optimal means/avoids if such a statement was in the plan text.

 

Regardless, I wasn't responding to the issue of the meanings of normal means vs. optimal means, I was responding to chase's posts which said

 

If we are allowed to specify the "optimal conditions" in plan, then what exactly could stick?

 

Chase is clearly interpreting Ankur's argument the way I am, and thereby attacking a world in which the plan text says "we guarentee plan implementation through optimal means,"and explaining why that is bad. I was merely arguing against the assumption that saying optimal means in plan text would allow total aff severance/generally rediculously abusive affirmative strategies. My concern isn't with your arguments but rather with Chase's assertions that an optimal means interpretation would allow the affirmative to avoid any negative argument.

 

in other words, I'm not arguing with you, I'm pwning your sophmore,:P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Sara and I think the same thing on this, we talked about it quite a bit on Saturday.

If "normal means", the predictable method of plan passage, defaults to the 'optimal' method of plan passage with no evidence indicating that the optimal method would be normal/predictable in this specific instance, we take issue with that.

If you have specific evidence to your case that your legislation would normally be secret, then you can spec secrecy because it is more predictable.

Speccing secret passage on a case dealing with say, Sarbanes-Oxley business searches, simply because secret passage is 'optimal', is bad - it's not predictable, it's arbitrary, and here is where my infinite regression into no ground claims come into play (the neg would lose any/all predictable ground after one tournament, because there is obviously SOME condition that can prevent any unique impact, by the virtue of the fact it hasn't happened yet).

 

Perhaps I should have clarified my statement to read if we are allowed to specify optimal conditions with no evidence proving predictability, then what could stick?

 

As far as whether process debate is good or bad,

1). Come on, Elliot, I know you can find at least one reason why doing your plan publically is good

2). Who are you to talk... my team isn't the one that cut the 4-1-4 counterplan, Elliot... :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, Sara and I think the same thing on this, we talked about it quite a bit on Saturday.

If "normal means", the predictable method of plan passage, defaults to the 'optimal' method of plan passage with no evidence indicating that the optimal method would be normal/predictable in this specific instance, we take issue with that.

If you have specific evidence to your case that your legislation would normally be secret, then you can spec secrecy because it is more predictable.

Speccing secret passage on a case dealing with say, Sarbanes-Oxley business searches, simply because secret passage is 'optimal', is bad - it's not predictable, it's arbitrary, and here is where my infinite regression into no ground claims come into play (the neg would lose any/all predictable ground after one tournament, because there is obviously SOME condition that can prevent any unique impact, by the virtue of the fact it hasn't happened yet).

 

Perhaps I should have clarified my statement to read if we are allowed to specify optimal conditions with no evidence proving predictability, then what could stick?

 

As far as whether process debate is good or bad,

1). Come on, Elliot, I know you can find at least one reason why doing your plan publically is good

2). Who are you to talk... my team isn't the one that cut the 4-1-4 counterplan, Elliot... :P

 

so are you ok with an interpretation that allows the affirmative to say "enforcement guarenteed through optimal means" in plan text?

 

Also, I have sweet turns to that counterplan, but that's not relevant. The point is that allowing the negative to force the affirmative to defend something NOT in their plan text is uniquely abusive because there's no way to predict what mode of enforcement you'll make me defend. Literature checking abuse isn't sufficient because requiring the aff to research every possible interpretation of normal means, and then forcing them to both find defence of that and forcing them to find offensive arguments against all non-normal means ways of doing plan is simply an unfair explosion of research burden, and uniquely unpredictable because EVEN IF I can find a defence of normal means I'll never be able to predict the infinite number of non-normals means counterplans you'll run.

 

Also, your interpretation justifies not only forcing the affirmative to defend normal means but rather forcing the affirmative to tack on ANYTHING they want to the affirmative's plan text if they can prove that's better for negative ground. Once you stop allowing the affirmative to chose their advocacy via their plan text you open the floodgates to forcing the affirmative to defend "a certain and immediate implementation of plan" which is the logic that justifies HORRIBLY abusive consultation/delay counterplans. Under your interpretation the negative can do the plan 2 days from now with a politix net benefit. This moots the entirety of the 1AC and ensures the aff will always lose.

 

Moreover, normal means is in no way predictable. Simply because plans are often passed in a certain way doesn't make it "predictable" for the aff to defend that. the resolution is the only baseline for predictability in a round because its the only thing we know about before the round. Thereby, the affirmative should be held purely to the resolutionally and not arbitrary negative theory interpretations that serve only to decrease affirmative ground.

 

Finally, we didn't cut a 4-1-4 counterplan to my knoweldge. The only people I know who have one of those is Lone Peak, and believe me, my 2AC verses that would be theory and perm:do the c/p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez, I leave for a few days and all hell breaks lose and the entire posse from one school jumps on the bandwagon too... well... its the end of the semester and I have more papers to do than I have days left in the semester... so alas, I promise to return later... but i will say the following because its being misconstrued horribly....

 

 

Chase,

My position doesnt allow the fiatting of solvency. It allows the fiatting of the subset of solvency known as workability because workability calls into questions which go beyond the element of policymaking and into the world of policy implementation - the latter is functionally impossible for the affirmative to satisfy within the timespan of a single debate round let alone a tournament.

That being said, agent, et al are all part of workability (funding, is not however). First off, the negative doesnt have rights to those arguments in the first place, and therefore the loss of those arguments is really trivial. Second, those arguments are illegitimate arguments because none of those adversely effect the value of the policy - only the value of the manner in which a policy is passed.

I have written a lot of theory on arguments linked through plan passage. Look them up. You might find it interesting. If you want to read the original paper I wrote eons ago, email me and I will try and dig it up for you at some point...

 

 

but for now i must go. my paper i am currently writing is called:

TRIFLUOROACETIC ACID CATALYZED AROMATIC ORTHO-BROMINATION OF

3,4,5- TRIMETHOXYBENZALDEHYDE USING N-BROMOSUCCINIMIDE AND SUBSEQUENT ULLMANN COUPLING DIMERIZATION TO RACEMIC 4,4’,5,5’,6,6’-HEXAMETHOXY-1,1’-BIPHENYL-2,2’-CARBALDEHYDE

 

so yes. i have work to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol. You're paper sounds thrilling...*says the very non-sciency-person in the back*

 

I am curious though, what is the logic for funding being separate? Take your time and answer whenever, just struck me as interesting. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, your interpretation justifies not only forcing the affirmative to defend normal means but rather forcing the affirmative to tack on ANYTHING they want to the affirmative's plan text if they can prove that's better for negative ground. Once you stop allowing the affirmative to chose their advocacy via their plan text you open the floodgates to forcing the affirmative to defend "a certain and immediate implementation of plan" which is the logic that justifies HORRIBLY abusive consultation/delay counterplans. Under your interpretation the negative can do the plan 2 days from now with a politix net benefit. This moots the entirety of the 1AC and ensures the aff will always lose.

 

Moreover, normal means is in no way predictable. Simply because plans are often passed in a certain way doesn't make it "predictable" for the aff to defend that. the resolution is the only baseline for predictability in a round because its the only thing we know about before the round. Thereby, the affirmative should be held purely to the resolutionally and not arbitrary negative theory interpretations that serve only to decrease affirmative ground.

 

You do realize that ALL of these arguments (sans the 2 day C/P) apply to your beloved Agamben, right? I mean, come on Elliot. Don't even attempt to tell me that your arbitrary framework alone justifies you getting away with such ridiculousness because your author is a philosopher, right?

 

Just a random thought I had this morning. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You do realize that ALL of these arguments (sans the 2 day C/P) apply to your beloved Agamben, right? I mean, come on Elliot. Don't even attempt to tell me that your arbitrary framework alone justifies you getting away with such ridiculousness because your author is a philosopher, right?

 

Just a random thought I had this morning. ;)

 

1. My kritik allows the affirmative to choose their advocacy, but allows the negative to choose the framework. This is entirely different than forcing the affirmative to defend an advocacy staked out by the negative. This interpretation is reciporical because it allows the affirmative to choose one part of the debate and the negative the other.

 

2. My framework is based upon the resolutional word "should.' My framework evidence is indicative that the only way to answer this question is by evaluating ontology first, which means my framework/kritik is resolutionally based whereas your counterplan is not.

 

3. Even if my framework is arbitrary it still doesn't force the affirmative to defend anything they didn't stake our in their speech, meaning process counterplans are always worse.

 

4. Your type of counterplan is only justified by the logic of the "best policy option"/best policy education. My framework/kritik specifically indicts this type of logic.

 

5. You don't actually provide a warrant for your argument, its just an arbitrary assertion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol. You're paper sounds thrilling...*says the very non-sciency-person in the back*

 

I am curious though, what is the logic for funding being separate? Take your time and answer whenever, just struck me as interesting. ;)

 

 

well, its not so much funding as it is something like a budget disad. you dont need to spec the source of funding because that falls into the world of workability. the argument "you dont have money" is illegitimate. the argument "the money required to DO the plan has a tradeoff or crushes the budget" IS legitimate. the difference is subtle but important. the first is a question of workability which no affirmative can ever satisfy. the second is a question regarding the value of the policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
well, its not so much funding as it is something like a budget disad. you dont need to spec the source of funding because that falls into the world of workability. the argument "you dont have money" is illegitimate. the argument "the money required to DO the plan has a tradeoff or crushes the budget" IS legitimate. the difference is subtle but important. the first is a question of workability which no affirmative can ever satisfy. the second is a question regarding the value of the policy.

 

Wait--so why isn't my answer that the political capital required to do the plan trades off with other policies on the docket, argument legitimate? Or is this a case where you're arguing that the NB to the counterplan (p-tix, whatever) is legitimate, but a topical counterplan to solve it isn't? And my follow-up, if it's conceded by the Aff in cross-x (or speced in plan text, not the smartest, but done all the time) that they use normal means to pass plan, and I have evidence on what normal means is, shouldn't any ground outside of normal means be mine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

okay, so i caught a few minutes during a break to type a bit here...

====================

 

 

it is important to recognize that there is a very large and important difference between saying :

 

doing the plan is bad

and

passing the plan is bad.

 

because in the world of debate, political capital is not necessary to DO the plan - its only necessary to PASS a plan. the disad is an implication to the enactment of a policy and not related to the actual application of it. this obviously doesnt exclude ALL politics disads. but it does cover the vast majority of disads like political capital, actor bad, etc.

 

and the notion of enactment is part of the workability bridge which encompasses all things which the affirmative can never truly account for - like "how do you know the senate will approve the plan?" expanding debate to include arguments over plan passage is very bad for debate as a whole by crushing the affirmative's ability to answer the questions posed by the negative. supporting plan passage arguments (like the politics disad you mentioned) is akin to supporting the line of questioning above.

 

and this brings me full circle on the "what do you justify" i.e. the genocide, rape, elderly street-crossing examples. its not that you advocate those things - you clearly do not. but the logic of your argument supports those things and that much is unquestionable. and the argument i make on this isnt that you are advocating them, its that there is no reason to prefer an artificial limitation based on intensity of implication (i.e. genocide versus competitiveness in debate). you either eliminate the entire class of arguments based on identical logic, or you eliminate none. the only time you can eliminate selective arguments is if you can justify why they deviate from the class of arguments and reclassify them on the basis of different logic.

 

so as it applies to this discussion, supporting arguments on the specification of normal means justifies the ludicrous example i posed before. and that example is just a taste of the insanity your logic supports. it is clearly obvious that an aff running ban patriot act is NOT prepared to defend their policy against a "save the homeless" counterplan.

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...