Jump to content
Shocking

CP as the alternative to a K

Recommended Posts

lol.

 

Doing nothing is not 'support the squo'

I have a team this year running a K where the alt is to vote neg on presumption. If you think about it, there is more sense to that than to say "our plan is to do nothing!" unless you're K is straight up nihilism. If winning the K leaves behind no way to accept the 1ac proposal, (which must be true for your "do nothing" cp) then there is no reason for there to be an alternative, as the affirmative has nothing with which to fulfill their primary burden of upholding the res. The "vote neg on presumption" alt is just a way of capturing judges' who feel like a K needs an alt. (something I used to believe)

 

And voting on presumption is not about supporting the squo but about not accepting a flawed policy proposal. (Just as true if you ask for a presumption ballot in an inherency debate, btw)

Edited by brorlob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And voting on presumption is not about supporting the squo but about not accepting a flawed policy proposal. (Just as true if you ask for a presumption ballot in an inherency debate, btw)

 

It's a matter of semantics at that point, because we can't just say a policy action is bad in a vacuum; it has to be compared to some other "world," i.e. the status quo. Therefore rejecting the affirmative on presumption is equivalent to upholding the status quo (because you're saying the status quo is better than the world of the affirmative, you're not just saying the world of the affirmative is bad).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's a matter of semantics at that point, because we can't just say a policy action is bad in a vacuum; it has to be compared to some other "world," i.e. the status quo. Therefore rejecting the affirmative on presumption is equivalent to upholding the status quo (because you're saying the status quo is better than the world of the affirmative, you're not just saying the world of the affirmative is bad).
You're still approaching it like a policy debater. Come on over to the dark side.

 

It's not about whether the neg offers a policy position, but whether affirmative's proposal was acceptable when considered in the light of the critical debate. If the affirmative proposal is based on flawed reasoning at its very core, then it cannot be a prima facie proof of anything, and affirmative has failed to meet its primary burden. Vote neg on presumption. If your K cannot reduce the 1ac to a pile of festering sewage, you'll need a more nuanced alt, and probably will want to frame the debate in terms of offense/defense. But if your K is a fundamental attack on an entire methodology and worldview which you can demonstrably show the aff to have endorsed with their framing of the problem in 1ac, then you can use the more absolute nature of the presumption/burden framework to your advantage. And if you're clever, and use the force, you can trick your opponents into accepting it during the CX of the 1ac.

 

There may be judges unwilling to accept arguments framed outside the offense/defense model they have come to know and love. There's a name for judges like that, and it rhymes with un-shmalified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're still approaching it like a policy debater. Come on over to the dark side.

 

It's not about whether the neg offers a policy position, but whether affirmative's proposal was acceptable when considered in the light of the critical debate. If the affirmative proposal is based on flawed reasoning at its very core, then it cannot be a prima facie proof of anything, and affirmative has failed to meet its primary burden. Vote neg on presumption. If your K cannot reduce the 1ac to a pile of festering sewage, you'll need a more nuanced alt, and probably will want to frame the debate in terms of offense/defense. But if your K is a fundamental attack on an entire methodology and worldview which you can demonstrably show the aff to have endorsed with their framing of the problem in 1ac, then you can use the more absolute nature of the presumption/burden framework to your advantage. And if you're clever, and use the force, you can trick your opponents into accepting it during the CX of the 1ac.

 

There may be judges unwilling to accept arguments framed outside the offense/defense model they have come to know and love. There's a name for judges like that, and it rhymes with un-shmalified.

 

Sure, but my point is that the whole concept of "presumption" is based in a policy framework. If we are evaluating the affirmative's plan as a policy action, then we compare it to the status quo and determine which is better through a cost-benefit analysis. If, however, we view the plan through the lens of a critique of methodology, then we are no longer evaluating either the status quo or the world of the plan, but rather the specific way the affirmative is approaching the debate. But at that point, you can't reasonably be said to be advocating the status quo, because you're advocating a particular worldview or principle (or rejecting one, as is more often the case). I'm not sure what the "standard" interpretation of presumption is, if the neg advocates a critique alternative, but at any rate, it doesn't matter for this argument, because on a theoretical level, it is contradictory to advocate both the status quo and the alternative, because the former probably advocates the same reasoning that the affirmative does, just to a lesser extent. The whole point of a critique framework is that you're leaving the policymaker framework, so you can't just claim the status quo as an advocacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, presumption is based on a policy framework; it's a theoretical construct so old that K's weren't even around when it was a default. That doesn't mean that it's only potential application is within a policy framework. Presumption is simply the preference to give a negative ballot absent the affirmative proving the proposition. Whether the aff attempts to prove the resolution by plan, kritikal aff, or project is irrelevant so long as the resolution can be argued to have been proven by the 1ac.

 

Another way of viewing it is just to consider the burden of proof. The team presenting the argument has the burden to prove it (as true of the 1nc K as of the case). Different forms of affs would have significantly different burdens, but they all have some. In any case, if negative shows that the proof was insufficient, the neg should win (in a presumption/burden framework). Because many K's deal with the how we understand and know the world at such a fundamental level, the benefits of trying to incorporate presumption into these Ks should be obvious. (assuming you have a judge that will understand the theory)

 

In any case: "do nothing" isn't a counterplan; it's the squo so you should ask for presumption if your K is powerful enough that doing nothing beats the plan. "Reject the affirmative" might be argued as a CP. In point of fact, "do nothing" is the opposite of a plan (counter, or any other kind).

 

And neg's advocacy can be the K as a whole. "We advocate approaching the problem of poverty from X perspective."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sure, presumption is based on a policy framework; it's a theoretical construct so old that K's weren't even around when it was a default. That doesn't mean that it's only potential application is within a policy framework. Presumption is simply the preference to give a negative ballot absent the affirmative proving the proposition. Whether the aff attempts to prove the resolution by plan, kritikal aff, or project is irrelevant so long as the resolution can be argued to have been proven by the 1ac.

 

Another way of viewing it is just to consider the burden of proof. The team presenting the argument has the burden to prove it (as true of the 1nc K as of the case). Different forms of affs would have significantly different burdens, but they all have some. In any case, if negative shows that the proof was insufficient, the neg should win (in a presumption/burden framework). Because many K's deal with the how we understand and know the world at such a fundamental level, the benefits of trying to incorporate presumption into these Ks should be obvious. (assuming you have a judge that will understand the theory)

 

In any case: "do nothing" isn't a counterplan; it's the squo so you should ask for presumption if your K is powerful enough that doing nothing beats the plan. "Reject the affirmative" might be argued as a CP. In point of fact, "do nothing" is the opposite of a plan (counter, or any other kind).

 

And neg's advocacy can be the K as a whole. "We advocate approaching the problem of poverty from X perspective."

 

The way I understood presumption is that it was originally based on the idea of the "hidden disad," i.e. that if the aff can prove no tangible benefits or costs to their plan over the status quo, then we should reject the aff because there's some infinitesimal risk that an unforeseen impact will occur, which obviously isn't inherent to the status quo. Presumption isn't the idea that because the aff is trying to change the status quo, they have a burden to prove their plan is better than it; that fails, because the negative also has a burden to prove that the resolution is false (in other words, negating is not the same as proving the aff's plan doesn't work). So presumption, under this interpretation, cannot be integrated into a critique framework, because those types of adverse policy effects are not what are germaine to the principles of the critique argument. If it were the case that it's the aff's burden to prove the resolution true and the neg's burden to prove the aff wrong, then I'd see your point. But that's not the case - the neg's burden is to prove the resolution false, and presumption is simply a way for there to be a winner of an otherwise drawn debate, it's not a statement about the nature of policy debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The way I understood presumption is that it was originally based on the idea of the "hidden disad," i.e. that if the aff can prove no tangible benefits or costs to their plan over the status quo, then we should reject the aff because there's some infinitesimal risk that an unforeseen impact will occur, which obviously isn't inherent to the status quo.

No, although people propose the 'unintended consequences'/butterfly effect idea as a reason to maintain the status quo, that doesn't withstand logical examination. If we can't even see the consequence, we can't know whether it will be a good or bad thing. The butterfly effect coud just as easily be perpetual world peace as it could be armaggedon. Unless, I suppose you could say that entropy means a more disorded world will result from the change more often... but that's really a misapplication of the entropy law anyway.

 

Presumption isn't the idea that because the aff is trying to change the status quo, they have a burden to prove their plan is better than it;

You lie!

Seriously, that is exactly what presumption is. Or, maybe slightly less specific, the aff has to prove the plan is a good idea, rather than just show a chance for it to be a good idea. Generally that means "good compared to what? oh, well, not doing the plan" ie status quo.

 

the negative also has a burden to prove that the resolution is false (in other words, negating is not the same as proving the aff's plan doesn't work).

No, there is no negative burden about the debate as a whole. The affirmative has burdens, not the negative. The clear demonstration of this is that topicality is an aff burden. Winning on T doesn't mean the negative disproved the resolution, so clearly the neg isn't meeting any such burden, it only means that the aff failed to meet its burden.

 

So presumption, under this interpretation, cannot be integrated into a critique framework, because those types of adverse policy effects are not what are germaine to the principles of the critique argument.

No. The aff has to prove their plan is a good idea. If the neg shows their reasoning from square 1 onward is flawed, clearly they can't prove anything with that reasoning, so vote neg on presumption.

 

the neg's burden is to prove the resolution false,

Again, that's simply not true. The neg doesn't have any burdens at all. If the aff never talks, the neg needn't say anything.

 

and presumption is simply a way for there to be a winner of an otherwise drawn debate, it's not a statement about the nature of policy debate.

Presumption doesn't just decide draws. It means that if the aff isn't ahead by enough to make the advantages of plan certain, the neg wins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of what you said boils down to the idea that the aff has a positive burden and the neg does not (aff has to prove the resolution, neg only has to disprove the aff), so I'll address that. This simply does not make sense, on a fundamental level. Consider this: why does a specific aff plan affirm the resolution as a general statement? Most people accept that if the resolution is "The USFG should increase public health assistance to Africa," and the aff plan is "The USFG should send free condoms over there," the aff is affirming the resolution. But in reality, that is not the case - the aff is only proving one instance of the resolution true (at least, if we view the resolution as a truth statement). Yet we, as a community, have developed the standard that a specific policy action, if proven to be net beneficial, is a justification for the resolution in its entirety. Indeed, this is what separates this activity from LD, because in LD you are required to prove the resolution true as a whole. So we must consider the neg's job from this lens. Yet in making this assumption, we recognize that the aff is only supporting one particular policy action. Therefore, the only logical way to keep things balanced is if the neg gets the same option - if the neg can prove that the aff plan is not beneficial, then we take that one instance of negation of the resolution as a reason to vote for the neg team. The aff is aiming to prove that the resolution is true, through the use of one representative policy option (I'm sure you'd agree with that), and so the neg must be aiming to prove that the resolution is false, by showing that one example of the resolution is flawed and actually hurts us, and therefore should not be done. Under your interpretation, though, the neg and aff have completely inconsistent objectives, because the neg no longer has to disprove the resolution, but only show that the aff hasn't proved his point. In reality, these two things are generally coterminal in terms of what types of argumentation they encourage, but the theoretical distinction is important with regards to the debate at hand. The reason is then obvious: if the aff and the neg have equal burdens, then presumption can only be a way of breaking a tie. Under your interpretation, only the aff has a positive burden in terms of the resolution, and that just strikes me as unfair and not really what debate should be about.

 

At any rate, even if you disagree with everything I just said, there's an easy way to see why your evaluation of presumption is incorrect: the "standard" interpretation of presumption is that if the neg runs a CP and goes for it in the 2NR, then the aff holds presumption at that point. There is no way that can make sense under your interpretation, because you literally said:

 

Presumption doesn't just decide draws. It means that if the aff isn't ahead by enough to make the advantages of plan certain, the neg wins.

 

If both teams are in a draw in terms of the argumentation, then under your interpretation the aff would have to lose, because regardless of the neg's CP, they haven't proved that the advantages of plan are certain. Yet this is not what presumption is, and therefore you cannot be correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most of what you said boils down to the idea that the aff has a positive burden and the neg does not (aff has to prove the resolution, neg only has to disprove the aff), so I'll address that. This simply does not make sense, on a fundamental level. Consider this: why does a specific aff plan affirm the resolution as a general statement? Most people accept that if the resolution is "The USFG should increase public health assistance to Africa," and the aff plan is "The USFG should send free condoms over there," the aff is affirming the resolution. But in reality, that is not the case - the aff is only proving one instance of the resolution true (at least, if we view the resolution as a truth statement). Yet we, as a community, have developed the standard that a specific policy action, if proven to be net beneficial, is a justification for the resolution in its entirety. Indeed, this is what separates this activity from LD, because in LD you are required to prove the resolution true as a whole. So we must consider the neg's job from this lens. Yet in making this assumption, we recognize that the aff is only supporting one particular policy action. Therefore, the only logical way to keep things balanced is if the neg gets the same option - if the neg can prove that the aff plan is not beneficial, then we take that one instance of negation of the resolution as a reason to vote for the neg team. The aff is aiming to prove that the resolution is true, through the use of one representative policy option (I'm sure you'd agree with that), and so the neg must be aiming to prove that the resolution is false, by showing that one example of the resolution is flawed and actually hurts us, and therefore should not be done. Under your interpretation, though, the neg and aff have completely inconsistent objectives, because the neg no longer has to disprove the resolution, but only show that the aff hasn't proved his point. In reality, these two things are generally coterminal in terms of what types of argumentation they encourage, but the theoretical distinction is important with regards to the debate at hand. The reason is then obvious: if the aff and the neg have equal burdens, then presumption can only be a way of breaking a tie. Under your interpretation, only the aff has a positive burden in terms of the resolution, and that just strikes me as unfair and not really what debate should be about.

 

At any rate, even if you disagree with everything I just said, there's an easy way to see why your evaluation of presumption is incorrect: the "standard" interpretation of presumption is that if the neg runs a CP and goes for it in the 2NR, then the aff holds presumption at that point. There is no way that can make sense under your interpretation, because you literally said:

 

 

 

If both teams are in a draw in terms of the argumentation, then under your interpretation the aff would have to lose, because regardless of the neg's CP, they haven't proved that the advantages of plan are certain. Yet this is not what presumption is, and therefore you cannot be correct.

Agreed, the difference between the two perspectives is generally trivial because the arguments each team needs to make are the same for both conceptions of presumption. You're saying "Aff has burdens, neg burden to is demonstrate the opposite, and if neither proves anything, vote neg." I'm saying "Aff has burdens, neg just prevents aff from fulfilling them, and if neg is successful, vote neg." So in all instances, for both understandings of presumption, if the aff proves stuff, the ballot goes aff, and if the aff doesn't prove stuff or gets disproved, the ballot goes neg.

From a minimalist perspective, mine is preferable because it doesn't need a separate principle to explain how a tie works. But pragmatically I doubt there's a difference.

 

As far as your definitive test:

I don't see how your understanding of presumption intrinsically accounts for the shift in the case of a CP either.

In the understanding I'm familiar with and advocate, the neg gets presumption to counter-balance its having to defend the status quo when the aff gets to choose what world it will defend, so when the neg picks its own advocacy as well, presumption shifts.

The kritik alternative easily integrates into this understanding, which is an advantage to my interpretation of presumption.

 

Also, you don't respond to my argument that negative wins on topicality prove the negative doesn't have a specific burden vis-a-vis the resolution. If the negative has a burden to disprove the rez, then going for T is definitionally a weaker strategy than going for substance, because the negative is claiming that the round is a draw (they aren't trying to disprove the rez when they go for T). That's not true though - the neg isn't abandoning its own burdens when it goes for T. Because the neg doesn't have burdens, other than to prevent the aff from fulfilling its burdens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed, the difference between the two perspectives is generally trivial because the arguments each team needs to make are the same for both conceptions of presumption. You're saying "Aff has burdens, neg burden to is demonstrate the opposite, and if neither proves anything, vote neg." I'm saying "Aff has burdens, neg just prevents aff from fulfilling them, and if neg is successful, vote neg." So in all instances, for both understandings of presumption, if the aff proves stuff, the ballot goes aff, and if the aff doesn't prove stuff or gets disproved, the ballot goes neg.

From a minimalist perspective, mine is preferable because it doesn't need a separate principle to explain how a tie works. But pragmatically I doubt there's a difference.

 

Well, as should be clear, the difference is in how we understand presumption, which by most accounts shouldn't be a huge issue because real debates are very rarely ties, but it's still a theoretical issue of at least some significance.

 

As far as your definitive test:

I don't see how your understanding of presumption intrinsically accounts for the shift in the case of a CP either.

 

My understanding doesn't inherently conflict with that shift, which is all that matters. At its core, presumption is an arbitrary principle that is necessary to resolve a drawn debate, so it can't be "predicted" by any theory about debate. However, the fact that it conflicts with your interpretation is a fatal flaw.

 

In the understanding I'm familiar with and advocate, the neg gets presumption to counter-balance its having to defend the status quo when the aff gets to choose what world it will defend, so when the neg picks its own advocacy as well, presumption shifts.

 

It doesn't really matter why presumption shifts, because the shift still contradicts your thesis that presumption exists as a measure against the aff not fulfilling its burden. The fact that the neg shifted its advocacy doesn't alter whether the aff has proved that the plan is better than the status quo.

 

The kritik alternative easily integrates into this understanding, which is an advantage to my interpretation of presumption.

 

This is a case where the two theories are coterminal as I said - the idea of the critique fits just as well into my interpretation, because in either case the neg is just using an alternative framework to prove the resolution bad (with a normal disad, the neg is using a utilitarian framework, and with a critique, it's essentially just a disad to the aff's discourse, and we say that good discourse is what allows an aff ballot).

 

Also, you don't respond to my argument that negative wins on topicality prove the negative doesn't have a specific burden vis-a-vis the resolution. If the negative has a burden to disprove the rez, then going for T is definitionally a weaker strategy than going for substance, because the negative is claiming that the round is a draw (they aren't trying to disprove the rez when they go for T). That's not true though - the neg isn't abandoning its own burdens when it goes for T. Because the neg doesn't have burdens, other than to prevent the aff from fulfilling its burdens.

 

Topicality is yet another instance where we would both agree in the first place, and has no relation to the distinction between our theories. This is because we both agree it is the neg's job to defeat the aff (the only difference is that you feel that this is the end in itself, whereas I see it simply as a means to the end of proving the resolution untrue). If the neg can prove that the aff was never proving the resolution true in the first place, then the neg has done all it needs to do to earn a neg ballot. In fact, if anything, topicality makes less sense on your side, because you have to show why being untopical is inherently bad in the first place (to me, it seems the only offense you can garner would be abuse).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, as should be clear, the difference is in how we understand presumption, which by most accounts shouldn't be a huge issue because real debates are very rarely ties, but it's still a theoretical issue of at least some significance.

Yea, exactly.

 

 

My understanding doesn't inherently conflict with that shift, which is all that matters. At its core, presumption is an arbitrary principle that is necessary to resolve a drawn debate, so it can't be "predicted" by any theory about debate. However, the fact that it conflicts with your interpretation is a fatal flaw.

Your understanding just says "presumption means that the negative wins in case of a tie", which doesn't account for the shift.

Mine assumes a basis for presumption theory, that it counterbalances the aff's ability to choose a world it will defend while neg gets stuck with the status quo, and that basis does account for the shift in presumption. You don't seem to have answered this argument, just impacted your original claim.

 

 

It doesn't really matter why presumption shifts, because the shift still contradicts your thesis that presumption exists as a measure against the aff not fulfilling its burden. The fact that the neg shifted its advocacy doesn't alter whether the aff has proved that the plan is better than the status quo.

Again, there is a reason that presumption is what it is. And that reason explains the shift in presumption.

If you'll accept a math analogy, your attack on me about shift in presumption is like me saying "The pythagorean theorem is useful." You then say "No, it only works for right triangles, so it's very limited in application." And then I say "Well it's a specialized form of the law of cosines, and that works for triangles with any internal distribution of angles." And then you say "Pythagorean theorem only works for right triangles, so it has very limited utility, and things with limited utility aren't very useful." You've ignored that my idea is part of a larger structure which does account for your complaint.

 

This is a case where the two theories are coterminal as I said - the idea of the critique fits just as well into my interpretation, because in either case the neg is just using an alternative framework to prove the resolution bad (with a normal disad, the neg is using a utilitarian framework, and with a critique, it's essentially just a disad to the aff's discourse, and we say that good discourse is what allows an aff ballot).

Yea you're right. IDK why I made an advantage claim about this. Sorry about that.

 

Topicality is yet another instance where we would both agree in the first place, and has no relation to the distinction between our theories. This is because we both agree it is the neg's job to defeat the aff (the only difference is that you feel that this is the end in itself, whereas I see it simply as a means to the end of proving the resolution untrue). If the neg can prove that the aff was never proving the resolution true in the first place, then the neg has done all it needs to do to earn a neg ballot. In fact, if anything, topicality makes less sense on your side, because you have to show why being untopical is inherently bad in the first place (to me, it seems the only offense you can garner would be abuse).

No, one of us is missing the point - either you are missing my point (which I will articulate again more fully), or I am missing some aspect of your understanding of neg burden, which you can articulate more fully to show me the error of my ways.

I agree that the negative would win in either of our frames if they prove the aff untopical. However, if the neg has to disprove the resolution, substantive argument is required in order to fulfill this burden. Thus, showing that the aff hasn't talked about the resolution is not a fulfillment of the negative burden, because that 2nr relies only on theoretical argumentation. So topicality in your framework is always an appeal to presumption - neg says 'I know we haven't fulfilled our burden to disprove the rez, sorry 'bout that, but the aff hasn't fulfilled its burdens either, so its a tie. And we win in case of a tie.'

 

Not sure where this abuse argument comes from. In my frame as in your frame, the aff has a burden to defend a policy that is an example of the resolution, so being untopical is a "prima facie VI".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your understanding just says "presumption means that the negative wins in case of a tie", which doesn't account for the shift.

Mine assumes a basis for presumption theory, that it counterbalances the aff's ability to choose a world it will defend while neg gets stuck with the status quo, and that basis does account for the shift in presumption. You don't seem to have answered this argument, just impacted your original claim.

 

I didn't initially start it as simply an arbitrary rule; I gave you what I was taught was the reasoning for presumption, that idea of the "hidden disad," but a moment's thought should lead any reasonable observer to conclude that it's really just a way of breaking a tie, although this is not to say it's an illogical one. It makes sense to the extent that the only way that we "know" the aff is a good thing is based on the arguments the aff makes in round, and if the aff cannot prove within the round that they are doing a good thing, then we should stick with the world whose risks and harms we actually know, as opposed to jumping into a new unknown world (without some proven benefit to doing so). The point is, though, that what you or I think presumption ought to be about, is very much irrelevant. The only goal in this argumentation is to come up with a description of presumption that can completely explain it, because we could then extend it to answer questions such as the one raised in the original post.

 

The crux of my argument is that your theory cannot logically explain the shift in presumption with a counterplan. Your argument is that presumption exists as a way for neg teams to counterbalance the aff's advantage that they can pick any world they like, as long as it's resolutional. However, you then argue that the neg running a counterplan shifts presumption. Presumably you say this because the neg is no longer "stuck with" defending the status quo, so they no longer need that counterbalancing mechanism. This is internally inconsistent for two reasons. The first is that it doesn't explain why the aff should then retain presumption after that occurs - both teams got to choose their own world, so why should aff then get the advantage of presumption? At least in my theory, I recognize that presumption is simply a tiebreaker and doesn't need to have a justification. The second is that counterplans are effectively an advocacy of the status quo - a counterplan itself is a reason not to do the plan, in that the neg has shown (if they win) that the opportunity cost of doing the plan outweighs the actual benefits of the plan. If the neg wins, we do revert to the status quo, obviously. Thus a counterplan is simply a negative advocacy which can cleverly show that the aff plan is not worth doing. As a result, I don't see why presumption should shift (in your theory) because of the neg running a counterplan, because the negative is just using another method to show that the status quo is better than the plan. Of course, this is another debate entirely, and probably one for another thread, so if you disagree, just say so and we can move on instead of spamming this thread.

 

 

 

 

No, one of us is missing the point - either you are missing my point (which I will articulate again more fully), or I am missing some aspect of your understanding of neg burden, which you can articulate more fully to show me the error of my ways.

I agree that the negative would win in either of our frames if they prove the aff untopical. However, if the neg has to disprove the resolution, substantive argument is required in order to fulfill this burden. Thus, showing that the aff hasn't talked about the resolution is not a fulfillment of the negative burden, because that 2nr relies only on theoretical argumentation. So topicality in your framework is always an appeal to presumption - neg says 'I know we haven't fulfilled our burden to disprove the rez, sorry 'bout that, but the aff hasn't fulfilled its burdens either, so its a tie. And we win in case of a tie.'

 

I think you might have misunderstood my point - as I said earlier, the argumentation is coterminal in nearly every instance. I believe that the neg defeating the aff is sufficient to earn them the ballot. The only difference between my interpretation and yours is that the reason the neg has won the round isn't because they "defeated the aff," it was because defeating the aff was their way of disproving the resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no burden on the neg to do such a thing.

 

The great thing about debate is that we can use warranted arguments instead of unjustified claims. I have established the claim that there is, indeed, a burden on the neg to do such a thing. I have given several supporting reasons why this should be so. You have failed to justify your claim, and so it is not a compelling reason why I should change my point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The great thing about debate is that we can use warranted arguments instead of unjustified claims. I have established the claim that there is, indeed, a burden on the neg to do such a thing. I have given several supporting reasons why this should be so. You have failed to justify your claim, and so it is not a compelling reason why I should change my point of view.
It's not possible for both sides to enter the debate with burdens (outside the burden of rejoinder), unless the judge can give double losses. Give me that right as a judge, (and I'll do it in probably 1/10 of rounds) and I will accept that you might have a model that makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not possible for both sides to enter the debate with burdens (outside the burden of rejoinder), unless the judge can give double losses. Give me that right as a judge, (and I'll do it in probably 1/10 of rounds) and I will accept that you might have a model that makes sense.

 

Have you missed the entirety of the debate? My entire point was that both sides can have a burden, and then at that point presumption is the principle that allows us to make a decision when neither side has fulfilled their burden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Of course, this is another debate entirely, and probably one for another thread, so if you disagree, just say so and we can move on instead of spamming this thread.

True. My response is here.

 

Regarding the original topic, people have had two interpretations of the original question, and I think for the most part folks agree about the advisability of each interpretation.

Version 1: Whatever my normal alternative text is, I should call it a counterplan, ie fiat the alternative.

That's almost always either fiat abuse, or nonsensical. Either you can't logically fiat actions like "reject" and "rethink", because those actually are actions the judge is taking as an individual, or you are fiating that people in society/government take those actions, and that is object fiat.

 

Version 2: Instead of my normal alternative text, I should write a government/organization -style policy and fiat that, ie CP with K net benefit.

This is often strategic, as long as your policy doesn't link to the K.

Edited by meanmedianmode

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
your understanding of presumption comes out of thin air.

 

Until you show me the rule defining presumption, I'm pretty sure my interpretation is just as legitimate as anyone else's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Until you show me the rule defining presumption, I'm pretty sure my interpretation is just as legitimate as anyone else's.
That proved my point.

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...