Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
meanmedianmode

Presumption, continued

Recommended Posts

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.

There is at least one thing in your post I can wholeheartedly agree with. Yay new thread.

 

 

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,"

And you didn't make an on-point response when I showed that that origin was logically bankrupt. Failing such a response now, we're back to "you pulled this principle out of thin air".

 

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).

Exactly. That logic sounds so much more like "The aff has a burden to prove a prima facie case, and the neg doesn't have a burden to prove anything" than it sounds like "the aff must prove the rez via a policy, and the neg must disprove the rez via the aff's policy". You said "the aff has to prove something, else we don't have any reason to change". That establishes an aff burden, and a default vote neg (presumption) if the aff doesn't meet that burden. That doesn't suggest anything about a neg burden.

 

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.

We'll come back to this in a bit. You're aquiver with anticipation for that, I know.

 

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.

Succinct summary, as far as it goes. And admittedly I didn't explicitly articulate the next point yet.

 

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?

Within this theory, we accept that choosing a world is an advantage. So, the negative chose a world more recently than the aff did. And with less limitation than the aff did. That shifts the advantage neg-ward.

 

At least in my theory, I recognize that presumption is simply a tiebreaker and doesn't need to have a justification.

STOP THE PRESSES!

You're argument is that presumption doesn't need a theoretical justification???? Um....

a) that mischaracterizes tiebreakers generally, because most tiebreaks do actually have a theoretical underpinning. In situations where one party has a burden and the other doesn't, the tiebreak normally goes against the side with the burden. Eg, because I'm familiar with this rule, in baseball, if the runner and the ball get to the base simultaneously, the runner is safe. That tiebreak derives from it being the defense's burden to record outs, rather than the offense's burden to avoid outs.

In situations where neither side has a (differential) burden, the tiebreak usually doesn't give an advantage to either side. Eg, in tennis, when a set is tied 6-all, the players have staggered alternation of serves per point, and play until someone is ahead in the tiebreak game by 2 points. Neither side has a differential burden over the course of a set, because the service burden alternates, so the tiebreak advantages neither side.

B) that's plain illogical, and it contradicts what you said above, because arbitrary rules don't allow for expansion except by further arbitrary amendment (the part that i said we'd come back to - we're back there now). So this argument defeats the purpose of the discussion.

c) Alogogenesis (translation for the uninitiated - "genesis from non-logic") isn't an explanation for the origin of a theoretical construct. And you've been arguing that presumption is the logical result of dual burdens, you can't now say "oh, it doesn't need an explanation." As you just abused Brett on in the original thread, this is about warrants. This claim amounts to "no warrant is unnecessary here", which we reject on face.

 

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.

Once upon a time, this was true. In that time, counterplans involved the negative reading evidence that the counterplan would pass in the status quo, and were basically complex "status quo solves the case" arguments. Then along came a hero named Negative Fiat, who vanquished the necessity of counterplan plausibility, and there was much rejoicing.

When the negative gets to answer "counterplan politically infeasible" claims with "fiat solves", they are no longer advocating the status quo.

Further, I can frame this in terms of a decision.

D/a v case round: If the aff advantages will not be solved in the status quo, and they outweigh the disad, the judge votes aff.

CP + D/A v case round: If the aff advantages won't be solved in the status quo, but the counterplan solves some of them, and the disad outweighs the remaining advantages, the judge votes neg.

The counterplan is necessarily distinct from the status quo in order to solve the affirmative advantages.

 

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.

No, I'm quite sure now that you are just missing my point. Yes, the decision result is the same. However, in a world of neg burden to disprove the resolution, showing the aff to be untopical doesn't fulfill neg burdens. It simply pulls the affirmative back to square 1 as well (neither team fulfilling its burdens), and forces the judge to vote on presumption. That's not the way decisions actually work - there's no discussion of presumption in a T debate, because the only burdens relevant to decision are the affirmative burdens. You don't even make decisions like this, unless you normally explain your RFD in T debates as "The neg wins the aff isn't topical, so I vote neg on presumption." I rather think you don't, and you're exceptionally outside of the norm if you do, because everyone says "the neg wins the aff isn't topical," usually without even adding the redundant "so I vote neg on T."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And you didn't make an on-point response when I showed that that origin was logically bankrupt. Failing such a response now, we're back to "you pulled this principle out of thin air".

 

It isn't "logically bankrupt," it does make sense. It is arbitrary, certainly, but it's not internally inconsistent. It's essentially the same as the argumentation about the world that we "know the risks of" that is discussed later on.

 

Exactly. That logic sounds so much more like "The aff has a burden to prove a prima facie case, and the neg doesn't have a burden to prove anything" than it sounds like "the aff must prove the rez via a policy, and the neg must disprove the rez via the aff's policy". You said "the aff has to prove something, else we don't have any reason to change". That establishes an aff burden, and a default vote neg (presumption) if the aff doesn't meet that burden. That doesn't suggest anything about a neg burden.

 

You're still failing to understand my point. My understanding and yours are exactly the same, except in my world, the aff winning their case is a means to the end of proving the resolution, and the neg beating the aff is a means to the end of disproving the resolution. There's no other way for them to do it that isn't already done, so the worlds are nearly exactly the same. If you don't understand that, then you aren't really addressing what I'm saying. This addresses the topicality bit at the end - both interpretations require the exact same things out of the teams. The only difference is essentially the "reason" we vote for the team.

 

 

Within this theory, we accept that choosing a world is an advantage. So, the negative chose a world more recently than the aff did. And with less limitation than the aff did. That shifts the advantage neg-ward.

 

This is arbitrary, and I could come up with counter-arguments about the quality of the world each team got to choose. For example, the aff had "infinite prep time" and could be just as squirrelly as the neg is. The neg only had a few minutes of prep time to decide what world they wanted, and their world is inherently undesirable because it's restricted to counterplans that try to solve back for the case advantages. Also, why does the fact that the neg chose the world "more recently" mean aff should get presumption? Just saying it doesn't make it true.

 

STOP THE PRESSES!

You're argument is that presumption doesn't need a theoretical justification???? Um....

a) that mischaracterizes tiebreakers generally, because most tiebreaks do actually have a theoretical underpinning. In situations where one party has a burden and the other doesn't, the tiebreak normally goes against the side with the burden. Eg, because I'm familiar with this rule, in baseball, if the runner and the ball get to the base simultaneously, the runner is safe. That tiebreak derives from it being the defense's burden to record outs, rather than the offense's burden to avoid outs.

In situations where neither side has a (differential) burden, the tiebreak usually doesn't give an advantage to either side. Eg, in tennis, when a set is tied 6-all, the players have staggered alternation of serves per point, and play until someone is ahead in the tiebreak game by 2 points. Neither side has a differential burden over the course of a set, because the service burden alternates, so the tiebreak advantages neither side.

B) that's plain illogical, and it contradicts what you said above, because arbitrary rules don't allow for expansion except by further arbitrary amendment (the part that i said we'd come back to - we're back there now). So this argument defeats the purpose of the discussion.

c) Alogogenesis (translation for the uninitiated - "genesis from non-logic") isn't an explanation for the origin of a theoretical construct. And you've been arguing that presumption is the logical result of dual burdens, you can't now say "oh, it doesn't need an explanation." As you just abused Brett on in the original thread, this is about warrants. This claim amounts to "no warrant is unnecessary here", which we reject on face.

 

None of your response here is relevant, because I didn't say presumption (in this case) has no justification. I only said it doesn't need to, and your argument in part (a) fails because most of the examples you're thinking of don't necessary require a winner to be picked, or can allow for ties. In the baseball scenario, you're making a circular argument: your analogy about the burdens fails, because that can only apply if we've already accepted that the aff has a greater burden than the neg (or that the neg doesn't have one), which is the whole point you're trying to justify in the first place.

 

Once upon a time, this was true. In that time, counterplans involved the negative reading evidence that the counterplan would pass in the status quo, and were basically complex "status quo solves the case" arguments. Then along came a hero named Negative Fiat, who vanquished the necessity of counterplan plausibility, and there was much rejoicing.

When the negative gets to answer "counterplan politically infeasible" claims with "fiat solves", they are no longer advocating the status quo.

Further, I can frame this in terms of a decision.

D/a v case round: If the aff advantages will not be solved in the status quo, and they outweigh the disad, the judge votes aff.

CP + D/A v case round: If the aff advantages won't be solved in the status quo, but the counterplan solves some of them, and the disad outweighs the remaining advantages, the judge votes neg.

The counterplan is necessarily distinct from the status quo in order to solve the affirmative advantages.

 

The world of the counterplan is obviously different from the world of the status quo. However, as you failed to respond to, voting neg is ultimately an affirmation of the status quo, because that's what we are returned to in that situation. So sure, advocating a CP is different from advocating from the status quo, but a neg ballot is still a vote for the status quo, which is all that matters. The CP is only a way of showing that the aff is a bad idea, and nothing more.

 

No, I'm quite sure now that you are just missing my point. Yes, the decision result is the same. However, in a world of neg burden to disprove the resolution, showing the aff to be untopical doesn't fulfill neg burdens. It simply pulls the affirmative back to square 1 as well (neither team fulfilling its burdens), and forces the judge to vote on presumption. That's not the way decisions actually work - there's no discussion of presumption in a T debate, because the only burdens relevant to decision are the affirmative burdens. You don't even make decisions like this, unless you normally explain your RFD in T debates as "The neg wins the aff isn't topical, so I vote neg on presumption." I rather think you don't, and you're exceptionally outside of the norm if you do, because everyone says "the neg wins the aff isn't topical," usually without even adding the redundant "so I vote neg on T."

 

This was addressed above. I already said that my proposed method for the negative proving the resolution untrue is all the same ones we already accept: topicality violations, critiques, etc. The only difference is that a neg ballot is a vote against the resolution and not against the aff team, but you still have to beat the aff (in the normal way) to prove the resolution untrue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens when the resolution is neither proved nor disproved (true in 99% of debate rounds, btw)?

 

This is the reason you're pulling something out of thin air.

 

The side presenting the first argument of the round has the burden to prove it, just as the prosecution has the burden to prove the guilt of the accused. The first argument in the round is the 1ac. The central claim of the 1ac is usually not the resolution, but that the plan is beneficial. If that claim is not proven, there is no reason to vote aff.

 

That's presumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What happens when the resolution is neither proved nor disproved (true in 99% of debate rounds, btw)?

 

This is the reason you're pulling something out of thin air.

 

The side presenting the first argument of the round has the burden to prove it, just as the prosecution has the burden to prove the guilt of the accused. The first argument in the round is the 1ac. The central claim of the 1ac is usually not the resolution, but that the plan is beneficial. If that claim is not proven, there is no reason to vote aff.

 

That's presumption.

 

All of this is answered in my argumentation in the previous thread (and even somewhat in the above post), but I'll repeat it anyway.

 

The way we prove the resolution true is by the aff winning the case. That is all my argument says. It says if the aff wins the round, they have proved the resolution true. My argument is no more or less than that. On the opposite side, it says that if the neg wins the round, they have disproved the resolution. If neither team wins, we use presumption as a tiebreaker. But the "presumption" that an argument is true until proven false is not nearly the same as the idea of presumption in a debate round (which is that the neg is presumed to win if neither team has fulfilled their burden), so please stop conflating the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The aff winning the round does not prove the resolution true. It proves they convinced the judge they won the debate. Nothing more.

 

The neg winning the round does not disprove the resolution. It proves they convinced the judge they won the debate. Nothing more.

 

And you have it backwards: one presumes an argument untrue until proven. And I am not conflating: the concept of presumption in debate is rooted in the concept of presumption in other argumentative fields, which all hold to the principle. Whomever taught you this stuff is full of shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The aff winning the round does not prove the resolution true. It proves they convinced the judge they won the debate. Nothing more.

 

The neg winning the round does not disprove the resolution. It proves they convinced the judge they won the debate. Nothing more.

 

Your claim fails to gain any ground, because then we just have to define what "winning" is. But any idea of winning must be tied to the resolution, for that is the only meaningful restriction on the debate. The aff must be affirming the resolution for it to be policy debate. So winning actually is equivalent to proving the resolution true.

 

And you have it backwards: one presumes an argument untrue until proven. And I am not conflating: the concept of presumption in debate is rooted in the concept of presumption in other argumentative fields, which all hold to the principle. Whomever taught you this stuff is full of shit.

 

That's not at all how it works in any policy rounds I've been in. If an argument is made and conceded by the opposing team, it is accepted as true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your claim fails to gain any ground, because then we just have to define what "winning" is. But any idea of winning must be tied to the resolution, for that is the only meaningful restriction on the debate. The aff must be affirming the resolution for it to be policy debate. So winning actually is equivalent to proving the resolution true.
Oh dear. First off, while we call it policy debate, it's really cross examination debate. The resolution is one of a few restrictions on the debate - time limits are considerably more influential on content than the resolution, else we wouldn't spend time talking about heg on a poverty topic. If policy were the only available option to prove the resolution, then there would be no kritikal or performative affs, and no projects.

 

That's not at all how it works in any policy rounds I've been in. If an argument is made and conceded by the opposing team, it is accepted as true.
While a judge may give credit to a claim without a warrant, absent refutation by the opposition, there is no hard and fast rule that she must do so. Moreover, most arguments do have warrants and evidence (their proof). So if they aren't answered, such arguments will be considered "true" by the vast majority of judges. It's not because they weren't disproved, but rather because they had been sufficiently supported by the relevant arguments in the round. Hence: those arguments overcame the presumption against them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh dear. First off, while we call it policy debate, it's really cross examination debate. The resolution is one of a few restrictions on the debate - time limits are considerably more influential on content than the resolution, else we wouldn't spend time talking about heg on a poverty topic. If policy were the only available option to prove the resolution, then there would be no kritikal or performative affs, and no projects.

 

The fact that I called it "policy debate" (I only called it that to imply that what I was talking about was something intrinsic to our activity) never implied that only policies can affirm the resolution. My interpretation certainly welcomes alternative modes of affirmation, because we recognize that the goal of the affirmative is to prove the resolution, and a policy action is simply one way of doing so. In fact, it's even harder to justify this in alternative frameworks, because they must come up with ad hoc ways of justifying why the aff showing that their policy is beneficial compared to the status quo means they should win the round.

 

Anyway, if you're going to treat me as though I'm stupid, at least take the time to read my arguments and understand them. It makes you look rather silly when you do not.

 

While a judge may give credit to a claim without a warrant, absent refutation by the opposition, there is no hard and fast rule that she must do so. Moreover, most arguments do have warrants and evidence (their proof). So if they aren't answered, such arguments will be considered "true" by the vast majority of judges. It's not because they weren't disproved, but rather because they had been sufficiently supported by the relevant arguments in the round. Hence: those arguments overcame the presumption against them.

 

You can't seriously be saying that giving a reason for something makes it true. It is quite obvious that aside from factual claims, any arguments we make in debate are subjective and cannot be objectively true or false. Thus the only way truth makes sense in this context, is to the extent that a conceded argument is considered true for the purposes of the round. Therefore there cannot be presumption against such an analytical claim, because there is no way to objectively determine the truth or falsehood of such a statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It isn't "logically bankrupt," it does make sense. It is arbitrary, certainly, but it's not internally inconsistent. It's essentially the same as the argumentation about the world that we "know the risks of" that is discussed later on.

This refers to the hidden disad idea.

 

You haven't answered my argument that "hidden disad" doesn't withstand logical scrutiny because the hidden thing is just as likely to be an advantage. If you say "hidden disad", I can say "hidden ad", and then we'll have no way to decide who should get presumption. So that doesn't provide a logical basis for presumption.

If you disagree, defend your argument. If you won't defend the argument, stop using it to defend your points. It's like the 2ar saying "case outweighs the disad" when he has conceded the 2nr's offense on the solvency flow.

 

You're still failing to understand my point. My understanding and yours are exactly the same, except in my world, the aff winning their case is a means to the end of proving the resolution, and the neg beating the aff is a means to the end of disproving the resolution. There's no other way for them to do it that isn't already done, so the worlds are nearly exactly the same. If you don't understand that, then you aren't really addressing what I'm saying. This addresses the topicality bit at the end - both interpretations require the exact same things out of the teams. The only difference is essentially the "reason" we vote for the team.

You are right, I don't view the round as rez centric. Neither do you, unless you vote aff when the neg wins a topical PIC is better than the plan. But I don't even care about that here, I'm happy to constrain that to the CP theory debate.

 

The point is:

1) You didn't answer my argument. Even when you describe the way a debate round works, you don't use language that indicates a negative burden of proof for anything. You use language that says the neg needs to stop the aff, prevent the aff from winning anything. Not anything to suggest the neg has to actually prove anything.

 

The other point is about T, but I'll answer that in the original order, ie at the bottom.

 

This is arbitrary, and I could come up with counter-arguments about the quality of the world each team got to choose. For example, the aff had "infinite prep time" and could be just as squirrelly as the neg is. The neg only had a few minutes of prep time to decide what world they wanted, and their world is inherently undesirable because it's restricted to counterplans that try to solve back for the case advantages. Also, why does the fact that the neg chose the world "more recently" mean aff should get presumption? Just saying it doesn't make it true.

This is about side shift.

1. It is inherent in the idea "Aff gets fiat, so neg gets presumption" that fiat is an advantage over not having fiat. The only way presumption can be a compensation is if there is something that needs to be compensated. Once that principle is established, presumption goes against the team getting the "most" benefit out of fiat. I don't even know if you're disputing this, because you were vague.

2. Neg fiat is more advantageous because it gets "extra-topicality", ie there's no limit on the neg spiking out of disads/solvency takeouts/whatever else.

3. False that the neg is limited to trying to solve the case. Eg, counterplanning uniqueness for case turns with the "ban social services" CP.

4. Side bias can go suck one. Presumption is to compensate the neg for the aff having fiat. If the neg gets fiat as well, that compensates better, but it overcompensates, because the decision of what to fiat isn't simultaneous.

5. General logical principle, and specifically so in debate, that things said more recently are more strategic. (This is a meta-arg. It answers your "we could just list warrant and counter-warrants all day long" claim.)

a) most relevant - any changes made to the argument were designed to make it more responsive

B) fewer possibilities - the aff fiats something designed to give it the best chance to beat all possible negative arguments on the topic. The neg fiat is the best available strategy against the specific choice the aff made in the 1ac. There's much less variation in 2ac args from a given 1ac than there is in 1nc args for a given resolution. That means the strategic choice in the 1nc is a much better fit to the 1ac (in the statistical sense) than the 1ac is to the monolith of "negative strategy on the topic".

c) this is really just another way of expressing b, but here it goes. Basic game theory, if both sides' individual choices directly interact (as opposed to say, chess, where the interaction is indirect) and going 1st doesn't significantly limit the other sides' choices, going 2nd is an advantage. Simple example, rock-paper-scissors. Have you ever played rock-paper-scissors with non-simultaneous throws? If so, I hope you were smart enough to throw 2nd. Fiat is like that - the neg can still fiat absolutely anything, so it can pick the thing that is most strategic against the thing the aff fiated. That's an advantage for the neg.

Another example, contestants' bids in Final Jeopardy. Only the person with the highest total after Final Jeopardy gets to keep their money. So the leader normally wagers enough so that if (s)he answers correctly, it is mathematically impossible for the trailers to catch her/him. But what if I was leading, and I knew that the trailers were going to wager nothing? Well, then I could make a wager small enough that I am guaranteed to win. It would be really advantageous to the later wager-ers to have non-simultaneous wagering.

 

 

None of your response here is relevant, because I didn't say presumption (in this case) has no justification. I only said it doesn't need to, and your argument in part (a) fails because most of the examples you're thinking of don't necessary require a winner to be picked, or can allow for ties. In the baseball scenario, you're making a circular argument: your analogy about the burdens fails, because that can only apply if we've already accepted that the aff has a greater burden than the neg (or that the neg doesn't have one), which is the whole point you're trying to justify in the first place.

This is the "tiebreaks can be arbitrary" stuff.

1. If presumption lacks a justification, it is arbitrary. Arbitrariness is bad, because there's no way to induce or deduce from it. You said (I agree) that the point of this discussion was to deduce the relevance of presumption to the "CP as Alt to K" question. So you 2x-turn yourself if presumption lacks a justification.

 

2. IDK what you mean when I say "most examples" because I only use 2 examples, baseball and tennis, and both need a winner to be picked. In general, the purpose of a tiebreak is to pick a winner b/c a winner is needed. So I really don't understand where you're going with this.

 

3. The purpose of this argument was that you can't just say "presumption can be arbitrary". Baseball is the case where there are differential burdens, tennis is the case where there aren't. Either way, there is a tiebreak that works logically within the confines of the system, ie is not arbitrary. (Baseball doesn't beg the question, because tennis covers the other possibility.)

 

 

The world of the counterplan is obviously different from the world of the status quo. However, as you failed to respond to, voting neg is ultimately an affirmation of the status quo, because that's what we are returned to in that situation. So sure, advocating a CP is different from advocating from the status quo, but a neg ballot is still a vote for the status quo, which is all that matters. The CP is only a way of showing that the aff is a bad idea, and nothing more.

I guess we're just gonna keep talking past each other here, because the two claims I've bolded seem to me to be in irressolvable contradiction of each other.

If the neg advocates something not the SQ, how does voting for that advocacy return us to the SQ? Voting for the CP means the CP happens, to the same extent that voting aff means the plan happens. Why is this not true? And how does that reason account for needing to enact the CP in order to mitigate case so the disad can outweigh (example from previous post)?

 

This was addressed above. I already said that my proposed method for the negative proving the resolution untrue is all the same ones we already accept: topicality violations, critiques, etc. The only difference is that a neg ballot is a vote against the resolution and not against the aff team, but you still have to beat the aff (in the normal way) to prove the resolution untrue.

You already said, but that doesn't answer my refutation. My refutation assumes there's some internal logic. If not, c/a my arguments about arbitrariness bad instead.

"Defeating the aff disproves the resolution" DOES NOT HOLD for topicality, because the neg isn't proving anything substantive. It just shows that the aff winning the substantive flow was not actually the aff proving the resolution.

If your negative burden idea doesn't link to this, then I'm sorry, you just haven't yet managed to articulate it accurately.

Perhaps you're just confused on the fundamental distinction between "prove not X" and "not prove X". If that's the issue, let me clear it up

"prove not X" : ~X

"not prove X" :

observe the nothingness. Emptiness. Because "not proving" something means there is nothing known. That's distinct from "~X", which is when we know for certain that what's true is the opposite of what someone was trying to prove.

 

You are saying that the affirmative burden is to prove X, and that the negative burden is to prove not X. But topicality just shows that the aff did not prove X, which isn't the same thing as proving not X.

 

EDIT: In linguistics, this can be seen in the distinction between reversive and correlative antonyms. EG, the relationship between the verbs sink, float, and rise. In english, the logical "not" function is represented by the prefix un- . So, suppose you are sinking. You want to undo the sinking that you have been doing, so you want to unsink, ie rise. Once you get back to the top, you don't want to keep unsinking, you just want to not sink, ie float. Sink and float are surely opposites. Float is in a way the opposite of both opposites.

To apply this to debate, your model assumes that the aff is trying to rise. The neg is trying to sink. But topicality just shows that the aff didn't really rise, ie it floated.

/Edit

 

Underview:

The aff gets fiat. This is an advantage. To compensate, the neg gets presumption. This is the same thing as saying that the burden of proof is on the aff. If the aff doesn't prove a prima facie case, the judge votes neg.

If the neg uses fiat in the 1nc, that is a greater advantage because it is specifically responsive to the aff fiat, so if the neg goes for a CP, presumption shifts aff. That makes sense because a) neg fiat is an advantage for the neg greater than aff fiat is an advantage for the aff, so compensation needs to reverse, B) advocating a CP is also distinct from advocating the SQ in terms of how the judge makes the decision.

 

Topicality shows that dual burdens isn't descriptive of policy debate. Regardless, dual burdens doesn't create a logical system for presumption. Under dual burdens, presumption is entirely arbitrary, because the only justification for it going neg is the hidden disad, but that could just as easily be a hidden adv. Arbitrary is bad, because it makes it impossible to expand on the theory when unaccounted-for situations crop up.

Further, dual burdens doesn't explain the presumption shift for neg CPs, because presumption is already arbitrary anyway.

 

EDIT:

regarding your discussion with Brett, I agree with him (shocking, I know). He's talking about "true" for the purposes of the ballot.

There is a presumption against a claim being true. Having a warrant for a claim overcomes this presumption. Pointing out missing/flawed warrants (as opposed refuting their veracity) is indicting. Unanswered indicts bring presumption to bear against the argument being indicted.

Edited by meanmedianmode

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're arguing that debate is inherently centered on the resolution and it simply isn't true. Debate is centered on the arguments in the round. If your model holds, and a neg won with a topical counterplan, the world would be consumed by the dividing by zero effect.

 

An argument has constitutive elements. Among these are warrants and evidence. Absent its necessary constitutice elements, an argument is simply a statement. Whether in science, academia, math, law or debate, an argument needs to be proven in some manner before being given weight. That doesn't mean there is necessarily some perfect objective truth, but that we can and should evaluate an argument based on the best information available. If the argument cannot hold up to rigorous investigation, it should be considered unproven.

 

In your model, if the aff runs a standard case and the neg runs a one-off kritik impugning the ontological assumptions evident in the framing of the case, and the implications of that kritik suggest that proofs offered within the aff framework are flawed and actually untrue, then the neg need not offer a reason to vote for the neg. All they need to do is point out that the aff never proved anything. If the aff failed to prove anything, it doesn't make the resolution untrue - it just means the aff didn't prove it.

 

And if you think I am not taking your model seriously, it's only because I've been humoring it for 20 years and am a little tired of its nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...