Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
DerpDerpDerp

New Heg Good Card

Recommended Posts

Kagan is both not qualified to talk about the military and is biased towards it - his brother was one of the chief strategists who designed the Iraqi surge.

Salon 7

“Why would any rational person listen to Robert Kagan?†BY GLENN GREENWALD SUNDAY, MAR 11, 2007 11:02 AM CENTRAL STANDARD TIME http://www.salon.com/2007/03/11/kagan_11/

 

Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan — whose brother, Frederick, is the architect of the President’s “surge†plan — has a column in the Postthis morning predictably assuring us that the surge is a great success. The headline is “The ‘Surge’ is Succeeding,†and you already know what it says without reading it. The Evil Media has claimed the war is lost. But now it is clear that they are wrong. We sent more troops, the Great Gen. Petraeus has arrived, stores have re-opened, and Pajama Media bloggers Mohammed and Omar say things are getting better. Thus, Kagan says, there “is a new chapter in the story.†No rational person would believe a word Robert Kagan says about anything. He has been spewing out one falsehood after the next for the last four years in order to blind Americans about the real state of affairs concerning the invasion which he and his comrade and writing partner, Bill Kristol, did as much as anyone else to sell to the American public. In April, 2003, Kagan declared the war over and said we won. Since then, he has continuously claimed that things were getting better in Iraq. He is completely liberated from any obligation to tell the truth and is a highly destructive propagandist whose public record of commentary about Iraq ought to disqualify him from decent company, let alone some sort of pretense to expertise about this war. As always with people like Robert Kagan, one can only excerpt a tiny fraction of their mendacity over the years short of writing a book about it. But here is a small, representative sampling: [several articles from Kagan are presented] What possible grounds are there for doing anything other than scorning people like this — ones who have a track record of deceit and falsehoods that is literally unbroken, the ones who are the conscious and deliberate authors of the disaster in Iraq? Needless to say — literally — is the fact that Kagan has been arguing for years that we should also be “democratizing†Iran by changing its government and that if we cannot do that fast enough, “then the answer will have to be an invasion, not merely an air and missile strike.†And that makes perfect sense for someone who thinks that our invasion of Iraq was a great idea and that the occupation is going really well — why not repeat that in Iran and in a whole bunch of other countries, too? Any decent and conscientious person burdened by even the most minimally functioning conscience — not just moral conscience, but intellectual and ethical conscience– who was the author of the above-excerpted passages would, genuinely, feel a deep sense of shame and remorse. One can, I suppose, debate whether these blatantly false claims were the by-product of deliberate deceit or just monumentally poor judgment (and the answer likely varies based on the falsehood-disseminating advocate in question), but what is beyond debate is that these pronouncements have been as destructive to this country as they have been tragically wrong. Yet they have no shame about any of this. Quite the contrary, they continue to parade around on the pages of The Washington Post as our country’s experts and actually expect that they will be listened to when they assure the country — yet again — that things are going well in Iraq and we’re on our way to sweet and glorious Victory. UPDATE: Several commenters here have suggested — and Editor & Publisher has now done the same — that The Washington Post ought to have disclosed that the author of this Op-Ed touting the “success of the ‘surge’†(Robert Kagan) is the brother of the primary architect and public advocate of the surge (Frederick Kagan). One could debate whether that rises to the level of “conflict of interest,†but at the very least, it seems indisputable that Robert Kagan would be highly unlikely to announce that the “surge†was a grand failure, given that he would be condemning the idea with which his own brother is now most closely associated. He is motivated by close family connections to praise the “surge.†Clearly, Post readers should have been told that the pro-â€surge†analysis they were reading was from the brother of the “surge†architect himself. Failure to disclose such an obvious cause for bias in the matter seems rather misleading and journalistically irresponsible.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Too bad that evidence doesn't answer any of Kagan's warrants. Liberal media bullshit.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That awkward moment when this post didn't answer any of the evidence's warrants...

 

None of that card's warrants are responsive to any of the Kagan cards of the last few years, particularly in terms of the internal links of this year's affirmatives. His arguments defending global power projection don't necessarily require regime change or occupation; it's simply a question of deterrence and credibility. The evidence, at best, simply disqualifies his arguments supporting the effectiveness of the 2003 invasion and the later surge (which, btw, it does with no supporting warrants other than this flimsy conflict-of-interest question). Going for "your author isn't qualified" against one of the most-cited IR scholars seems like a losing battle, especially when your source has zero actual foreign policy quals. There are a million fantastic answers to heg good; this is not one of them.

 

edit: five minutes on google yielded this: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Unrest_Assured.pdf . not a direct indict, but it cites kagan and proceeds to blow up an issue (unipolar peace) that kagan often takes for granted.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

A2 KAGAN

 

Steve
Gilliard
, 1-14-
07
. (Attended NYU, studied history and journalism. Worked as a freelance writer from 1986-1992, New Jersey Democratic Committee campaign staff from 1992-1994, researcher from 1994-96 online freelancer for numerous projects from 1996-98, web editor for Award winning Netslaves site from 1998-2003, Contributor to Daily Kos, 2003, Founder of The News Blog from August, 2003 "Why the fuck is he making military policy," from The News Blog)

 

Robert Kagan has no business making war. None. He is so shitty at his chosen profession, he isn't even a tenured professor, but an assclown at a think tank.
But the sick part is that people who know better are pushing this bullshit You know, I respected Harry McMaster, until I realized he was bucking for a star. As a battlefield commander in the 1991 Gulf War, his personal courage was unquestioned. But when I read the self-serving bullshit he was pushing out about Tal Afar, shit his own men didn't believe, shit reporters exposed as bullshit, that he had gotten rid of the terrorists. Hell, the Shia were calling for the Wolf Brigade to kill the Turkomen and Sunnis. Instead of pushing this shit, he should have retired to oppose this. But he picked the wrong branch. Back in the day. Armored Cav was the shit, going up the Fulda Gap, it was a good job, but times change. The future of that branch is Strikers and armored cars, not M-l's and Bradleys. So what's a man to do? He refashions himself as a counterinsurgencv expert. Which he accomplished by driving a tank. Someone at JSOC has had a good laugh over this. You have this fat piece of shit, Kagan, pushing a plan, supported by people who lost their fucking minds or never had them to begin with. Petraeus is either an optimist or hid his Courtney Massingale side until late in his career. Even though I was not a fan of the way Charles Swannick led the 82nd in Iraq, he, John Baptiste and Paul Eaton are so morally and ethically above him it's shocking. They had the decency to retire and tell the truth. Now, a lot of the hype about Petraeus comes from Rick Atkinson, who between his history of the Army in WWII, did go to Iraq. But he's mostly a light infantry guy, with some leg infantry time. But mostly he was
101
and 82nd. He is no SF type. Yet, he was allow to toss out the parts he didn't like. Again, jsoc had people rolling their eyes. How the fuck is Ray Odierno in command of anything besides his lawn mower. His command of the 4th ID was a disgrace. You have Buford Blount, who successfully led the 3ID nearly cashiered for asking too many questions during the drive to Baghdad, and you have Odierno, who's battalion commanders sucked, one being a raving lunatic who sought out ambushes, now running the war. Odierno should have been forced to retire. Period. When will someone like Wes Clark or Tony Zinni put the cards on the table and say the obvious:
why the fuck are you listening to Robert fucking Kagan
.
They are embarassing the Army and their chosen profession by listening to this
fucking moron.
I mean, have they no pride? No respect for their own profession? Robe
rt Kagan sits in a room and makes shit up. He has no experience in war. T
o take his advice seriously should draw the scorn of their peers. This is akin to taking a health care analyst and telling him to remove a bullet. Kagan writes books. He has no business making military policy. None, and Odierno and Petraeus should be ashmed as professional military men to take his idiotic fucking advice.

 

 
  • Upvote 7
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1]

 

 

A2 KAGAN

 

Steve
Gilliard
, 1-14-
07
. (Attended NYU, studied history and journalism. Worked as a freelance writer from 1986-1992, New Jersey Democratic Committee campaign staff from 1992-1994, researcher from 1994-96 online freelancer for numerous projects from 1996-98, web editor for Award winning Netslaves site from 1998-2003, Contributor to Daily Kos, 2003, Founder of The News Blog from August, 2003 "Why the fuck is he making military policy," from The News Blog)

 

Robert Kagan has no business making war. None. He is so shitty at his chosen profession, he isn't even a tenured professor, but an assclown at a think tank.
But the sick part is that people who know better are pushing this bullshit You know, I respected Harry McMaster, until I realized he was bucking for a star. As a battlefield commander in the 1991 Gulf War, his personal courage was unquestioned. But when I read the self-serving bullshit he was pushing out about Tal Afar, shit his own men didn't believe, shit reporters exposed as bullshit, that he had gotten rid of the terrorists. Hell, the Shia were calling for the Wolf Brigade to kill the Turkomen and Sunnis. Instead of pushing this shit, he should have retired to oppose this. But he picked the wrong branch. Back in the day. Armored Cav was the shit, going up the Fulda Gap, it was a good job, but times change. The future of that branch is Strikers and armored cars, not M-l's and Bradleys. So what's a man to do? He refashions himself as a counterinsurgencv expert. Which he accomplished by driving a tank. Someone at JSOC has had a good laugh over this. You have this fat piece of shit, Kagan, pushing a plan, supported by people who lost their fucking minds or never had them to begin with. Petraeus is either an optimist or hid his Courtney Massingale side until late in his career. Even though I was not a fan of the way Charles Swannick led the 82nd in Iraq, he, John Baptiste and Paul Eaton are so morally and ethically above him it's shocking. They had the decency to retire and tell the truth. Now, a lot of the hype about Petraeus comes from Rick Atkinson, who between his history of the Army in WWII, did go to Iraq. But he's mostly a light infantry guy, with some leg infantry time. But mostly he was
101
and 82nd. He is no SF type. Yet, he was allow to toss out the parts he didn't like. Again, jsoc had people rolling their eyes. How the fuck is Ray Odierno in command of anything besides his lawn mower. His command of the 4th ID was a disgrace. You have Buford Blount, who successfully led the 3ID nearly cashiered for asking too many questions during the drive to Baghdad, and you have Odierno, who's battalion commanders sucked, one being a raving lunatic who sought out ambushes, now running the war. Odierno should have been forced to retire. Period. When will someone like Wes Clark or Tony Zinni put the cards on the table and say the obvious:
why the fuck are you listening to Robert fucking Kagan
.
They are embarassing the Army and their chosen profession by listening to this
fucking moron.
I mean, have they no pride? No respect for their own profession? Robe
rt Kagan sits in a room and makes shit up. He has no experience in war. T
o take his advice seriously should draw the scorn of their peers. This is akin to taking a health care analyst and telling him to remove a bullet. Kagan writes books. He has no business making military policy. None, and Odierno and Petraeus should be ashmed as professional military men to take his idiotic fucking advice.

 

 

 

The only warrant I see in that card is "He has no experience in war." The only other arguments are ad homs and "fuck." I'm not saying that Kagan is a good author, just that this card wouldn't be good on its own as a Kagan indite. I could, however, see this card as a nice card to throw in behind a warranted Kagan indite card to add some pizzazz to the argument that Kagan don't know shit.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gillard is a freelance writer who is complaining about someone elses qualifications.

 

Second, he requires the person to have military experience to be qualified on this topic (which is probably true 90% to 95% of the time)--but that also means cedeing most of the ground to those who are in favor of hegemony (duh...those in the military are generally going to say hege good....9 times out of 10--especially for the cards read in debate).

 

As such, this card, while perhaps a little amusing....is like kicking the can down the street....but not to really resolve anything.

 

PS. There is no real reason to have an impact card that updated. No one has distinctions about why this month trumps that month--warrants drump dates in most impact debates. The primary two issues where this has become an issue:

1. terrorism and 9/11

2. the surge in the Iraq war.

Things like hege....stay more constant--unless something has vitally changed (deterrence hasn't just magically stopped working). If anything hege works better now than it did in 2008 because we have a lot of our soft-power back & we probably have more coop on issues like terrorism with moderate Islamic countries. Plus, hege solves--we killed Bin Laden isn't great....but its better than nothing. And the authors that say something different....have no time frame and no real quantification of when an attack might happen.

 

If you want to cut something from this year.....read one of the 2 to 3 books on the topic. Brzenski (sorry about spelling). This guy has MAD QUALS.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is really interesting is that he is likely going to be the dominant force in US foreign policy for the next few years. Obama loves him and he is Romney's head foreign policy adviser. http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/01/26/obama_embraces_romney_advisor_s_theory_on_the_myth_of_american_decline Not to mention the fact that he is a really nice guy (he signed his book for me when I visited Georgetown) and is probably the second coming of Jesus.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only warrant I see in that card is "He has no experience in war." The only other arguments are ad homs and "fuck." I'm not saying that Kagan is a good author, just that this card wouldn't be good on its own as a Kagan indite. I could, however, see this card as a nice card to throw in behind a warranted Kagan indite card to add some pizzazz to the argument that Kagan don't know shit.

 

 

 

Indite: 1. To write; compose. 2. To set down in writing. 3. Obsolete To dictate. [Middle English enditen, from Old French enditer]

 

Indict: 1. To accuse of wrongdoing; charge: a book that indicts modern values. 2. Law To make a formal accusation or indictment.

 

 

 

Sorry, that was realllly bugging me that such a sound analysis was making the equivalent of a (There/Their) mistake

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indite: 1. To write; compose. 2. To set down in writing. 3. Obsolete To dictate. [Middle English enditen, from Old French enditer]

 

Indict: 1. To accuse of wrongdoing; charge: a book that indicts modern values. 2. Law To make a formal accusation or indictment.

 

 

 

Sorry, that was realllly bugging me that such a sound analysis was making the equivalent of a (There/Their) mistake

 

:/

 

whoops

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone have a card saying SQ heg is good and the plan kills it? or like an argument like that?

 

It would be helpful if you had any specific plan to talk about... Like, I don't think there are cards out there that indict every possible plan.. ever... just no...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh....and you read this indict....with a K (the mean parts)...... and it becomes a little problematic. If the other team can articulate a comparative reason to reject or that your alt can't solve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do any of you people arguing that the source indict doesn't answer Kagan's warrants understand the concept that the source indict isnt supposed to answer Kagan's warrants? If you intend to answer warrants, you would just read a card answering the warrants. But of course, no one does that anymore since debaters and judges and coaches have been trained to believe that warrants don't matter anymore (see offense/defense). A source indict, by definition, is supposed to call into question the warrants through an indirect attack on the source's ability to issue said warrants. By demonstrating that he has neither the knowledge nor experience to be issuing said warrants, as well as a bonafide motive to issue them and an inability to analyze a situation objectively, he loses the ability to make such warrants. It is the debate equivalent of a judicial motion to throw out witness testimony.

 

So your arguments... are really quite non-responsive... and would merit a loss in-round.

  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do any of you people arguing that the source indict doesn't answer Kagan's warrants understand the concept that the source indict isnt supposed to answer Kagan's warrants? If you intend to answer warrants, you would just read a card answering the warrants. But of course, no one does that anymore since debaters and judges and coaches have been trained to believe that warrants don't matter anymore (see offense/defense). A source indict, by definition, is supposed to call into question the warrants through an indirect attack on the source's ability to issue said warrants. By demonstrating that he has neither the knowledge nor experience to be issuing said warrants, as well as a bonafide motive to issue them and an inability to analyze a situation objectively, he loses the ability to make such warrants. It is the debate equivalent of a judicial motion to throw out witness testimony.

 

So your arguments... are really quite non-responsive... and would merit a loss in-round.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, they do not call him Ankur for nothing. A good post, and relevant insight into how to evaluate the impact to an author indict. Good show.

 

I am curious, though, why you think offense/defense paradigms make warrants less valuable or not matter at all. Sure, I will grant that it is pedagogically questionable that the affirmative can no longer lose on "your entire case is nonsense", but that seems divorced from the value of warrants. Again, I'm just curious of your thoughts on the matter and would enjoy hearing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ladies and Gentlemen, they do not call him Ankur for nothing. A good post, and relevant insight into how to evaluate the impact to an author indict. Good show.

 

I think everyone understood how to evaluate the impact of an author indict, more or less. The main issue here was whether the strength of this specific indict outweighed the strength of Kagan's warrants, not whether indicts in the general sense were able to outweigh warrants in general. Since the card didn't answer Kagan's warrants and didn't do a fantastic job of indicting him (working at a think tank is still a pretty good position) the conclusion was that the value of this card as an indict was mostly in its pizzazz. Which is awesome, it has lots of awesome pizzazz, just not lots of awesome warrants.

 

Edit: actually, I was assuming Ankur was talking about the second card. If we're talking about the Salon card, that is a much better indict. It's still not fantastic, as its only warrants are that Kagan has maintained a consistent conservative position on Iraq (but it doesn't go into detail about why Kagan's consistent claims have been wrong) and that Kagan's brother is a conservative and he is biased (which is the good part of the card). There are arguments to be made about how evidence is evidence regardless of its source or motivations, against the claims of bias. Those aren't persuasive, though, so it's still a decent card.

 

might as well use this double post to post an interview of kagan with colbert

 

http://www.hulu.com/...rt-robert-kagan

 

Colbert: "You're foreign policy adviser to Mitt Romney. Is that as sexy as it sounds?"

Kagan: [awkward chuckle] "I.. I'm very honored to work with the governor, and to help his campaign in any way I can."

EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

 

(Your link wasn't working for me, different link is here for anyone interested: http://www.colbertna...12/robert-kagan)

 

He actually did seem like a really nice guy, though, which surprised me. And he was much more moderate than I thought he'd be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But of course, no one does that anymore since debaters and judges and coaches have been trained to believe that warrants don't matter anymore (see offense/defense)

 

I think Ankur brings up an interesting point--and it certainly deserves attention, although its not entirely true. Warrants are part of comparing offense versus defense.

 

A impact card without a warrant isn't given as much weight versus one with a warrant. This is also true on the case debate.

 

(And warrants can be important when judges call for cards after a debate....especially to resolve issues not resolved by the debates. Given equal evidence in quals/crediility, probability, and impact....he/she will likely prefer the one with the better or more numerous warrants. Particularly if those warrants are comparative with the other argument in the debate).

 

I think to have any analysis of author indicts you have to speak to what exactly is the card indicting:

1. the persons research quality/expertise

2. the persons ideological vision

3. answering specific warrants

4. imputing their vision or expertise and providing reasons to reject)

 

Most of these are reasons to prefer.....not reasons to reject outright. (they are borderline name calling). So, there's also a case to be made in an offense/defense paradigm that indicts are generally defensive. (ie they don't come to terms with the argument in question--or the debater doesn't do the work to make them indict the argument on the level its functioning in the debate).

 

In certain debates they are more (Malthus & Simon, specific Warming debates, etc..) but these seem to be the exception rather than the norm (although evidence standards are arguably improving versus say 2002 to 2004 due to proliferation of open evidence, the wiki, and just more publication available online).

 

One key distinction: And #2 is unique in terms of its impact on critique arguments (because its critiquing the worldview of the author, which impacts the alternative arguably--and probably does to the extent it effects their values & writing & ideology).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think everyone understood how to evaluate the impact of an author indict, more or less. The main issue here was whether the strength of this specific indict outweighed the strength of Kagan's warrants, not whether indicts in the general sense were able to outweigh warrants in general. Since the card didn't answer Kagan's warrants and didn't do a fantastic job of indicting him (working at a think tank is still a pretty good position) the conclusion was that the value of this card as an indict was mostly in its pizzazz. Which is awesome, it has lots of awesome pizzazz, just not lots of awesome warrants.

 

Edit: actually, I was assuming Ankur was talking about the second card. If we're talking about the Salon card, that is a much better indict. It's still not fantastic, as its only warrants are that Kagan has maintained a consistent conservative position on Iraq (but it doesn't go into detail about why Kagan's consistent claims have been wrong) and that Kagan's brother is a conservative and he is biased (which is the good part of the card). There are arguments to be made about how evidence is evidence regardless of its source or motivations, against the claims of bias. Those aren't persuasive, though, so it's still a decent card.

 

 

 

Colbert: "You're foreign policy adviser to Mitt Romney. Is that as sexy as it sounds?"

Kagan: [awkward chuckle] "I.. I'm very honored to work with the governor, and to help his campaign in any way I can."

EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

 

(Your link wasn't working for me, different link is here for anyone interested: http://www.colbertna...12/robert-kagan)

 

He actually did seem like a really nice guy, though, which surprised me. And he was much more moderate than I thought he'd be.

 

Persuasion is a matter of presentation and analysis. The warrants of the indict can be summarized as the statement "Kagan will never acknowledge X because he cannot be objective about the matter. Because he is unobjective, he twists facts to suit the theory instead of the theory to suit the facts." So if someone is unable to differentiate between reality and fiction, then why should the judge/jury evaluate the evidence/testimony regardless of what the warrants are? Let's take an example:

 

Pope: The Earth is the center of the universe, and the Vatican the center of the world. God told me so.

Scientist: Ummm, no. The Pope has a motive to say that in order to maintain his power both by claiming that the Vatican, and the Pope by extension, are the supreme 'rulers' of thought, and by claiming divine knowledge, claiming absolute power.

 

So why should you believe the Pope? Because God said so?

 

Strategically speaking, I think indicts are incredibly effective when combined with a direct attack on the warrants because it lends greater weight to your evidence in tandem - "the author is biased thus wrong, and here is another card proving why s/he is wrong." It is a method by which an affirmative can reverse spread a negative team because it forces the negative to spend time attacking both indict and warrant challenge cards AND reading a new warrant instead of just saying the typical schpiel "read the warrants of our Kagan card judge, the warrants are awesome, and the Salon indict doesn't answer them, extend the card which means that hege is the end all be all... blah blah.." You can't say that if you attack the source and the warrant. Against an affirmative team, that can be devastating coming out of the block because it kills 1ac time allocation which preventing their ability to read new evidence (both on basis of time skew and on the basis of presenting new arguments aka new warrants).

 

Now take the previous example and add another caveat to the scientist's response:

 

Scientist (part 2): Measurements prove that the sun is the center of our solar system which is a piece of the universe and there is no 'center' on the surface of the Earth since it is a sphere. The center is the core.

 

Now don't you agree that combined, the judge should never evaluate the Pope's statement even 1%?

 

 

 

 

Ladies and Gentlemen, they do not call him Ankur for nothing. A good post, and relevant insight into how to evaluate the impact to an author indict. Good show.

 

I am curious, though, why you think offense/defense paradigms make warrants less valuable or not matter at all. Sure, I will grant that it is pedagogically questionable that the affirmative can no longer lose on "your entire case is nonsense", but that seems divorced from the value of warrants. Again, I'm just curious of your thoughts on the matter and would enjoy hearing them.

 

Its more about the logic of statements and conclusions. If the 'defensive' argument calls into question the logical conclusion of the stated position by challenging its warrants, then there is no reason the judge should be persuaded by the stated position as the warrants are dubious.

 

Let us take a basic example: Affirmative claims that their plan solves global warming. The negative responds with a claim that the plan cannot solve global warming because (insert direct warrant challenge). In a typical round, judges by your average circuit style judge employing use of the offense/defense paradigm, the judge awards the win to the affirmative. They default to giving the weight of impact to the affirmative because there is no impact to the negative argument. But this conclusion establishes an intellectually bankrupt and categorically offensive logic.

 

In this example, it means that the judge can logically conclude that the affirmative cannot solve global warming, but the affirmative wins the round on the basis that they could solve global warming. Does that make any sense to you? If the negative successfully challenges the warrants, which for the sake of an extreme example be an outright drop, then by debate logic, as the point goes conceded to the negative, then the judge can only logically conclude that the affirmative cannot solve global warming. But the offense/defense paradigm dictates that in the absence of a reason to vote neg (which is notably different than a reason to vote against the aff), the round still goes affirmative. This proves that in the absence of a turn, or a position with greater implication, which represents an offensive reason to vote negative, the negative can never truly earn the ballot with defensive arguments. All challenges of warrants are, by definition, defensive. Therefore, offense/defense trivializes challenging warrants in the round.

 

But here is the nail in the coffin on the life of offense/defense - it also leads to the conclusion that in the absence of counter-offense, all claims are upheld, regardless of quality. The only way for the judge to conclude affirmative is to begin from a position whereby the affirmative wins their argument on solving global warming regardless of the negative challenge of warrants. That means that not only do warrants not matter for the outcome of the argument/round, but that warrants are also unnecessary since challenging warrants can never win the ballot, then the presentation of warrants are not necessary for a claim to be upheld. The response "the affirmative claim has NO warrants!" is still, by definition, defensive, and therefore cannot give the negative a ballot. This is the precise reason why debate evidence has been deteriorating steadily over the years. You can get away with terrible evidence when the other team doesn't challenge your evidence - and they don't challenge your evidence because challenging your evidence no longer gives them a leg up to winning the round.

 

When was the last time you saw a global warming debate where in the decision on that particular scenario/advt/disad/storyline was based on comparing the scientific methodology of climatology and trying to determine which techniques offer the most accurate forecast of future global environmental impacts? I can tell you that in my many years of judging/coaching at various levels of debate, I haven't seen it since the 90s.

 

The idea of offense-defense is just bankrupt. From an intellectual perspective, it always has been and always will be. The reason is because conclusions are invalid in the absence of persuasive warrants. The whole reason you learn what warrants are is so you can attack them and by attacking the warrants of a claim, in the absence of successful counterpoint, conceding attacked warrants is the same as a reject-able, warrantless claim. Isn't the basis of debate the Toulmin model? Claim-warrant. These 'respected' judges ramble on about warrants and their importance and then proceed to ignore the warrants debate when it does happen in front of them. So what judges *should* be doing is evaluating the warrants debate before they ever get to evaluate the impact debate because you cant evaluate the impacts if it lacks warrants to support them!

 

This is a somewhat nice segue into how judges have erroneously performed 'risk calculus' over the years. Risk calculus is horribly performed in debate because most debaters, and in turn future-judges, have no concept of how risk is actually evaluated. Risk is defined as probability times impact. If the negative team challenges the probability of the impact through the warrants debate (e.g. wins that the aff cannot solve warming) then the magnitude of the impact times a probability of zero is still zero. Deciding who wins a warrant is binary, afterall. Either the aff was more persuasive in saying GW is happening and the aff can solve it, or the negative was more persuasive. You can't have both.

 

 

 

For debaters reading this and finding themselves intrigued to attempt a real, in-depth warrants debate, I recommend you adopt the approach of embedded logic (my term) or triangulation (a term used previously):

 

1) The aff studies are wrong (the judge cannot buy that GW is happening)

2) Even if the aff studies are right, the conclusions of the effects are wrong/aff is doomsaying (extrapolate into doomsaying rhetoric/discourse bad)

3) Even if the aff conclusions are correct, the plan cant solve for it (external factors (PMAs), the plan cant solve for the root causes as outlines by the aff, etc)

4) Even if the plan can claim some modicrum of solvency for GW based on aff logic, SO2 particulates support cooling. Thus a move away from sulfurous fossil fuels --> more warming even if you cut back on CO2, ergo the aff makes things worse if the judge bought the aff answers. (opens door for a pro-fossil fuels CP, like use more coal and then cite that the lower proportion of coal usage today as a percentage of total fuels is why SO2 going down, and warming goes up)

 

Incorporate evidence, analysis, and entire argument structures (e.g. disads, turns, pma's) into your weaving of the logic cascade. What you do by establishing this heirarchy is you offer the judge multiple places to independently pull the trigger for you as well as a cohesive picture on how your strategy works synergistically with each piece feeding off the logic of the previous piece. Do this effectively, efficiently, and repeatedly against all your opponent's arguments, and you will achieve a swift victory.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

QkZ,

i also wanted to add that in your criticism of the salon card, youre missing the ppoint of the salon card - its not supposed to answer Kagan's warrants. The objective of the card is to demonstrate the the analysis is flawed because the analyst is unable to offer OBJECTIVE warrants. Would you trust a judge who was chummy with your opponents, gave you a loss despite you thinking you should have won the round handily? Probably not. Because the judge doesnt have credibility to be making a fair decision and in the same way the indict isnt supposed to answer warrants but challenge the authors ability to make said warrants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Persuasion is a matter of presentation and analysis. The warrants of the indict can be summarized as the statement "Kagan will never acknowledge X because he cannot be objective about the matter. Because he is unobjective, he twists facts to suit the theory instead of the theory to suit the facts." So if someone is unable to differentiate between reality and fiction, then why should the judge/jury evaluate the evidence/testimony regardless of what the warrants are? Let's take an example:

 

Arguments are arguments regardless of the motivation behind their source. We're not relying on Kagan's authority when we look to his arguments, or hopefully much of anything about Kagan at all. As long as Kagan uses factually accurate claims and places them in a logically valid relationship then accusations of bias aren't relevant. There might be something missing from Kagan's depiction of something, but in that case the proper response isn't to attack Kagan's credibility but to attack the details that he spins or overlooks entirely.

 

Pope: The Earth is the center of the universe, and the Vatican the center of the world. God told me so.

Scientist: Ummm, no. The Pope has a motive to say that in order to maintain his power both by claiming that the Vatican, and the Pope by extension, are the supreme 'rulers' of thought, and by claiming divine knowledge, claiming absolute power.

 

So why should you believe the Pope? Because God said so?

 

Do you really believe this example has any relevance, or are you just looking for an incredibly lazy strawman?

 

Strategically speaking, I think indicts are incredibly effective when combined with a direct attack on the warrants because it lends greater weight to your evidence in tandem - "the author is biased thus wrong, and here is another card proving why s/he is wrong." It is a method by which an affirmative can reverse spread a negative team because it forces the negative to spend time attacking both indict and warrant challenge cards AND reading a new warrant instead of just saying the typical schpiel "read the warrants of our Kagan card judge, the warrants are awesome, and the Salon indict doesn't answer them, extend the card which means that hege is the end all be all... blah blah.."

 

I think indicts are good if there's an issue in the debate which is ambiguous or difficult to evaluate in terms of warrants. Perhaps there's a factual dispute, for example. I think that the hilarious indict specifically has low logical value because it has no good warrant. It asserts that Kagan is an ass-clown because he works at a think-tank. It's not at all clear to me that people who work in think tanks are too stupid to know what they're talking about. The Salon card is better because it says that Kagan's evidence is motivated by a desire to help his brother, but I don't think the Salon card is good enough to have an effect on the debate unless the warrants of each side are extremely close.

 

If there was a card that said Kagan's predictions had empirically been wrong, I would find that a persuasive indict. But questions of motivation don't generally do it for me. Everyone is motivated to write whatever they write because otherwise they wouldn't have written it. Some write for profit, some write because they believe it, some write because they have personal incentives to write it, most write for all three reasons.

 

The "typical schpiel" is awful. The "typical indict schpiel" would be just as awful. But that's not what either of us defend.

 

You can't say that if you attack the source and the warrant. Against an affirmative team, that can be devastating coming out of the block because it kills 1ac time allocation which preventing their ability to read new evidence (both on basis of time skew and on the basis of presenting new arguments aka new warrants).

 

I think a simple - "warrants trump credibility indicts" would be sufficient. Other arguments have just as much potential for time skew.

 

Now take the previous example and add another caveat to the scientist's response:

 

Scientist (part 2): Measurements prove that the sun is the center of our solar system which is a piece of the universe and there is no 'center' on the surface of the Earth since it is a sphere. The center is the core.

 

Now don't you agree that combined, the judge should never evaluate the Pope's statement even 1%?

 

Sure, but the fact that he's a scientist doesn't do a lot to bolster his argument.

 

QkZ,

i also wanted to add that in your criticism of the salon card, youre missing the ppoint of the salon card - its not supposed to answer Kagan's warrants. The objective of the card is to demonstrate the the analysis is flawed because the analyst is unable to offer OBJECTIVE warrants. Would you trust a judge who was chummy with your opponents, gave you a loss despite you thinking you should have won the round handily? Probably not. Because the judge doesnt have credibility to be making a fair decision and in the same way the indict isnt supposed to answer warrants but challenge the authors ability to make said warrants.

 

I think your example is again nonapplicable because you make it seem as though its a forgone conclusion that I "should have won the round handily".

 

I don't know what kind of person Kagan is. I don't know how often he lies, or what kind of lies he supposedly tells. I don't know how much of his lies are true and how much are false. I can't just throw out everything Kagan says just because he has some kind of bias in what he's saying. No humans are objective; all speakers are biased. Warrants are what determine truth value, and the credibility of the speaker is only relevant insofar as direct warrants fail to inform us of what's really true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arguments are arguments regardless of the motivation behind their source. We're not relying on Kagan's authority when we look to his arguments, or hopefully much of anything about Kagan at all. As long as Kagan uses factually accurate claims and places them in a logically valid relationship then accusations of bias aren't relevant. There might be something missing from Kagan's depiction of something, but in that case the proper response isn't to attack Kagan's credibility but to attack the details that he spins or overlooks entirely.

 

And here lies the problem. You have basically stated that there is only one element to advocacy - logos. As Shree Asware admitted in this thread, most debaters don't realize that pathos and ethos DO mean something. Who would you trust more to give you advice on identifying whether you had an ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and if you need a percutaneous coronary intervention or a coronary artery bypass graft: Kagan or your cardiologist? Why? Because one is qualified to make that determination and intervention recommendation.

 

Some people respond with "thats a horribly specific subdiscipline, unlike most of what debate discusses"... so would you trust that same cardiologist to be making meaningful observations and recommendations about political capital or empire or whether it is better to create a special bus lane or light rail? Kagan isn't an expert - he's a yes man for his brother - a self serving bullshit wheel so that his brother can say "see! this think tank told me I am right!" That is the point of the Salon evidence! He doesn't have the knowledge nor the ability to be objective about his conclusions because he is given a multitude of reasons to misrepresent reality for personal gain. On the other hand, when I publish studies about the cost comparison of pharmaceutical interventions with surgical operations in preventing 2nd heart attacks, I am not motivated to publish the study by anything other than my genuine interest in the subject. But what would you say if my research was funded by, and my manuscript was edited/reviewed by the pharmaceutical companies? Would you think there is something fishy? Probably. Now what if I told you that the ethics review board approved the study only with the acceptance from the pharmaceutical company that the outcomes would be published regardless of whether it favored them and they would have no input into the manuscript nor any access to the data prior to publishing the study? Would you regain faith in that research even if it was paid for by drug companies? Probably. Do you see how challenging ethos and resurrecting it again are influencing your perspective on something so simple.

 

Warrants are incredibly important but ethos and pathos do matter.

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...