Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Deuces

Answers To Normativity?

Recommended Posts

I'm having a practice debate soon and I know the other team is running the normativity kritik. I need help answering that? Could you all help me and sort of explain it to me. I understand the basis, but not completely. Thank you in advance! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normativity is a critique of:

1. legal discourse

2. norms in legal discourse

3. fiat in debate (the should question)

 

He also makes some similar claims about lawyers (and presumably politicians/public policy thinkers) being more like insurance adjusters (think bean counters or accountants)--then Atticus Finch from "To Kill a Mockingbird."

 

Claims in debate are generally of two types:

1. "Factual" or depictions of "facts"

2. Or value & ethics based claims (arguably this includes the ethic of utilitarianism)

 

Answers to it include:

1. Relativisim fails/flawed (this is a massive refutation of relativism by philosopher Peter Kreft--he makes 7 arguments against it)

2. Values/norms good

3. gotta act/law good (working within the law is effective, we can use the letter of the law against itself).

4. K of normativity = paralysis.

5. K or normativity links to itself. Or their other arguments in the debate link to normativity (with an advocacy or voting issue).

6. Arguably something like Natural law theory good can also be helpful.

7. Law & legal discourse creates change (cultural change & ideological change). Particularly if you can provide before and after, which demonstrates the transformation law has provided.

8. Rationality & reason good. Irrationality bad. Or your K is irrational & the impact is X, Y, and Z.

9. Examples of good legal discourse--where people were really helped by the law.

10. Democracy checks domination & war (card)

11. Federalism checks war (card)

12. Law checks crime and anarchy (card). (State of nature bad type arguments)

12. 5 Our discourse about X is productive--it does X, Y, and Z (for instance check out the file that came out of Northwestern on the view from space being good....this does open some other areas that neg could go after....but I think these are pretty good.)

 

If they quote anyone but Pierre Schlag and Richard Delgado....they may be saying something more than I outlined.

Paul Campos writes some similar stuff.

 

* They probably have answers...but Mark V. Tushnet may answer the argument (assuming you have access to JSTOR). He may be answering CLS--I forget.

 

The main argument comes from 3 articles Schlagg wrote in the early 90's.

 

1. So philosophy and values have never helped anyone?

2. Is freedom better than coersion?

3. Are rights better than slavery?

4. If we don't act on principles--aren't we just acting on going with the crowd or how we've been influenced. Our defacto instincts would cause us to follow the herd/the group or be animalistic?

5. If your K is true....should washington just stop governing & close up shop?

6. If the K is true, why does he use legal language in law journals and teach at a law school? (cheap shot a little bit....)

7. Should we get rid of legal discourse? Should we get rid of legal bureaucracy?

8. Why is a world without bureaucracy better than a world with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Normativity is a critique of:

1. legal discourse

2. norms in legal discourse

3. fiat in debate (the should question)

 

He also makes some similar claims about lawyers (and presumably politicians/public policy thinkers) being more like insurance adjusters (think bean counters or accountants)--then Atticus Finch from "To Kill a Mockingbird."

 

Claims in debate are generally of two types:

1. "Factual" or depictions of "facts"

2. Or value & ethics based claims (arguably this includes the ethic of utilitarianism)

 

Answers to it include:

1. Relativisim fails/flawed (this is a massive refutation of relativism by philosopher Peter Kreft--he makes 7 arguments against it)

2. Values/norms good

3. gotta act/law good (working within the law is effective, we can use the letter of the law against itself).

4. K of normativity = paralysis.

5. K or normativity links to itself. Or their other arguments in the debate link to normativity (with an advocacy or voting issue).

6. Arguably something like Natural law theory good can also be helpful.

7. Law & legal discourse creates change (cultural change & ideological change). Particularly if you can provide before and after, which demonstrates the transformation law has provided.

8. Rationality & reason good. Irrationality bad. Or your K is irrational & the impact is X, Y, and Z.

9. Examples of good legal discourse--where people were really helped by the law.

10. Democracy checks domination & war (card)

11. Federalism checks war (card)

12. Law checks crime and anarchy (card). (State of nature bad type arguments)

12. 5 Our discourse about X is productive--it does X, Y, and Z (for instance check out the file that came out of Northwestern on the view from space being good....this does open some other areas that neg could go after....but I think these are pretty good.)

 

If they quote anyone but Pierre Schlag and Richard Delgado....they may be saying something more than I outlined.

Paul Campos writes some similar stuff.

 

* They probably have answers...but Mark V. Tushnet may answer the argument (assuming you have access to JSTOR). He may be answering CLS--I forget.

 

The main argument comes from 3 articles Schlagg wrote in the early 90's.

 

Apparently Schlagg blogs here: http://brazenandtenured.com/

 

1. So philosophy and values have never helped anyone?

2. Is freedom better than coersion?

3. Are rights better than slavery?

4. If we don't act on principles--aren't we just acting on going with the crowd or how we've been influenced. Our defacto instincts would cause us to follow the herd/the group or be animalistic?

5. If your K is true....should washington just stop governing & close up shop?

6. If the K is true, why does he use legal language in law journals and teach at a law school? (cheap shot a little bit....)

7. Should we get rid of legal discourse? Should we get rid of legal bureaucracy?

8. Why is a world without bureaucracy better than a world with it?

 

Also, Just copy what they say. If we are to throw out all the rules, why does it make any less sense to perm it and win. The only response they can give is that you should follow the rules which kills their K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Schlag argument is, at its core, a very basic post-structural critique of legal thought. Very simply, it says that we can't make clean decisions about what should be done, because the ways in which we make those decisions are already committed to certain structures, norms, ways of thinking, etc., that are themselves the reason why the aff's harms exist in the first place. I think the weakness of just reading a bunch of Schlag cards is that the ev makes no attempt to contextualize itself to the specificity of the aff - the most commonly read Schlag evidence is very abstract and doesn't really make sense in debate without some links to the particularities of the aff's advantages. The way I see it, Schlag makes some very basic (and well written) Foucault-ish claims without the detailed historical or contemporary analysis of someone like Foucault.

 

The two main arguments you need to win, then, are:

1. A defense of pragmatism, i.e., a philosophical justification for making decisions without having all the facts in the world. Because we can never really have all the facts, right? And if things like modern knowledge production are suspect, how could we ever be sure that we have sufficiently analyzed our situation such that we can start making decisions? This is sort of a synthesis of nathan's "paralysis" and "action/law good" args. It also probably entails a defense of positivist epistemology.

2. A defense of role playing. This is in every framework file ever. You should have a couple distinct reasons why it's good to imagine making USFG policy, even if we don't actually 'have our hands on the levers of power.' High schoolers reading norm often just end up repeating "fiat is illusory!" over and over, so if you can have some nuanced answers that justify strategic uses of the illusion of fiat, then you will get ahead pretty quickly.

 

A lot of people try to coast by on answering Schlag with simple answers/attempts to identify contradictions like "you're normative too" or "you don't have an alt" or "schlag is also a lawyer." These are okay at illustrating the above arguments, but by themselves aren't very persuasive. You should focus less on getting cheap "aha" moments in CX and more on developing a rich philosophical defense of your method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only response they can give is that you should follow the rules which kills their K

 

Normativity isn't a critique of "the rules" per se.

 

James is largely correct here:

 

1. A defense of pragmatism, i.e., a philosophical justification for making decisions without having all the facts in the world. Because we can never really have all the facts, right? And if things like modern knowledge production are suspect, how could we ever be sure that we have sufficiently analyzed our situation such that we can start making decisions? This is sort of a synthesis of nathan's "paralysis" and "action/law good" args. It also probably entails a defense of positivist epistemology.

2. A defense of role playing. This is in every framework file ever. You should have a couple distinct reasons why it's good to imagine making USFG policy, even if we don't actually 'have our hands on the levers of power.' High schoolers reading norm often just end up repeating "fiat is illusory!" over and over, so if you can have some nuanced answers that justify strategic uses of the illusion of fiat, then you will get ahead pretty quickly.

 

I think if you defend values (aka norms)--I think your defense of pragmatism makes more sense. So, its a critique of humanism & liberalism.

And the way James frames it of course, pragmatism & law good are essentially one argument.

 

Beware, if they are reading more authors than just Schlag & Delgado...the K may be more than what we describe. One possible sign is if they read a DA to your permutation. (they won't call it a DA it will probably just be norms bad/law bad/values bad)

 

If they try to make the following case turn argument.....the evidence is terrible and the argument is even worse. It is entirely non-sensical.
Very simply, it says that we can't make clean decisions about what should be done, because the ways in which we make those decisions are already committed to certain structures, norms, ways of thinking, etc., that are themselves the reason why the aff's harms exist in the first place.

 

I should probably add that I may have gone a bit overboard on law good impact turns.

 

And the so-called cheap shots probably won't win you the debate....but they are easy to make & point to the inherent paradoxes of the theory. I think judges are compelled by arguments like you link to your own theory/argument (as long as their "well our alt. solves" doesn't work). Moreover, they also may get the aff to read "performative contradictions good"--which is actually good for you. At a minimum it should create a time tradeoff which is favorable to you.

 

I also recommend reading "Moves" by Delgado as well as his other on Normativity.....given that the former has the some of the AT answers, so you can be ready for what you are going to hear (or at least what you could potentially hear in response to your args.).

 

Also, here is a semi-coherent explanation of some of the Normativity critique: http://legalcommunic...ormativity.html

It links to the original articles by Schlag so you can read them if you would like to. Also, here is Schlags breakdown of his articles by subject area: http://pierreschlag.com/the-legal-distinction/by-subject/

Note: most of the critique comes from the stuff he did in the early 1990s. (Normative & Nowhere to Go, Clerks in the Maze, etc...). Although you can certainly add others.

 

Also, there are 2 or 3 Schlag cards that people read against Schlag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. A defense of role playing. This is in every framework file ever. You should have a couple distinct reasons why it's good to imagine making USFG policy, even if we don't actually 'have our hands on the levers of power.' High schoolers reading norm often just end up repeating "fiat is illusory!" over and over, so if you can have some nuanced answers that justify strategic uses of the illusion of fiat, then you will get ahead pretty quickly.

This..

Just paint a picture of debate without Fiat etc. It would be terrible. Also, perm: kick them in the dick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×