Jump to content
debatefool

What Is A Thumper In Terms Of The Politics Da?

Recommended Posts

 

2. THUMPER - The aff will claim that some other thing will happen in the

status quo that drains the presidents political capital. For example maybe

the debt ceiling bill will happen, and that will cause political disruption

and tank Obama's political capital. This argument is not TOP LEVEL

UNIQUENESS, it does not speak to the question of SKFTA passing. Rather,

this argument is LINK UNIQUENESS. It argues that the LINK to politics is

inevitable. Even without the plan Obama will lose political capital, thus

the DA is not a unique reason to reject the plan.

 

The negative answers this in 4 ways:

A. Says the THUMPER will not pass. This speaks directly to answer to the

2AC argument. For example, the negative will say that Debt Ceiling is not

going to pass, thus it won't drain political capital

 

B. Obama will not invest political capital in the bill. This argument says

that the bill in question has already drained political capital, or will be

settled without Obama stepping in. The point is that Obama will not in any

way be disrupted by the bill in question.

 

C. The Negs uniqueness takes this into account. If the negatives uniqueness

is newer than the affs THUMPER, then the negative might be able to make a

strong case that Obama already took the THUMPER into account. This relates

to the AGENDA internal link from the previous email. Obama is a smart guy

who has his agenda in order and all his ducks in a row - that includes other

bills like the THUMPER.

 

D. SKFTA is at the top of the docket. If SKFTA is the first bill that will

be considered on the current agenda, then the THUMPER won't have time to

drain capital before SKFTA passes, only the plan will have the ability to do

that because it passes instantaneously.

 

For the most part this is correct, but a thumper doesnt have to be in the form of a bill. Assuming the negative links are based off of obamas political capital, then a thumper can be anything that drains Obamas political capital. This is a good example of a thumper that wasnt a bill:

 

 

“Recess appointments cloud prospects for streamlining bill†By Emily Heil | 02:01 PM ET, 01/12/2012 http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/in-the-loop/post/recess-appointments-cloud-prospects-for-streamlining bill/2012/01/12/gIQApVxxtP_blog.html

 

President Obama’s decision last week to override the Senate and make recess appointments certainly ticked off plenty of Republicans — and now, let the Hill aftershocks commence! One possible victim of the sour mood caused by the recess appointments is a heretofore innocuous, bipartisan bill that would streamline the Senate confirmation process. The bill, which is aimed at making the notoriously laborious chamber more efficient by reducing the number of presidential appointees requiring a Senate vote, cleared the Senate back in July. Since then, it’s been languishing in the House. And now, we’re hearing that the bill might never see the light of day. The subject of confirmations has turned toxic on Capitol Hill, where Republicans in both chambers are smarting from Obama’s end-run around Senate Republicans’ gambit to keep the president from making recess appointments by technically keeping the chamber in session — even though the “sessions†lasted mere seconds each day. “The president pretty much poisoned the well on the whole subject matter,†says one Republican staffer. “If you bring that bill up now, you’d get a big fight.†Advocates for the bill were hoping for smoother sailing. They anticipated the House would simply pass the bill in deference to the Senate — since Senate GOP leaders backed it, and because it deals solely with the business of “the upper chamber.†“This should be the Senate’s prerogative, and we would hope that the House would defer to that judgement,†says Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, a bipartisan good-government group. While that might — might — have been the case just a few weeks ago, it’s certainly not now. It’s a new ball game.

 

So essentially, Obama made a controversial action and the republicans got so pissed at him that they killed a previously bipartisan bill.

Thumpers will mostly be:

1. An Obama push for something - this means Obama is investing time and political capital into something at the time that he cant invest into the rest of his agenda.

2. A political fight over something

3. Recent partisanship over an issue

4. An unpopular decision associated with Obama

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the most part this is correct, but a thumper doesnt have to be in the form of a bill.

 

>"The aff will claim that some other thing will happen in the

status quo that drains the presidents political capital."

>Implying I meant only a bill

>Reading comprehension

>2012

>MFW

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for misreading that, but the context just seemed like thumpers were legislative; just trying to clear things up

 

Aww, I'm just playin'. Your input was solid. Go you!

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A thumper is just another name for a generic disadvantage.

Sorry friend, but I believe you may have been mislead.  Also possible is a regional terminology problem, but I have never heard someone call a generic DA a "thumper" (I can't even imagine what a generic DA looks like).  Check around with other people in your area to get straightened out.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry friend, but I believe you may have been mislead.  Also possible is a regional terminology problem, but I have never heard someone call a generic DA a "thumper" (I can't even imagine what a generic DA looks like).  Check around with other people in your area to get straightened out.

I took your advice and this is what I got back. The highlights and hyperlinks are exactly as it was sent to me.

 

Thumpers Demystified

 

A thumper, a.k.a. a uniqueness thumper, is an argument that is generally just for a political capital disad that says that the president will burn his political capital elsewhere OR it is indeterminate where he will burn his capital.  If a given politics disad relies on him devoting a serious amount of capital to a crucial health care modification bill (he should "spill the capital" to soon), it is a uniqueness thumper to the negative to say that Obama is going to be confronted with a messy Guantanamo bill, an abortion bill, and an immigration bill: all of which proceed healthcare in the docket. This would (I guess like a marble) thump the uniqueness of the disad out of the washer (if you ever played marbles, you know). Of all the sites I checked out,

 

This quote provides a solid example and background:

 

One of the arguments that I get the most questions about is the politics disadvantage. For anyone unfamiliar, the argument would look something like this in the 1NC:

 

A. (Particular Congressional agenda item) will pass

 

B. The plan is partisan, hurts Obama's political capital and/or angers the GOP or Democrats, causing that agenda item to fail

 

C. That agenda item is good

 

In response, Affirmatives developed a fairly predictable playbook: that item won't pass now (non unique) and the plan's popularity helps it pass (link turn) or that the agenda item is bad (impact turn).

 

Until around 2007, I'd say that was the most common and well accepted way to answer the politics DA. While these still remain popular arguments, the most successful college 2As have developed a new tool in their arsenal commonly known as the "thumper."

 

I think a team that rolls in with a half dozen thumpers should be able to creatively choose, apply and contextualize those in a way that quickly defeats a substantial risk of the DA. After all, politics should generally be pretty low risk because of all the logical leaps/poor evidence quality.

 

If an Aff answers SKFTA by saying; no pass – 2 cards, link turn – winners win, link turn – plan popular, no impact – no korea war, etc. they are vulnerable because the negative can read more evidence and apply more spin in the block to answer the 2AC in a way that develops a *previously made 1NC claim.* The 1AR has to read lots of new UQ ev or fight an uphill battle to answer a wall of new impact stuff, new link stuff, new “will pass†args, etc.

 

I know the Neg will get up and read a wall of defense no matter what. The point is that "(x) item will pass", link evidence and impact evidence is the strongest part of most negative DAs.

 

The weakest parts are what is NOT visible, which is the soft underbelly of the DA – the nuts and bolts of the link and internal link – AKA the stuff that would make most any political theorist laugh

off the politics DA.

 

If the Aff wins these arguments, although they are “defenseâ€, they reduce the risk of the DA enormously. Even if the DA is huge and turns the case, if it is unimportant if it is unlikely.

 

The added benefit to the Aff – thumpers create a dependable politics play book, allowing you to write blocks in advance, capitalize if they break an unforeseen DA or an odd politics link trick, etc

 

If you win the combination of any two of the following five thumpers, I think you should win the debate.

 

I. Obama thumpers – A. Political capital – doesn’t have it/spending it

 

Example:

 

Tons of controversy – all losses

Dan Thomasson, 3-7-11. “Obama must be more decisive, aggressive,†Corpus Christi Caller-Times.

Confused? If you are, it's probably no more than the White House seems to be on a variety of issues. Moving into the last half of his first term and facing the rigors of being elected to a second in less than two years, this president shows none of the aggressive decisiveness at home or abroad promised in his miraculous campaign of two years ago. Now his focus seems strictly on 2012. His foreign policy is almost incoherent. His responses to the Middle Eastern turmoil have been sluggish and uncoordinated, often leaving those charged with carrying it out, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, at their wits' end. His hesitancy in both the Egyptian crisis and the one in Libya may ul-timately come back to haunt us as those seeking to oust dictatorial regimes begin to doubt our commitments. The war in Afghanistan becomes less defensible daily. Iran is scary and Pakistan is no better considering the feuding between U.S. and Paki intelligence forces. Domestically, Obama is beset by enormous deficit problems and a House Republican majority that wants to exploit his weaknesses. And while the national debt is not of his making, he has done little the last two years even to emphasize its seriousness. He opened this year by submitting a plan for ultimate resolution that even he admitted was inadequate. He has done little or nothing to interrupt the flow of guns from here to Mexican drug cartels, paying only lip service to helping solve the carnage they cause and infuriating besieged Mexican officials. Problems like Social Security, Medicare and immigration apparently are off limits. In fact, his economic spokesmen deny entitlements have an impact on short-term debt reduction. Obama obsessively spent enormous political capital on overhauling health care despite the opposition of a majority of Americans. With the courts now threatening to pick apart his masterpiece on constitutional grounds in a tidal wave of suits launched by financially strapped states, the president moved to take some of the heat off. He offered a "compromise" to complaining governors that is as shameless an act of political pandering as Washington has seen in some time. He said he would go along with amending the reform plan to allow states to opt out of its controversial points if they could find another way to accomplish the same thing without driving up health costs, which critics quickly pointed out was highly unlikely even under the best political cir-cumstances. Republicans are dedicated to repealing the law, not amending it. This is a president who more than most needs all the good help he can get. He majored in charisma and minored in political realities. Voters reacted passionately to him despite a resume that would have placed him in middle management in most private corporations. No one seemed to mind that he had served only two years in the Senate. Voters ignored the fact that he got there because the leading candidate, a Republican, self- destructed and withdrew, leaving the opposition unable to field a viable alternative. He also was a member of the Illinois legislature. For us to believe that this utter lack of experience could be overcome quickly is foolish. And before someone cites an Ivy League education as an indicator that Obama's inadequacies are just superficial and easily resolvable remember that George W. Bush went to Yale and look where that took us. There is still time for the president to step up to the promise of his campaign, to carry out in style all those pledges so eloquently handed down before and after Grant Park. It may be that his own pronouncement that he would rather be a good president for one term than a bad one for two should pertain here. That's not bad advice and it may be the reason that an army of potential Republican candidates optimistically seems to be massing for a shot at the job.

Obama has thousands of other things to do

Hayley Peterson, 3-9-11. Examiner Staff Writer, “As troubles mount in D.C., , Obama hits the road,†The Examiner (Washington, DC), Lexis.

President Obama flew to Boston on Tuesday to drum up support for greater investment in education, while back home in Washington the Senate toiled over budget-slashing proposals to stave off a government shutdown and defense officials monitored a renewed outbreak of violence in Libya. Obamas visit to TechBoston Academy in Massachusetts was his fourth domestic trip in the past month. Each week since January the president has visited a different city to highlight a different priority in his fiscal 2012 budget. Meanwhile, political revolts are sweeping across the Middle East, clashes over public employee pension benefits are paralyzing some state governments and Congress is in a stalemate over a budget resolution intended to avoid a government shutdown. Some say , Obama can only play a limited role in resolving the crises involving Libya, state governments and even Congress, and his time is better spent focusing on jobs and economy-boosting investments. The president feels very strongly that education and education reform is an economics and a jobs issue, White House spokesman Jay Carney said Tuesday. Obamas proposed budget for fiscal 2012 includes an 11 percent increase in federal education spending to more than $77 billion. If we dont have children being educated and graduating high school and moving on to higher education in the numbers that are necessary for the industries of tomorrow, then we cannot lead economically in the 21st century, Carney said.

 

II. Other Groups Angry/Won’t Compromise– A. Tea Party – B. GOP – C. No Bipart

 

Example:

 

Partisanship is at an all-time high – data proves

Jeffrey M Jones, 2-4-11. “Obama's Approval Ratings More Polarized in Year 2 Than Year 1,†Gallup, http://www.gallup.com/poll/145937/Obama ... -Year.aspx.

Though Americans have always been more approving of presidents from the party they support than of presidents from the party they oppose, the partisan gap in presidential ratings has expanded. As Gallup pointed out last year, none of the presidents prior to Reagan averaged more than a 40-point gap in approval ratings by party. But from Reagan through Obama, all except George H.W. Bush have averaged more than a 50-point divide in party ratings. The growing polarization is made clear by the fact that each of the last eight years -- spanning the final six years of George W. Bush's administration and the first two of Obama's -- have ranked in the 10 most polarized years in presidential approval ratings since 1953. Obama has made efforts of late to work with congressional Republicans, such as on the deal to extend the Bush-era income tax cuts. These efforts may have helped fuel a rise in his approval ratings, from 44% in mid-November to 50% in the most recent weekly average. But the rise in Obama's public support has not necessarily meant a reduction in the polarization of views about him, as there continues to be a nearly 70-point gap between Democratic and Republican approval ratings of the president.

 

III. Process – (x) = top of docket, Gridlock = inevitable

 

Inevitable controversy guarantees gridlock – Ornstein says it’s NEVER been this bad

Michael Bowman, 1-13-11. “Calls for Bipartisanship in Washington Will Be Tested,†Voice of America, http://www.voanews.com/english/news/usa ... 90054.html.

After one of the most productive post-election legislative sessions in U.S. history, Americans are waiting to see whether the new Congress finds bipartisan common ground or reverts to the bickering and obstructionism that has hampered Washington’s ability to address pressing issues. Partisan battle lines have been drawn over the new Republican House majority’s pledge to repeal President Barack Obama’s health care reform initiative. Other battles loom over federal spending, government debt, benefits for retirees, energy policy and immigration reform - to name but a few. Amid Washington’s chronic political discord, legislation to address national priorities often is stymied. With neither party able to fully enact its agenda or willing to compromise on core principles, gridlock ensues. In the Senate, more procedural motions to block legislation have been mounted in the last two years than in the 19th and 20th centuries combined. Political analyst Norman Ornstein said, "I’ve been in Washington for 41 years, immersed in politics of Congress, and I have never seen it this bad

 

IV. Link – Controversy over military policy is inevitable

 

Example:

 

No link UQ – their ev doesn’t assume Gates resignation and inevitable withdrawal

Chris Stirewalt, 4-6-11. “Obama-Boehner Fight Gets Ugly,†FOX News, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/04 ... z1JXmt1wTl

The greatest personnel success of the Obama administration has been in getting Defense Secretary Robert Gates to remain in his post. As President Obama’s struggle to win public and congressional support for the U.S. entry into the Libyan civil war has shown, Obama often struggles to make his own case on matters martial. Gates, a Bush appointee and an old Washington hand, has provided bipartisan reassurance about Obama’s nation-building surge in Afghanistan, withdrawal strategy in Iraq and the expansion of a secret war against al Qaeda around the world. And, as he has done in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Gates has been an important reassurance to longstanding military allies that regardless of sometimes confusing rhetoric from the president, the U.S. is a stalwart friend. Gates, though, has announced his decision to depart this year and his current flurry of international visits has the feeling of a curtain call – visits to China, Russia and Israel and to inspect the troops in Afghanistan. As Gates is leaving, tensions are already mounting between the Pentagon and the White House. There is widely-reported resentment among the military leaders over the Libya war, a conflict Gates warned against entering. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a proponent of intervention, won out. There is also high anxiety over this summer’s scheduled Afghan troop drawdown. While Gates and others in the war business have dramatically downplayed the June deadline for starting the American withdrawal, the White House has stuck to Obama’s promise of a time-limited surge with substantial reductions in the 100,000-man U.S. military presence starting this summer. This all comes as Gen. David Petraeus’ rotation as Afghan commander is about up. As Obama’s Afghan project becomes increasingly unpopular, with many Republicans now questioning its wisdom, the president will lose two publicly trusted figures on the conflict. Don’t forget either that the term for Adm. Mike Mullen as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is about through too. There is speculation in Washington that CIA Director and former Clinton White House Chief of Staff Leon Panetta may be the president’s pick to lead the Defense Department -- an odd pick, but one that would certainly reduce friction between the State and Defense departments. Then, as multiple sources have told FOX News, Petraeus could be tapped for CIA director. This would also be an odd choice since Petraeus’ background is in strategy and field command, not spooky stuff. But it would also be something to do with the popular general who may have saved the president’s bacon when Gen. Stanley McChrystal had a PR meltdown, but is nonetheless seen as outside of Obama’s narrow comfort zone and therefore unsuited to replace Mullen as the top commander in the military. Getting Petraeus out of uniform but still under orders as the Afghan drawdown begins might help prevent awkward public utterances from America’s best-known general. What is unclear is whether Petraeus would have an interest in becoming a spymaster. But such speculation is only a parlor game – and one easily rigged by disinformation and misinformation. The inescapable truth, though, is that Obama’s struggles on national security will soon deepen as Gates leaves.

 

V. Theory –

 

Example:

 

Our interpretation is that the plan is only a statement of desirability.

 

There are several net benefits –

 

1. Fiat solves the link – requires the least means necessary for change, which minimizes the DA by half

 

2. No Link – the plan is a statement of desirability, not means – questions of means are unimportant without specific evidence

 

3. A logical policy maker can do both without consequence – the plan’s political consequences occur post implementation, not prior

 

ALSO –

 

( ___ ) Senators don’t switch votes on the plan – they default to their base and compartmentalize issues over Presidential desires – Obama was the kiss of death on the last campaign trail

 

( ___ ) Capital isn’t key – no ev highlights the primacy of military issues to critical factions

 

 

 

Okay, the highlight did not come through on the copy and paste. I appreciate all the posts on this because this cleared up a lot of confusion and questions. You are right about regional terminology issues. Some areas like mine are behind other more progressive areas and a mistake can be made and then repeated within the area for too long before someone beyond our area like you politely corrects the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should not make politics theory arguments.

"fiat solves the link"

"logical policymaker can do both"

bottom of the docket"

 

they are stupid

please abstain

 

-Dan 2013

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should not make politics theory arguments.

"fiat solves the link"

"logical policymaker can do both"

bottom of the docket"

 

they are stupid

please abstain

 

-Dan 2013

 

You should not listen to this poster.  Intrinsicness is one of the most strategic and logical arguments you can make against politics.  You should always say a logical policy maker should do both - unless the negative has yet to introduce a CP or K they have already shifted the role of the judge to something that could logically pass both the politics bill (CIR, whatever) and the plan.  There are many other strategic interactions between neg arguments and intrinsicness, but it's something that should always be in your arsenal.  Being able to defeat a new politics DA you don't have issue specific UQ on is a devastating strategic possibility and makes you a huge theory threat no matter how much the neg has researched.  

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should not listen to this poster.  Intrinsicness is one of the most strategic and logical arguments you can make against politics.  You should always say a logical policy maker should do both - unless the negative has yet to introduce a CP or K they have already shifted the role of the judge to something that could logically pass both the politics bill (CIR, whatever) and the plan.  There are many other strategic interactions between neg arguments and intrinsicness, but it's something that should always be in your arsenal.  Being able to defeat a new politics DA you don't have issue specific UQ on is a devastating strategic possibility and makes you a huge theory threat no matter how much the neg has researched. 

 

being able to defeat the politics DA on the intrinsicness arg? what?

 

most judges think politics theory is stupid unless dropped, and any competent team would just spend 5 seconds on it in the block. 

 

still, DA IS intrinsic- proven by link/internal (Even the most powerful policymakers consider tradeoff on agenda. When Obama went all in on healthcare, he made a calc that other things weren’t as important and he preserved his political capital) and intrinsicness is a voter, dooms neg ground, infinite, unpredictable, no such thing as an intrinsic DA, there's always something they can do to alleviate the DA. ALSO no one policy maker controls the whole federal government. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should not make politics theory arguments.

"fiat solves the link"

"logical policymaker can do both"

bottom of the docket"

 

they are stupid

please abstain

 

-Dan 2013

 

Nah, even if they're bad arguments (which I'm not entirely convinced they are) they're always a positive time trade-off for the aff - they take you less than 5 seconds to make so they're really no risk, and you need those when you're aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

being able to defeat the politics DA on the intrinsicness arg? what?

 

most judges think politics theory is stupid unless dropped, and any competent team would just spend 5 seconds on it in the block. 

 

still, DA IS intrinsic- proven by link/internal (Even the most powerful policymakers consider tradeoff on agenda. When Obama went all in on healthcare, he made a calc that other things weren’t as important and he preserved his political capital) and intrinsicness is a voter, dooms neg ground, infinite, unpredictable, no such thing as an intrinsic DA, there's always something they can do to alleviate the DA. ALSO no one policy maker controls the whole federal government. 

OK, I'll bite.  I will debate you on this right here in this thread.  But before we do any of that, I have one question for you: what does the judge represent?  Is the judge the entire USFG?  An interested politizen?  The president?  What is the role of the judge?

 

Answer that and then I'll go round for round with you.  I'll make a 2AC, you a 2NC, me a 1AR, etc.  We assume reasonable time trade-offs (the 1AR wouldn't spend more than 40 seconds on it, the block wouldn't spend 3 minutes, etc) and I'll take you on.  I believe you are underestimating the value of this argument and perhaps this method will resolve that.

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, some judges are more willing than others to vote on intrisicness than others, but you should listen to Maury - you shouldn't ignore the argument or just spend 10 seconds dismissing it as silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...