Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
LilMax

Best Ever...

Recommended Posts

178 isn't just overkill... its just functionally useless. Though I suppose if you printed it out, it could make for hemherroid-inducing toilet paper. And it reeks of just a combination of old camp files on ASPEC.

 

The reason ASPEC is a terrible theory argument is that it lacks validity derived from either the resolution or commonly accepted debate norms. There is nothing in the resolution which states that the negative is guaranteed the right to assert a specific argument or even a specific side of the resolution! Nothing in the rules (for most tournaments) state the affirmative need to even affirm the resolution. The terms "affirmative" and "negative" are derived from a relational positon to one another - one team affirms a position, the other negates the position. Accordingly, the affirmative is equally justified in affirming the resolution as they are in negating it. The idea that the teams are "assigned a side of the resolution" is rather antiquated and not based on the resolution and as it is also not based on the rules, its an arbitrarily imposed restriction on the affirmative. Only by placing this arbitrary rule can one even BEGIN to discuss ASPEC.

 

But therein lies an even greater theoretical discord - the sheer act of speaking on the resolution, as either affirming the resolution or negating it, results in an irreparable shift in argument ground regardless of specification of actor. It is the act of the first affirmative opening his or her mouth which creates an actual shift in argument ground, and not the lack of specification which creates only an illusion of altered ground. The lunacy of ASPEC is best described with an example. If the affimative were to read a standard topical plan during 1ac, the 1nc cannot and should not be permitted to claim that they were entitled to arguing that very same position as counterpoint and that the affirmative should have read a different 1ac (legitimacy of topical counterplans or plan plan is a gray undefined and debatable area). This notion reinforces the only theoretical solution to the ASPEC problem is to view the debate as an affirmation of a position (not the resolution) and a negation of the aforementioned affirmed position thereby structuring a debate in which the notion of ASPEC is rendered impotent by theory as it illustrates the negative never retained any right to the argument ground encompassed by the affirmative. And in such a light, there can never be any detriment to negative strategy regardless of lacking specification because the speech act of the first affirmative guarantees the negative all ground not affirmative. This is a far superior distinction because is preserves a clear balance in argument ground (irrespective of style) and infringement by either party is both definitive and obvious without a grey area dependent on arbitrary imposition of rules and interpretation of those rules in the context of hypothetical or actual abuse.

 

I agree- ASPEC isn't a winning strategy, but don't you think ASPEC has a strategic roles to play--like generating additional artificial competition for a SCOTUS CP or other process/agent CPs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the value... if you want to compound a bad strategy with a worse strategy. Adding layers of bad arguments doesn't somehow improve the value of the first bad argument.

 

But its also clear that from my interpretation of what is and is not under/over specification, agent/process CPs are rendered impotent except where it is guaranteed by the resolution. For example, if the affirmative was USFG, the neg has no right to run a SCOTUS cp and there is no real purpose to running one except to abuse the affirmative for being topical. But the neg does have a right to a NATO CP because NATO is definitively outside the scope of the 1ac as permitted by the resolution and so is the states counterplan because that is outside the scope of USFG. I would love for anyone to explain to me why the negative is EVER guaranteed the right to run a courts, XO, or any other agent/process CP encompassed by the affirmative. If the aff says USFG, courts is included.

 

As an aside, yes, I don't like agent CPs as a whole because I pretty much think they can be permed 99.9% of the time. But I do like them when you use solvency differential as the basis for competition.

 

When it comes to theoretical interpretations, I always advocate for resolutional basis or actual rules of debate - both are definitive and not open to interpretation meaning a brightline is established and infringement is plainly obvious.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the value... if you want to compound a bad strategy with a worse strategy. Adding layers of bad arguments doesn't somehow improve the value of the first bad argument.

 

But its also clear that from my interpretation of what is and is not under/over specification, agent/process CPs are rendered impotent except where it is guaranteed by the resolution. For example, if the affirmative was USFG, the neg has no right to run a SCOTUS cp and there is no real purpose to running one except to abuse the affirmative for being topical. But the neg does have a right to a NATO CP because NATO is definitively outside the scope of the 1ac as permitted by the resolution and so is the states counterplan because that is outside the scope of USFG. I would love for anyone to explain to me why the negative is EVER guaranteed the right to run a courts, XO, or any other agent/process CP encompassed by the affirmative. If the aff says USFG, courts is included.

 

As an aside, yes, I don't like agent CPs as a whole because I pretty much think they can be permed 99.9% of the time. But I do like them when you use solvency differential as the basis for competition.

 

When it comes to theoretical interpretations, I always advocate for resolutional basis or actual rules of debate - both are definitive and not open to interpretation meaning a brightline is established and infringement is plainly obvious.

 

What do you think about states?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only fools use Elmore in ASPEC.

 

Truth. Spence is where it's at.

 

 

Spence 4 – Matthew Spence, Co-Founder and Director of the Truman National Security Project, October 4, 2004, “Policy Coherence and Incoherence: The Domestic Politics of American Democracy Promotionâ€

 

Yet evaluations of American democracy promotion efforts often give scant attention to the complex interaction of various arms of the U.S. government. Discussing the “American approach†to democracy promotion risks implicitly assuming the U.S. government is a rational, unified actor that is implementing a single, internally coherent democracy promotion policy. To the contrary, the American government does not have one democracy promotion policy or strategy, but rather several policies, which interact in complex and often unexpected ways. That is, several different bureaucratic actors within the U.S. government promote democracy using different strategies, resources, tools, and levels of coordination.

In short, this paper argues that it is difficult to understand the effects of American democracy promotion abroad without examining the bureaucratic context from which the policy emerges at home. Which actors within the U.S. government are involved in promoting political and economic change abroad? What strategies and conceptual models guide them? What tools and resources do they bring to bear? How does the interaction of American bureaucratic politics affect the impact of American democracy promotion? Articulating this mix of goals, strategies, and resources helps explain incoherent patterns of outcomes on the ground.

This paper explore these questions by reference to the U.S. government’s most ambitious democracy promotion efforts of the past decade: the effort to rebuild its former Soviet enemies into a democratic allies in the 1990s. Yet the patterns of American bureaucratic politics are not unique to this democracy promotion effort. While American democracy promotion has changed in tone and substance under the watch of George W. Bush, American domestic politics has powerfully shaped American democracy promotion in similar ways in Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond.

In the 1990s. American policymakers at the highest levels had a clear vision of their desired outcome in the former Soviet space: stable democracies that would no longer threaten the West. But three obstacles complicated policymakers’ attempts to translate strategy into tactics: domestic political constraints in mobilizing resources for the task, competing policy goals, and conceptual uncertainty about the meaning of democracy promotion. Since no consensus existed in the early 1990s about how to promote democracy, bureaucratic policymaking filled this conceptual gap.

This produced not a single U.S. preference or message in support of democracy on the ground, but instead many policies, which often interacted in unexpected ways. The sheer range of official American activities to promote democracy meant that the U.S. could either wield enormous power to convince other governments to change their behavior, or send weak and disorganized signals that realized little of America’s potential for influence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you think about states?

 

 

U dunt red 2 gud. Hook3d on phonix wurked fur yoo!

Its in my previous post.

States is resolutionally guaranteed against any topical affirmative because the states are outside the scope of the USFG.

But the problem with states is then you end up with a card like Spence (see quoted text below) being read against you... because of the hodgepodge of laws across 50 states, nothing makes sense and everything becomes ineffective. States is generally a poor argument to make because the implications of the counterplan are muted by the lack of 50 states solvency. But its terribly effective when it comes to matters of jurisprudence whereby the affirmative claims a SCotUS argument or if the affirmative is decisively unconstitutional... but good luck finding much unconstitutionality next year. Its pretty clear that the USFG can enact policies on transportation infrastructure....

 

 

Truth. Spence is where it's at.

 

 

Spence 4 – Matthew Spence, Co-Founder and Director of the Truman National Security Project, October 4, 2004, “Policy Coherence and Incoherence: The Domestic Politics of American Democracy Promotionâ€

 

Yet evaluations of American democracy promotion efforts often give scant attention to the complex interaction of various arms of the U.S. government. Discussing the “American approach†to democracy promotion risks implicitly assuming the U.S. government is a rational, unified actor that is implementing a single, internally coherent democracy promotion policy. To the contrary, the American government does not have one democracy promotion policy or strategy, but rather several policies, which interact in complex and often unexpected ways. That is, several different bureaucratic actors within the U.S. government promote democracy using different strategies, resources, tools, and levels of coordination.

In short, this paper argues that it is difficult to understand the effects of American democracy promotion abroad without examining the bureaucratic context from which the policy emerges at home. Which actors within the U.S. government are involved in promoting political and economic change abroad? What strategies and conceptual models guide them? What tools and resources do they bring to bear? How does the interaction of American bureaucratic politics affect the impact of American democracy promotion? Articulating this mix of goals, strategies, and resources helps explain incoherent patterns of outcomes on the ground.

This paper explore these questions by reference to the U.S. government’s most ambitious democracy promotion efforts of the past decade: the effort to rebuild its former Soviet enemies into a democratic allies in the 1990s. Yet the patterns of American bureaucratic politics are not unique to this democracy promotion effort. While American democracy promotion has changed in tone and substance under the watch of George W. Bush, American domestic politics has powerfully shaped American democracy promotion in similar ways in Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond.

In the 1990s. American policymakers at the highest levels had a clear vision of their desired outcome in the former Soviet space: stable democracies that would no longer threaten the West. But three obstacles complicated policymakers’ attempts to translate strategy into tactics: domestic political constraints in mobilizing resources for the task, competing policy goals, and conceptual uncertainty about the meaning of democracy promotion. Since no consensus existed in the early 1990s about how to promote democracy, bureaucratic policymaking filled this conceptual gap.

This produced not a single U.S. preference or message in support of democracy on the ground, but instead many policies, which often interacted in unexpected ways. The sheer range of official American activities to promote democracy meant that the U.S. could either wield enormous power to convince other governments to change their behavior, or send weak and disorganized signals that realized little of America’s potential for influence.

 

This is precisely what I mean when I say there is so much bad evidence being used in debate. t plainly does not say what you want it to say unless you read it with internal cuts which change the meaning of the evidence.

 

That card has very little relevance to almost every single foreign or domestic policy. It talks about an umbrella theme of "democracy promotion" which is haphazardly implemented by varying actors within government. "Democracy promotion" is not a policy - its a description of a group of policies which attempt to achieve a specified goal. Most policies that affirmatives espouse are resolutionally limited to avoiding vague umbrella themes and opting for targeted, specific policies. No one runs a "Resolved: USFG should stop global warming" plan. Its always "USFG should stop lobal warming by agreeing to international standards on emissions cap at XXX %" There is nothing contradictory within the implentation of the latter.

 

About the only situation in which ASPEC makes sense as an argument is a whole-rez argument where the affirmative affirms the resolution with NO specifics on how to do so but only to do so in rhetoric.

 

So general rule of thumb, dont run ASPEC if the aff plan is a subset of the resolution/specific method of implementing the resolution.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the round at dowling in question the one where I remember a judge in the break room with his head in hands, muttering to his friend "I just voted on ASPEC... I want to kill a baby. I WANT TO KILL A BABY!" perchance?

 

No because it was a woman judge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thinking about reducing the price would this encourage some of y'all to purchase this file? I was thinking of reducing the price to $10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you sold this file for $7.50 you'd get $5 per sale and I bet you'd sell a ton of copies. People like big files no matter what they are on.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you sold this file for $7.50 you'd get $5 per sale and I bet you'd sell a ton of copies. People like big files no matter what they are on.

 

Good point, thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WAIT. Evazon authors get 66% percent? That's so much more than what I thought it was.

 

I would love for anyone to explain to me why the negative is EVER guaranteed the right to run a courts, XO, or any other agent/process CP encompassed by the affirmative. If the aff says USFG, courts is included.

 

Because in that case it's functionally a PIC? I mean, if you're contesting the legitimacy of PICs in general, that's fine. Otherwise this doesn't make sense though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gah, can't believe I'm commenting in this thread...

 

WAIT. Evazon authors get 66% percent? That's so much more than what I thought it was.

 

 

 

Because in that case it's functionally a PIC? I mean, if you're contesting the legitimacy of PICs in general, that's fine. Otherwise this doesn't make sense though.

 

I just signed up, and it told me that 40% any revenue is taken as commission.

 

He's talking about why the neg is "guaranteed" any ground to begin with, considering that the neg's primary goal is to refute whatever the aff says, and the aff could say anything (kind of).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's talking about why the neg is "guaranteed" any ground to begin with, considering that the neg's primary goal is to refute whatever the aff says, and the aff could say anything (kind of).

 

For example, if the affirmative was USFG, the neg has no right to run a SCOTUS cp and there is no real purpose to running one except to abuse the affirmative for being topical.

 

I would love for anyone to explain to me why the negative is EVER guaranteed the right to run... any... agent/process CP encompassed by the affirmative. If the aff says USFG, courts is included.

 

As an aside, yes, I don't like agent CPs as a whole because I pretty much think they can be permed 99.9% of the time.

 

It doesn't look that way to me. I initially interpreted his comment the same way you did, but it really doesn't make much sense that way. It looks like he's just ignoring the existence of PICs. But that would also not make sense for other reasons. I'm tempted to chalk it up to bad grammar, but then I can't make sense of the first quotation. I'm thinking that he has unusual views on permutation theory in the presence of Agent PICs, and I'm bored so I'd like to hear them articulated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't look that way to me. I initially interpreted his comment the same way you did, but it really doesn't make much sense that way. It looks like he's just ignoring the existence of PICs. But that would also not make sense for other reasons. I'm tempted to chalk it up to bad grammar, but then I can't make sense of the first quotation. I'm thinking that he has unusual views on permutation theory in the presence of Agent PICs, and I'm bored so I'd like to hear them articulated.

 

Although in a marginally related way, due in large part to a discussion of counterplans, you mistake this conversation as an extension of my permutation theory (which is actually not mine but just debate theory from the 80's and before). My argument on permutation theory is that permutations should be based on plan & cp text which determines competition for evaluating competing policies - whether the perm is beneficial is irrelevant. This conversation is driven by my defense of the argument that the affirmative affirms a position and the negative negates the aforementioned affirmed position - and what the initial position may be must be resolutional, but need not be in defense of it. If anything, this is far more related to my proposal that anti-rez is a completely functional affirmative position.

 

But thats neither here nor there. Let us initially posit that we only discuss normal debate, i.e. that the affirmative does not negate the resolution.

 

Examine the following two scenarios:

 

Scenario 1: Normal debate

Aff: The USFG should increase investment into rebuilding the interstate highway system

Neg: You did not specify your agent (XO,courts, normal bill passage, pocket veto/override, con-con, congress...). We lost the ability to make valuable agent specific arguments, so we are abused! The aff should lose.

 

Scenario 2: Wacky debate

Aff: The USFG should increase investment into rebuilding the interstate highway system

Neg: The 1ac has nothing to do with space. We came ready to discuss solar power satellites. We are abused! The aff should lose!

 

On face, people chuckle when I give them these examples because they assume both are completely different scenarios. But in actuality they share a major commonality because both are predicated on one basic assumption - the negative has the right to assert specific argument. One cannot infringe upon one's ground, if one does not have a right to said ground. You cannot be justified in shooting a neighbor tresspasser on your property... if the neighbor is in his backyard and not on your property.

 

The essence of the ASPEC argument (and truly most spec arguments) is that by not specifying it makes negative strategy difficult because the affirmative agent is not stratified and that the negative seeks a clearer definition of the agent to permit them a topical agent. And the warrant behind the voter is simply that the negative has a right to make a given argument and denying the negative this ability is bad. So what you are actually doing is abusing the affirmative for being topical. It is unquestionable that if the affirmative case states "usfg should do...." that they are topical on the term USFG. So in essence, ASPEC requires further stratification which is not permissible resolutionally. The resolution explicitly states the team affirming the resoluion should advocate a specific agent - USFG, not "courts". The team opting to affirm the resolution is required to defend the resolutionally mandated agent to preserve fairness. Just as "usfg should do..." is clearly topical by agent, "courts should do..." is clearly not topical. So either the affirmative loses by not specifying but being topical, or specifies and is not topical. One might say this is just creative debate, but the theoretical double bind of ASPEC-Topicality is clearly as fallacious as 0=1. The reason the double bind exists is because the negative is attempting to claim topical ground guaranteed to the affirmative for their defense and in doing so, crossing a clear threshold of what they can and cannot do in a fair debate. In actual realworld non-debate praxis, there is value to the discussion of how a plan is implemented - but debate is not real world policy making; it is a competitive game of mock policymaking. Accordingly, what is real may not be fair (see: solvency-inherency double bind).

 

When the affirmative opts for a specific policy implementation of the resolution, they establish the argument they are offering to defend - the USFG doing "A". This means the negative is guaranteed the right to all argument of the USFG doing B, C, D.... and all non USFG actions. But what the neg cannot do is say "hey! you can't choose usfg! that was MY actor!" In another scenario, let us say that the aff defends the whole resolution by simply affirming it without a policy subset. The negative should not be permitted to say "hey, I just lost this really specific disad to a public transit case!"

 

Effectively, my interpretation is the clearest brightline one can offer while preserving a fair and predictable balance of argument ground for both teams - the affirmative is guaranteed the right to defend the position of their choice (which includes agent) by the virtue of speaking first. The negative is guaranteed the right to all ground not already encompassed by the affirmative.

 

As far as perm theory goes in relation to this, its unrelated to my perm by text/competition arguments. The negative uses ASPEC to prevent the affirmative from simply ducking around a Courts CP in response to a USFG policy by saying "oh yeah. we do that. its part of the USFG." The negative claims this is illegitimate, but that is predicated again on the premise that the negative should have been permitted to run the courts CP in the first place when in actuality, the CP is an infringement upon affirmative ground.

 

At the end of the day, on a theoretical level, ASPEC is simply an argument which boils down to the negative saying "hey, I want to abuse the aff and steal their ground, but the aff won't let me so they should lose."

 

It should be clear that I make no stand in this position on the legitimacy of topical alternate agent counterplans... only the idea that the negative is guaranteed a right to them. You cannot be abused if you run an argument, the aff squirrels out of it, and then claim abuse on an argument the neg didn't have a right to run in the first place.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...