Jump to content
deb8lover

Politics Questions

Recommended Posts

i just have a few glossary questions in relation to the politics DA-- what is:

 

1) a focus link

2) bottom of the docket

3) horse trading

4) no political will

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Plan passage distracts from applying pressure needed to pass the scenario

2. Theory arg - fiat means the plan happens after the politics scenario - probably not legitimate

3. Exchanging favors - agreeing to back or stop one bill in exchange for support on another

4. Nobody is pushing the thing in the status quo - a uniqueness claim

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. Theory arg - fiat means the plan happens after the politics scenario - probably not legitimate

This isn't a real explanation.

Bottom of the docket argues that the plan starts at the bottom of the congressional docket, as with every bill, and is voted on/put into action AFTER the politics bill which is at the top of the docket.

It's not legitimate because fiat means the plan happens immediately, which means it'd need to be placed at the top.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This isn't a real explanation.

Bottom of the docket argues that the plan starts at the bottom of the congressional docket, as with every bill, and is voted on/put into action AFTER the politics bill which is at the top of the docket.

It's not legitimate because fiat means the plan happens immediately, which means it'd need to be placed at the top.

 

Err... Just no.

 

Fiat means we imagine plan is.  Plan doesn't "happen".  It isn't "passed".  It just is.  We imagine the counterfactual world that is SQ + plan already in effect.  Not SQ + plan + political maneuvering that would be necessary to pass plan, because that isn't SQ + plan and only plan.  The whole point of fiat is imagining the world with the plan in it, so if that world is a good world, then we know we should do it, which means Congress should pass it.  Not that Congress has passed it.  

 

That Congress should pass it doesn't mean they must pass it tomorrow.  This immediacy that PTX DA theorists have imagined is only that, something in their imagination to legitimize their conceptually bankrupt DA.  

 

Put another way, if the PTX DA was legitimate, they should be able to name which Congress members will backlash, prove that's sufficient to cause their impact, and then show that none of those Congresspersons voted for plan, while still demonstrating enough Congress people who would vote for plan such that it would pass.  Anyone who voted for plan cannot and should not also be one of the ones backlashing.  Which requires us to talk about who would vote for or against the plan - not having those debates is exactly why we have fiat in the first place.

 

Consider if the judge was in fact a Republican Congressperson who you were trying to convince to support a particular piece of legislation.  You wouldn't feel the need to defend plan against potential backlash by the Congressperson you were attempting to convince, because if you convince them, they will not backlash

 

Basically, the aff is responsible for demonstrating that plan is a good idea, not that the political maneuvering required to pass plan is a good idea. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Err... Just no.

 

Fiat means we imagine plan is.  Plan doesn't "happen".  It isn't "passed".  It just is.  We imagine the counterfactual world that is SQ + plan already in effect.  Not SQ + plan + political maneuvering that would be necessary to pass plan, because that isn't SQ + plan and only plan.  The whole point of fiat is imagining the world with the plan in it, so if that world is a good world, then we know we should do it, which means Congress should pass it.  Not that Congress has passed it.  

 

That Congress should pass it doesn't mean they must pass it tomorrow.  This immediacy that PTX DA theorists have imagined is only that, something in their imagination to legitimize their conceptually bankrupt DA.  

 

Put another way, if the PTX DA was legitimate, they should be able to name which Congress members will backlash, prove that's sufficient to cause their impact, and then show that none of those Congresspersons voted for plan, while still demonstrating enough Congress people who would vote for plan such that it would pass.  Anyone who voted for plan cannot and should not also be one of the ones backlashing.  Which requires us to talk about who would vote for or against the plan - not having those debates is exactly why we have fiat in the first place.

 

Consider if the judge was in fact a Republican Congressperson who you were trying to convince to support a particular piece of legislation.  You wouldn't feel the need to defend plan against potential backlash by the Congressperson you were attempting to convince, because if you convince them, they will not backlash

 

Basically, the aff is responsible for demonstrating that plan is a good idea, not that the political maneuvering required to pass plan is a good idea. 

All very true, I was operating under the assumption that the negative won the theoretical justifications for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Congress should pass it doesn't mean they must pass it tomorrow.  This immediacy that PTX DA theorists have imagined is only that, something in their imagination to legitimize their conceptually bankrupt DA.  

 

For fairness reasons, fiat probably requires some reasonably rapid timeframe to the aff. Affirmatives shouldn't be able to spike out of relations disads because they "wait to do the aff until Russia wouldn't mind it anymore". I can't think of a disadvantage that isn't somehow implicated by timeframe, so it seems like a reasonably rapid (probably immediate) timeframe is fair. 

 

Put another way, if the PTX DA was legitimate, they should be able to name which Congress members will backlash, prove that's sufficient to cause their impact, and then show that none of those Congresspersons voted for plan, while still demonstrating enough Congress people who would vote for plan such that it would pass.  Anyone who voted for plan cannot and should not also be one of the ones backlashing.  Which requires us to talk about who would vote for or against the plan - not having those debates is exactly why we have fiat in the first place.

 

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAS I've never understood backlash links because the Congressperson (points to you for inclusive language)  purported to backlash voted for the aff.  

 

Consider if the judge was in fact a Republican Congressperson who you were trying to convince to support a particular piece of legislation.  You wouldn't feel the need to defend plan against potential backlash by the Congressperson you were attempting to convince, because if you convince them, they will not backlash

 

Basically, the aff is responsible for demonstrating that plan is a good idea, not that the political maneuvering required to pass plan is a good idea. 

I think the neg can read coherent politics disads when the link isn't political capital. For example, if the link is "Republicans use the plan to justify spending cuts elsewhere / attempting repeal of another bill", that makes sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put another way, if the PTX DA was legitimate, they should be able to name which Congress members will backlash, prove that's sufficient to cause their impact, and then show that none of those Congresspersons voted for plan, while still demonstrating enough Congress people who would vote for plan such that it would pass.  Anyone who voted for plan cannot and should not also be one of the ones backlashing.  Which requires us to talk about who would vote for or against the plan - not having those debates is exactly why we have fiat in the first place.

 

Consider if the judge was in fact a Republican Congressperson who you were trying to convince to support a particular piece of legislation.  You wouldn't feel the need to defend plan against potential backlash by the Congressperson you were attempting to convince, because if you convince them, they will not backlash

 

Eh, what about backlash from a particular critical faction? This was effectively the story on versions of the TPP Politics DA. Break down Congress into three groups:

 

Democrats: Will always vote for Obama-backed foreign policy/environmental policy, will always vote against TPP.

 

Moderate Republicans: May vote for Obama-backed foreign policy/environmental policy if convinced it's a good idea, will always vote for TPP.

 

Right wing Republicans: Will always vote against Obama-backed foreign policy/environmental policy, will vote for TPP unless angered by plan.

 

Now, suppose in our role-playing scenario, you're trying to convince a moderate Republican, the swing vote on your plan, to pass it. Why is it not a valid argument against that if the moderate Republican passes plan, the radical Republicans will defect on TPP, and it's more important to pass TPP than plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, what about backlash from a particular critical faction? This was effectively the story on versions of the TPP Politics DA. Break down Congress into three groups:

 

Democrats: Will always vote for Obama-backed foreign policy/environmental policy, will always vote against TPP.

 

Moderate Republicans: May vote for Obama-backed foreign policy/environmental policy if convinced it's a good idea, will always vote for TPP.

 

Right wing Republicans: Will always vote against Obama-backed foreign policy/environmental policy, will vote for TPP unless angered by plan.

 

Now, suppose in our role-playing scenario, you're trying to convince a moderate Republican, the swing vote on your plan, to pass it. Why is it not a valid argument against that if the moderate Republican passes plan, the radical Republicans will defect on TPP, and it's more important to pass TPP than plan?

 

If she tells you plan is a good idea, but politics make it impossible to implement, the affirmative should win.  

 

And she certainly isn't going to tell you that she's going to backlash against TPP if she votes for the plan.

 

I don't think fingering vague groups is sufficient, either.  The PTX DA advocate should be able to name names, and prove that there's a large enough block to shut down the scenario bill without any of those congresspeople voting on the plan. They should have to defend against plausible horse-trading attacks - why can't particular right-wing republicans agree to vote for plan in exchange for Democrat votes on TPP or for federal funding in their district to not sabotage TPP?  The group isn't some monolithic entity.  If plan passage is even a thing we should be discussing (and it's not), plan needs 51% of the House and 60 Senators (because yay Cloture), and probably won't make the docket in the Senate without near unanimity on its passage anyway.

 

If politics is legitimate, the following are also legitimate:

1. Someone will introduce a poison pill amendment on plan, and that causes (whatever bad effect negative wants to talk about), because fiat ensures it passes with the poison pill.

 

2. Plan never gets put on the docket in the senate, because

a. doesn't have near unanimous support, and isn't an essential bill, so the Senate Majority Leader won't bother to schedule it

b. Senate Majority Leader hates it, and has sole privilege of arranging the schedule

Therefore no solvency.

 

Both of which are fundamental parts of how the Senate actually operates. Please don't actually run those, your judges will hate you forever.  It's just - they should hate you for PTX for the same reasons.

 

The whole point of fiat is we don't need to debate the Congressional process.  PTX is just congressional process through the backdoor.

 

The closest thing to a legit PTX DA i've ever seen is the Iran scenario I put together for the latin america topic, which hinged on only Rand Paul's actions and generated the link story through need to demonstrate credibility as a presidential hopeful (not just vague 'anger' backlash stories), and even it was kind of flimsy theoretically.

 

So at best, PTX should require a list of congress people who will backlash, and the affirmative should be able to go after whichever ones they like individually to break the power of the backlash block.  At which point we're arguing congressional process and debating how you get something passed rather than if it's a good idea, which is what fiat was trying to avoid in the first place.

Edited by Squirrelloid

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...