Jump to content

Recommended Posts

So a friend and I recently moved into policy, and ran truth testing and dense ethics this past weekend, wrecking people on the flow, though only at a local tournament.

 

What do more veteran policy debaters (who understand LD stuff) consider of this? Is it legitimate? It seems to be winning ballots, and hilariously throwing opponents off guard, but we're still working on it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth testing basically says that the affirmatives burden isn't to prove that some plan is a good idea, it's to prove the resolution true as a general principle. The strategic value is that you avoid a comparative worlds paradigm (assuming you win ethics) and you just have to look to the intent behind or action itself, not just ends. We define "should" as a moral obligation and just do a bunch of LD stuff from there.

 

Theoretically justified burden structure, argues that aff defending whole res solves for equivalent ground, predictability, strat skew, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth testing basically says that the affirmatives burden isn't to prove that some plan is a good idea, it's to prove the resolution true as a general principle. The strategic value is that you avoid a comparative worlds paradigm (assuming you win ethics) and you just have to look to the intent behind or action itself, not just ends. We define "should" as a moral obligation and just do a bunch of LD stuff from there.

 

Theoretically justified burden structure, argues that aff defending whole res solves for equivalent ground, predictability, strat skew, etc.

Oh gosh plz no. Whole Rez is dead in circuit debate for the most part and is almost always a non-starter. 

You don't have to prove the rez true, otherwise we would simply have stale debates regarding the exact same issues and there would be no specific research. 

Also, every aff is proving that the resolution is good- it's just a specific instance of surveillance being curtailed. 

Should=to pass a policy definition from FW could be read here

Competing Worlds are probably good- help with specific governmental policies and CP education regarding the topic

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh gosh plz no. Whole Rez is dead in circuit debate for the most part and is almost always a non-starter. 

You don't have to prove the rez true, otherwise we would simply have stale debates regarding the exact same issues and there would be no specific research. 

Also, every aff is proving that the resolution is good- it's just a specific instance of surveillance being curtailed. 

Should=to pass a policy definition from FW could be read here

Competing Worlds are probably good- help with specific governmental policies and CP education regarding the topic

 

Its dead in circuit debate because circuit debaters know how to answer it.  Or should know how to answer it.  (Your answers aren't very good)

 

The real answer to it actually has to do with affirmative choice.  The affirmative gets to decide what their case is, and the negative has to answer it.  When the affirmative runs a plan, it's not running a broad ethical (or other) structure which justifies any possible action under the resolution, just their plan.  (And attacking stuff that isn't the plan kills clash, which is bad for fairness and education).

 

And plan-based cases do affirm the topic, because policy resolutions are affirmed as a whole when any one plan which is part of the topic is enacted.  Should the USFG curtail its surveillance? If there's any one curtailment that should be done, the answer to that question is yes.  

 

But plan-based cases cede the rest of 'topical' ground to the negatives.  Negatives get everything that isn't plan.  So this actually gives the negative more ground.

 

Traditionally LD cases have been truth testing because (1) V-C structure reasons from general down to the resolution, (2) LD resolutions at least used to be written with a different structure so that affirmatives were compelled to defend the entirety of the aff (in part because negatives were expected to always have a positive advocacy).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its dead in circuit debate because circuit debaters know how to answer it.  Or should know how to answer it.  (Your answers aren't very good)

 

The real answer to it actually has to do with affirmative choice.  The affirmative gets to decide what their case is, and the negative has to answer it.  When the affirmative runs a plan, it's not running a broad ethical (or other) structure which justifies any possible action under the resolution, just their plan.  (And attacking stuff that isn't the plan kills clash, which is bad for fairness and education).

 

And plan-based cases do affirm the topic, because policy resolutions are affirmed as a whole when any one plan which is part of the topic is enacted.  Should the USFG curtail its surveillance? If there's any one curtailment that should be done, the answer to that question is yes.  

 

But plan-based cases cede the rest of 'topical' ground to the negatives.  Negatives get everything that isn't plan.  So this actually gives the negative more ground.

 

Traditionally LD cases have been truth testing because (1) V-C structure reasons from general down to the resolution, (2) LD resolutions at least used to be written with a different structure so that affirmatives were compelled to defend the entirety of the aff (in part because negatives were expected to always have a positive advocacy).

except all my responses aren't based about pretenses regarding debate, which you must definitely have, and is problematic since they aren't shared by all judges...

 

Affirmative choice presumes that the judge has a preconception of what the debate should be- every round is a blank slate, you don't just magically get to choose that this is how debate works, the aff needs to justify even their presentation. 

 

I made this second argument. 

 

 

I agree with everything else.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

except all my responses aren't based about pretenses regarding debate, which you must definitely have, and is problematic since they aren't shared by all judges...

 

Affirmative choice presumes that the judge has a preconception of what the debate should be- every round is a blank slate, you don't just magically get to choose that this is how debate works, the aff needs to justify even their presentation. 

 

I made this second argument. 

 

I didn't actually get that out of your second argument.  Looking back now, with this context, I can see it.  But your version is too blippy.

 

(This is why many judges hate theory debates, because they've been reduced to wording so minimal that they're actually ambiguous).

 

And I'm not assuming people agree with me on aff choice - i sketched the impacting out (clash->fairness and education) because its a theory argument about how rounds are supposed to work, and you steal their voters.  (If I was making the argument in a round, I would do more work here, including explaining what clash is and why answering case is the only way to get it.  And why that's key to fairness and education of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well should isn't a verb.... "I should avoid killing that person" doesn't imply some sort of policy action, and whole res would only mean you defend an obligation towards topical policy actions, so you'd meet whatever counter T shell.

 

Also, there's a double bind:

A: "plan-based cases do affirm the topic, because policy resolutions are affirmed as a whole when any one plan which is part of the topic is enacted.  Should the USFG curtail its surveillance? If there's any one curtailment that should be done, the answer to that question is yes."

B: "plan-based cases cede the rest of 'topical' ground to the negatives.  Negatives get everything that isn't plan"

 

Either plans aren't topical or topical counterplans don't negate.

 

And, as the affirmative, wouldn't it still be theoretically legitimate to give the neg literally all topical link ground? All you do is ensure the affirmative gets exclusive access to aff ground.

 

Why not make the plan text "The USFG should curtail it's domestic surveillance" (or "The USFG ought to curtail it's domestic surveillance") for that matter? Basically meets all counterinterps.

 

Also, debates aren't stale. Negs get the link ground they want rather than just stealing aff advocacies with PICs, PIKs, or topical CPs. There's obviously controversy upon the topic as a moral imperative, so there'd definitely be hundreds of ways to affirm or negate with ethical frameworks through whole res. Empirically proven. *cough* LD *cough*

Edited by Suhas
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well should isn't a verb.... "I should avoid killing that person" doesn't imply some sort of policy action, and whole res would only mean you defend an obligation towards topical policy actions, so you'd meet whatever counter T shell.

 

Wrong

Should: auxiliary verb (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/should

Should: modal verb (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/should)

--- 5: used for saying what someone decidessuggests, or orders

 

In policy, this is the USFG (or US in the college circuit as of late)

 

Also, there's a double bind:

A: "plan-based cases do affirm the topic, because policy resolutions are affirmed as a whole when any one plan which is part of the topic is enacted.  Should the USFG curtail its surveillance? If there's any one curtailment that should be done, the answer to that question is yes."

B: "plan-based cases cede the rest of 'topical' ground to the negatives.  Negatives get everything that isn't plan"

 

Either plans aren't topical or topical counterplans don't negate.

 

No? The debate over whether or not topical counterplans should be allowed was settled decades ago. The aff has proven that the resolution in a specific instance is desirable through the plan text, which is a specific finding within that resolution. The negative's job isn't to prove that the resolution on balance is wrong, it is to prove that the affirmative as it has presented is bad. The 'whole res' portion of the debate is bad for debate because, as Squirreloid mentioned, it means the neg can avoid clash. For instance they can read DA's against non-germane parts of the topic. 

 

And, as the affirmative, wouldn't it still be theoretically legitimate to give the neg literally all topical link ground? All you do is ensure the affirmative gets exclusive access to aff ground.

 

Answered above. Basically this turns debate into a spreading contest.

 

Why not make the plan text "The USFG should curtail it's domestic surveillance" (or "The USFG ought to curtail it's domestic surveillance") for that matter? Basically meets all counterinterps.

 

Because PIK's are a thing. The aff loses literally every debate to <<<insert DA to minor aff sub-area here>>>. 

 

Also, debates aren't stale. Negs get the link ground they want rather than just stealing aff advocacies with PICs, PIKs, or topical CPs. There's obviously controversy upon the topic as a moral imperative, so there'd definitely be hundreds of ways to affirm or negate with ethical frameworks through whole res. Empirically proven. *cough* LD *cough*

 

Because LD resolutions are written from the standpoint of engaging moral frameworks. There's a reason that there are different types of debate. Trying to use the categorical imperative to argue about US military policy in Kuwait would be...a bad idea. It's also not in the lit base.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't actually get that out of your second argument.  Looking back now, with this context, I can see it.  But your version is too blippy.

 

(This is why many judges hate theory debates, because they've been reduced to wording so minimal that they're actually ambiguous).

 

And I'm not assuming people agree with me on aff choice - i sketched the impacting out (clash->fairness and education) because its a theory argument about how rounds are supposed to work, and you steal their voters.  (If I was making the argument in a round, I would do more work here, including explaining what clash is and why answering case is the only way to get it.  And why that's key to fairness and education of course).

it's blippy because I wrote it in less than 30 seconds lol 

 

on your second point- that's fair as long as you impact it out, but presuming that aff choice is automatically true is problematic when the negatives argument is questioning that very concept, and would probably result in a loss under a truly tab judge- it's a bad arg, but my point was that you have to answer it just like any other argument 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well should isn't a verb.... "I should avoid killing that person" doesn't imply some sort of policy action, and whole res would only mean you defend an obligation towards topical policy actions, so you'd meet whatever counter T shell.

 

Wrong

Should: auxiliary verb (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/should

Should: modal verb (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/us/dictionary/american/should)

--- 5: used for saying what someone decidessuggests, or orders

 

In policy, this is the USFG (or US in the college circuit as of late)

"used to indicate obligation, duty, or correctness"

Literally the first google definition

 

 

Also, there's a double bind:

A: "plan-based cases do affirm the topic, because policy resolutions are affirmed as a whole when any one plan which is part of the topic is enacted.  Should the USFG curtail its surveillance? If there's any one curtailment that should be done, the answer to that question is yes."

B: "plan-based cases cede the rest of 'topical' ground to the negatives.  Negatives get everything that isn't plan"

 

Either plans aren't topical or topical counterplans don't negate.

 

No? The debate over whether or not topical counterplans should be allowed was settled decades ago. The aff has proven that the resolution in a specific instance is desirable through the plan text, which is a specific finding within that resolution. The negative's job isn't to prove that the resolution on balance is wrong, it is to prove that the affirmative as it has presented is bad. The 'whole res' portion of the debate is bad for debate because, as Squirreloid mentioned, it means the neg can avoid clash. For instance they can read DA's against non-germane parts of the topic. 

Yeah... Aff proves res desirable in *one instance* but fails to prove ALL instances. Negs need to weigh random topical offense links against the benefits to the resolution as a whole, ie <topicality/relevance>*<impact magnitude>=arg weight

 

And, as the affirmative, wouldn't it still be theoretically legitimate to give the neg literally all topical link ground? All you do is ensure the affirmative gets exclusive access to aff ground.

 

Answered above. Basically this turns debate into a spreading contest.

 

1. Isn't it already? Esp with PICs and the Neg block.

2. Also answered above, weighing solves

 

Why not make the plan text "The USFG should curtail it's domestic surveillance" (or "The USFG ought to curtail it's domestic surveillance") for that matter? Basically meets all counterinterps.

 

Because PIK's are a thing. The aff loses literally every debate to <<<insert DA to minor aff sub-area here>>>. 

 

PIKs wouldn't be a thing under truth testing, we're arguing that truth testing solves for negs stealing aff advocacies

 

Also, debates aren't stale. Negs get the link ground they want rather than just stealing aff advocacies with PICs, PIKs, or topical CPs. There's obviously controversy upon the topic as a moral imperative, so there'd definitely be hundreds of ways to affirm or negate with ethical frameworks through whole res. Empirically proven. *cough* LD *cough*

 

Because LD resolutions are written from the standpoint of engaging moral frameworks. There's a reason that there are different types of debate. Trying to use the categorical imperative to argue about US military policy in Kuwait would be...a bad idea. It's also not in the lit base.

 

Sorry, but no.

"The United States ought to prioritize the pursuit of national security objectives above the digital privacy of its citizens."

LD Resolutions aren't substantively different from policy resolutions excluding the use of "ought" which is basically the same as "should"

 

 

"The United States is justified in using private military firms abroad to pursue its military objectives."

@SnarkosaurusRex, are we really that different?

 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well should isn't a verb.... "I should avoid killing that person" doesn't imply some sort of policy action, and whole res would only mean you defend an obligation towards topical policy actions, so you'd meet whatever counter T shell.

 

The question of "should" is decided by determining an action that is desirable which fulfills the question posed.  If the plan is desirable, then topical action is desirable.

 

No one's saying you can't choose to defend the whole res.  They're saying you don't have to defend the whole res.  

 

Consider "Should I acquire a Wii U?"  I don't have to prove I should want to do every possible action that  might result in acquiring a Wii U, only that I should do one possible action which results in acquiring a Wii U.  I can reject stealing a Wii U and still decide I should acquire one.

 

Also, there's a double bind:

A: "plan-based cases do affirm the topic, because policy resolutions are affirmed as a whole when any one plan which is part of the topic is enacted.  Should the USFG curtail its surveillance? If there's any one curtailment that should be done, the answer to that question is yes."

B: "plan-based cases cede the rest of 'topical' ground to the negatives.  Negatives get everything that isn't plan"

 

Either plans aren't topical or topical counterplans don't negate.

That's not a double bind. They don't trade off with each other at all. Both are true at the same time.

 

I think you're misunderstanding B. Negatives still have all non-topical ground, but they can also use topical ground to disprove the desirability of the plan. The affirmative has chosen to defend plan, so anything which convinces the judge not to do plan is negative ground. The round isn't really about theresolution, the resolution simply constrains the affirmative. The judge is voting on the desirability of the affirmative case. It just so happens that if the affirmative case is desirable, the resolution is necessarily affirmed.

 

And fwiw, counterplans are not advocacies. They are tests of competition.  When the negative wins on a counterplan, they've proven plan isn't desirable because it precludes the CP, not because we will do the CP.  So even a topical CP doesn't affirm the resolution, because the negative isn't advocating it.

 

And, as the affirmative, wouldn't it still be theoretically legitimate to give the neg literally all topical link ground? All you do is ensure the affirmative gets exclusive access to aff ground.

What does that even mean? 'Topical link ground' is a meaningless concept, because literally everything links to something that's arguably topical, and there's no way debaters are going to hash out exactly what the bounds of topical is in 2 hours, plus have a meaningful debate.

 

Further, aff is defending case. If plan says we should ban NSLs and require the FBI to get warrants, then links to NSA doing things don't make any sense whatsoever. Aff doesn't do anything involving the NSA, why should they defend bad things resulting from changes to NSA behavior.

 

Furthermore, the very idea is incoherent, because some topical plans necessarily exclude other topical plans. If you ban all phone metadata surveillance, you can't impose more limited controls on phone metadata surveillance. A link to only the full ban would be impossible for the more limited controls aff to defend, because they'd have to argue against their own case to do so.

 

Why not make the plan text "The USFG should curtail it's domestic surveillance" (or "The USFG ought to curtail it's domestic surveillance") for that matter? Basically meets all counterinterps.

Because its not a plan? If your plan text includes the word "should", you're doing it wrong. (Real plan texts should start like "Congress will enact legislation..." or "The Supreme Court will decide..." or "The president will issue an executive order..." or etc....) (Okay, I've been guilty of using "should" instead of "will" in those kinds of constructions when writing cases - and that's sloppiness on my part - but I do generally specify actor and method. The real key is you need to specify whowhat, and how).

 

Because it fails all spec arguments?

 

Because its impossible to have solvency evidence for something that broad?

 

Because no one knows what you're talking about? Which domestic surveillance?

 

Because its impossible to talk about every USFG domestic surveillance program in 8 minutes? Physically impossible.

 

Because it kills any scholarship into specific programs?

 

Also, debates aren't stale. Negs get the link ground they want rather than just stealing aff advocacies with PICs, PIKs, or topical CPs. There's obviously controversy upon the topic as a moral imperative, so there'd definitely be hundreds of ways to affirm or negate with ethical frameworks through whole res. Empirically proven. *cough* LD *cough*

Debates are stale because neg gets to argue the exact same like 2 disadvantages every round whether it makes any sense or not, down to the link card, and affirmatives which have nothing to do with those disadvantages and to whom the link doesn't apply say what, exactly? A vision of debate in which the negative isn't responsive to the affirmative isn't stale, it's incoherent. It's the definition of no clash.

 

If the negative position is so broad it applies to all possible affirmatives, then they should have links to all possible affirmatives and there's no need to run ridiculous theory positions like this. If they don't have a link for their position to the aff case, and the aff case is topical, then the resolution obviously isn't so clearly divided across a moral question.

 

Policy resolutions are questions of action, not necessarily ethics. And while you can run an ethically framed case in policy, you don't have to, nor does your ethical framing need to divide all topical ground from all non-topical ground.

 

LD resolutions are (were?) written differently. They tend to include 'ought', which does imply moral obligation (unlike 'should') - yes, 'ought' and 'should' are different. They are worded (or at least used to be) to require defense of the whole resolution. Those differences dictate different modes and norms of debate.

 

Edit:

"The United States ought to prioritize the pursuit of national security objectives above the digital privacy of its citizens."

In addition to the use of 'ought' (expressing moral obligation) instead of 'should' (expressing desirability), it also gives not only the kind of positive action, but what it should be contrasted against. That latter part is never included in a policy resolution, and is a critical difference which frames the point of conflict in the LD moral debate.

 

Note also that its framed as a question of ends, not means.  Policy resolutions are questions of means to achieve a proposed end.

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth testing in LD is fading out of style because its not only bad for education, but doesnt prove why the resolution is a good idea. They're not fun to engage in LD and theyre DEFINITELY not fun to engage in policy. you shouldnt get rewarded for being tricky... run a normal aff and engage people in a proper way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truth testing in LD is fading out of style because its not only bad for education, but doesnt prove why the resolution is a good idea. They're not fun to engage in LD and theyre DEFINITELY not fun to engage in policy. you shouldnt get rewarded for being tricky... run a normal aff and engage people in a proper way.

 

Rewarding people for being tricky is fine.  It just needs to be tricky in a clever way, not hamfisted.  When case is a neoliberal K, or a feminism K, or whatever, and someone reads that K against you, that's a legit trick to pull out and should be rewarded.

 

And there's nothing wrong with traditional LD style for LD.  Every debate type doesn't have to be about policy questions - traditionally LD resolutions have encouraged philosophical debate to answer philosophical questions, ie, the role of Kritik in policy debate.  To say that a pure K debate format is a bad idea and bad for education is fundamentally wrong.  Not everything needs to be policy.  (In fact, I would say traditional LD debate is more productive than K debate in policy, on average.  If for no other reason than it's what both sides expect to debate and so are prepared for it).

Edited by Squirrelloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is confused. The proper comparison to truth testing isn't plan oriented debate, it's comparative worlds, which is essentially the offense/defense paradigm. Truth testing has little to do with whole rez good/bad.

 

 Because it fails all spec arguments?


Kek.

Edited by Chaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the formatting, I tried to use quotes but it said I had too many.

 

First @chaos

 

This thread is confused. The proper comparison to truth testing isn't plan oriented debate, it's comparative worlds, which is essentially the offense/defense paradigm. Truth testing has little to do with whole rez good/bad.

 

Comparative worlds = can’t run a means based philosophy because both worlds will violate it in some way and violations can’t be aggregated = must run consequentialism = a terrible idea to debate whole res = plan oriented debate. Truth testing allows means based philosophies because worlds aren’t necessarily compared, (they are only compared under truth testing if a consequentialist framework is being used) which allows for defending whole res to be strategic. Therefore, while you’re right in that there’s more to truth testing than plan oriented vs. not plan oriented debate that is a key implication of truth testing to be discussed.
 

Next @ Squirreloid
Suhas, on 08 Dec 2015 - 4:34 PM, said:
Well should isn't a verb.... "I should avoid killing that person" doesn't imply some sort of policy action, and whole res would only mean you defend an obligation towards topical policy actions, so you'd meet whatever counter T shell.

The question of "should" is decided by determining an action that is desirable which fulfills the question posed. If the plan is desirable, then topical action is desirable.

No one's saying you can't choose to defend the whole res. They're saying you don't have to defend the whole res.

Consider "Should I acquire a Wii U?" I don't have to prove I should want to do every possible action that might result in acquiring a Wii U, only that I should do one possible action which results in acquiring a Wii U. I can reject stealing a Wii U and still decide I should acquire one.

We’re in agreement here, this was a response to @CapitalismIsNotCool’s arg about the definition of should.

 

Quote
Also, there's a double bind:
A: "plan-based cases do affirm the topic, because policy resolutions are affirmed as a whole when any one plan which is part of the topic is enacted. Should the USFG curtail its surveillance? If there's any one curtailment that should be done, the answer to that question is yes."
B: "plan-based cases cede the rest of 'topical' ground to the negatives. Negatives get everything that isn't plan"

Either plans aren't topical or topical counterplans don't negate.

That's not a double bind. They don't trade off with each other at all. Both are true at the same time.

I think you're misunderstanding B. Negatives still have all non-topical ground, but they can also use topical ground to disprove the desirability of the plan. The affirmative has chosen to defend plan, so anything which convinces the judge not to do plan is negative ground. The round isn't really about the resolution, the resolution simply constrains the affirmative. The judge is voting on the desirability of the affirmative case. It just so happens that if the affirmative case is desirable, the resolution is necessarily affirmed.

We differ in our conceptions of what the negative’s burden is. We argue that if you set the aff burden the way you do in A (to affirm the resolution), the the negative’s burden logically should be to negate the resolution. You appear to argue that the negative burden is to negate the aff instead of the resolution. This is a separate debate to be had, but whether the double bind exists or not doesn’t affect the validity or educational value of a whole res aff (the subject of the post).

And fwiw, counterplans are not advocacies. They are tests of competition. When the negative wins on a counterplan, they've proven plan isn't desirable because it precludes the CP, not because we will do the CP. So even a topical CP doesn't affirm the resolution, because the negative isn't advocating it.

Using that logic affs are also “tests of competition” (truth) for the resolution, which further strengthens our position that truth testing is the best way to evaluate a round instead of comparative worlds.

Quote
And, as the affirmative, wouldn't it still be theoretically legitimate to give the neg literally all topical link ground? All you do is ensure the affirmative gets exclusive access to aff ground.

What does that even mean? 'Topical link ground' is a meaningless concept, because literally everything links to something that's arguably topical, and there's no way debaters are going to hash out exactly what the bounds of topical is in 2 hours, plus have a meaningful debate.

Ex: The neg could read a disad to drones or 702 because both are under the resolution. There could obviously be debates in round over whether or not the specific disads the neg reads link to the topic which wouldn’t require discerning all the topical ground in 2 hours.

Further, aff is defending case. If plan says we should ban NSLs and require the FBI to get warrants, then links to NSA doing things don't make any sense whatsoever. Aff doesn't do anything involving the NSA, why should they defend bad things resulting from changes to NSA behavior.

That’s our point – with a plan advocacy the negative is limited in what plan-specific disads it can run but if the aff hypothetically runs a whole res aff both NSA and FBI disads link, giving the neg more ground.

Furthermore, the very idea is incoherent, because some topical plans necessarily exclude other topical plans. If you ban all phone metadata surveillance, you can't impose more limited controls on phone metadata surveillance.

If you ban all phone metadata surveillance, you could still impose more limited controls on phone metadata surveillance, they would just say “in the hypothetical situation where we had metadata it would be regulated in x way”. In this way, the negative gets a risk of offense on any topical disad.

A link to only the full ban would be impossible for the more limited controls aff to defend, because they'd have to argue against their own case to do so.

We’re talking about whole res affs here.
 

Quote
Why not make the plan text "The USFG should curtail it's domestic surveillance" (or "The USFG ought to curtail it's domestic surveillance") for that matter? Basically meets all counterinterps.

Because its not a plan? If your plan text includes the word "should", you're doing it wrong. (Real plan texts should start like "Congress will enact legislation..." or "The Supreme Court will decide..." or "The president will issue an executive order..." or etc....

I agree with the “should” thing. The spirit of the plan text was “The USFG will substantially curtail its domestic surveillance”.

Because it fails all spec arguments?

That’s a theory debate we’re prepared to win.

Because its impossible to have solvency evidence for something that broad?

Under a means based ethical system, we can get solvency off of a single card talking about surveillance generally since its effects are irrelevant.

 

Because no one knows what you're talking about? Which domestic surveillance?

Any of it, pick whatever topical policy you want to run disads on, we’ll link. We prove any action curtailing surveillance to be moral and thus the res a true statement.

Because its impossible to talk about every USFG domestic surveillance program in 8 minutes? Physically impossible.

Possible. According to our philosophy, they’re all bad.

Because it kills any scholarship into specific programs?

That’s an education debate we’re prepared to win (phil > topical)
 

Quote
Also, debates aren't stale. Negs get the link ground they want rather than just stealing aff advocacies with PICs, PIKs, or topical CPs. There's obviously controversy upon the topic as a moral imperative, so there'd definitely be hundreds of ways to affirm or negate with ethical frameworks through whole res. Empirically proven. *cough* LD *cough*

Debates are stale because neg gets to argue the exact same like 2 disadvantages every round whether it makes any sense or not, down to the link card, and affirmatives which have nothing to do with those disadvantages and to whom the link doesn't apply say what, exactly? A vision of debate in which the negative isn't responsive to the affirmative isn't stale, it's incoherent. It's the definition of no clash.
 

Our vision of debate assumes that affs don’t run plan, which forces them (and therefore the neg) to debate philosophy. “The exact same like 2 disadvantages” wouldn’t be strategic unless the aff is dumb enough to run util. The disads would link because they defend whole res. We guarantee clash about any policy curtailing surveillance.

If the negative position is so broad it applies to all possible affirmatives, then they should have links to all possible affirmatives and there's no need to run ridiculous theory positions like this. If they don't have a link for their position to the aff case, and the aff case is topical, then the resolution obviously isn't so clearly divided across a moral question.

 

True, but the thread is about whether whole res affs are good not whole res negs. Most negs don’t have disads which apply to the whole res meaning that their ground is compromised if the aff parametrizes.

Policy resolutions are questions of action, not necessarily ethics. And while you can run an ethically framed case in policy, you don't have to, nor does your ethical framing need to divide all topical ground from all non-topical ground.

 

If you’re asking what a person or group of people (a government) ‘should’ do you have to establish what actions we are obligated to take and/or what's desirable. The util assumption that exists in policy is only there because of convenience and tradition, not some inherent feature of the resolution.

LD resolutions are (were?) written differently. They tend to include 'ought', which does imply moral obligation (unlike 'should') - yes, 'ought' and 'should' are different. They are worded (or at least used to be) to require defense of the whole resolution. Those differences dictate different modes and norms of debate.

 

This is answered below.

 

Edit:

 

"The United States ought to prioritize the pursuit of national security objectives above the digital privacy of its citizens."

 

In addition to the use of 'ought' (expressing moral obligation) instead of 'should' (expressing desirability),

 

You need philosophy to establish what’s desirable (see above). Also, most definitions of should include a moral obligation.

 

it also gives not only the kind of positive action, but what it should be contrasted against. That latter part is never included in a policy resolution, and is a critical difference which frames the point of conflict in the LD moral debate.

 

Most of the LD resolutions I’ve debated in my three years are not like this. Ex: “In the United States, private ownership of handguns ought to be banned.” Topics which “give not only the kind of positive action, but what it should be contrasted against” are rare. I’m aware that they may have not been in the past, but in the current state of LD (which pretty much exclusively uses topics that are a question of means), framework debate is alive and well. Also, the reason we started this thread is because we found ways to ethically affirm the entire res under truth testing, which means phil debate is possible even on the policy res.

 

Note also that its framed as a question of ends, not means.  Policy resolutions are questions of means to achieve a proposed end.

 

See above.

Edited by Suhas
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this makes things short and sweet.

 

Consider "Should I acquire a Wii U?" I don't have to prove I should want to do every possible action that might result in acquiring a Wii U, only that I should do one possible action which results in acquiring a Wii U. I can reject stealing a Wii U and still decide I should acquire one.

We’re in agreement here, this was a response to @CapitalismIsNotCool’s arg about the definition of should.

 

If we're in agreement here, then you just conceded the debate.  If I don't have to defend all possible actions, then i can defend just one and the negative can't make me defend other actions.  And since proving a single desirable action does affirm the whole resolution, only defending one action is a whole resolution affirmative.

 

Now, if, as the affirmative you want to defend the whole resolution, be my guest.  (But be prepared to defend 'stealing the Wii U' types of actions).  But as the negative you can't make the affirmative do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure @squirreloid.... We were talking about the strategic benefits of defending the whole res *as the aff* under truth testing, not scolding plan affs with theory about not defending everything...

 

More detailed response by my teammate:

 

If we're in agreement here, then you just conceded the debate.  If I don't have to defend all possible actions, then i can defend just one and the negative can't make me defend other actions.  And since proving a single desirable action does affirm the whole resolution, only defending one action is a whole resolution affirmative.

 

 

 

That's not what what we’re arguing. We never claim that parametricizing is nontopical based on the definition of should, just that it would be better for fairness and education if the aff didn’t parametrize and defended all possible implementations of the resolution (this is what we mean by a whole res aff). We only use the definition of should to justify the need for framework debate in order to determine what our obligations are and/or what’s desirable. We talk about "truth testing" in the context of "Do we determine who wins based of comparing resulting worlds or by the truth of the statement?" in order to justify means based frameworks, not to claim that plan affs are nontopical.

 

Now, if, as the affirmative you want to defend the whole resolution, be my guest.  (But be prepared to defend 'stealing the Wii U' types of actions).  But as the negative you can't make the affirmative do it.

 

 

Arguments in this thread about 'whole res good' are about our strategy of including arguments at the end of a whole res aff which state that aff should defend entire res and that neg should negate entire res (sorry if this wasn't clear). This means that we aren't attempting to nullify the aff's entire 8 minutes of speech time. Also, since whole res truth testing isn't justified through topicality but through theory (fairness and education), we theoretically could "make the affirmative do it" but we aren't planning on it because the judge will (correctly) think we're assholes for doing so.

Edited by Suhas
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the formatting, I tried to use quotes but it said I had too many.

 

First @chaos

 

This thread is confused. The proper comparison to truth testing isn't plan oriented debate, it's comparative worlds, which is essentially the offense/defense paradigm. Truth testing has little to do with whole rez good/bad.

 

Comparative worlds = can’t run a means based philosophy because both worlds will violate it in some way and violations can’t be aggregated = must run consequentialism = a terrible idea to debate whole res = plan oriented debate. Truth testing allows means based philosophies because worlds aren’t necessarily compared, (they are only compared under truth testing if a consequentialist framework is being used) which allows for defending whole res to be strategic. Therefore, while you’re right in that there’s more to truth testing than plan oriented vs. not plan oriented debate that is a key implication of truth testing to be discussed.

 

I agree, comparative worlds advocates rarely if ever give a good way for us to aggregate the moral importance of violations across different versions of morality. I like truth testing better also, the majority of the time. At the same time, I do feel like there's some sense in which comparative worlds might be justified and aggregation might be useful. This is because sometimes, I genuinely am left thinking that there's say an 80% chance metaethical system A is correct while there's a 15% chance metaethical system B is correct and a 5% chance both are wrong. In those situations, it's a bit tempting to resort to evaluating the "strength" of a violation, even when that notion isn't well defined. Also, there are some arguments like skepticism that I feel are so strong they can only be answered by comparative worlds or the offense defense paradigm, or similar indirect arguments. So I appreciate the motivation for comparative worlds, even though it's often bad in practice, and I think there are some rounds where it can be used validly even though the intuitive notion of aggregation or comparison that's being appealed to doesn't make sense or seems to be unjustified. Comparative worlds is bad, but sometimes pure truth testing is a worse alternative.

 

In some of the literature on statistical and mathematical modeling, which is what I've been thinking I might want to pursue a career in even though I suck at math, there is a similar problem when you are trying to apply the knowledge of multiple different models or studies. You don't simply want to average across all of their results, but at the same time there is valid information that can be found in all the different views, and it would be nice to extract that information into a unified model somehow. There doesn't seem to be any equivalent literature base that's about uniting different people's views about morality, which is a shame. Obviously, it is even more difficult in that context because people will disagree about what values or what types of impacts matter, but I don't think that should make it entirely impossible, even though I don't know how to deal with that difficulty. The only currently common arguments I can think of which somewhat fill in this gap are the arguments made by Bostrom about moral uncertainty, the arguments made by opponents of nonrule utilitarianism against its tendency to take things to dangerous extremes, and the arguments against deontology against its tendency to desire ideological purity. But, those arguments aren't properly comparative, and aren't often impacted out in terms of both the round's moral frameworks, so they aren't very adequate examples to emulate.

 

I suppose there is probably some literature in Jainism that argues for something like this, but I'd bet it's not at all detailed. Some of the literature on the importance of heuristics, common sense, or folk knowledge about morality might be a better potential source of evidence or inspiration. Until someone actually manages to find or create some detailed arguments on this question, I will continue to agree with your perspective and think that comparative worlds is inadequate against truth testing, except in rare edge cases such as skepticism. But, if you think that the position has no possible justifications, I do disagree with you on that. I can imagine myself trying my best to aggregate across moral frameworks with my intuition, if told do to so by a debater's argument, even if a truly adequate weighing method were not provided.

 

As a side note, the older I get, the more of its noninterventionist purity my judge paradigm loses. This makes me sad. Soon, I will be voting down teams who dare to impact turn heg.  :sob:

Edited by Chaos
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

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...