Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

52 Excellent

About nolongerused

  • Rank
    Hall of Fame
  1. Fiat isn't a question of the possible by its very nature. The whole point of fiat is that it doesn't matter if it's reasonably possible for something to happen, we assume it happens anyway. If you were literally spending more money than the state has, that's one thing. But if the argument is just that it would cripple a state's economy, well, then you run a disad.
  2. It's not a solvency argument. If the neg argued that the aff plan couldn't work because the USFG didn't have enough money to do it, aff would get up and say "fiat solves that problem."
  3. Thanks for the work you're doing on this!
  4. The fact that I called it "policy debate" (I only called it that to imply that what I was talking about was something intrinsic to our activity) never implied that only policies can affirm the resolution. My interpretation certainly welcomes alternative modes of affirmation, because we recognize that the goal of the affirmative is to prove the resolution, and a policy action is simply one way of doing so. In fact, it's even harder to justify this in alternative frameworks, because they must come up with ad hoc ways of justifying why the aff showing that their policy is beneficial compared to the status quo means they should win the round. Anyway, if you're going to treat me as though I'm stupid, at least take the time to read my arguments and understand them. It makes you look rather silly when you do not. You can't seriously be saying that giving a reason for something makes it true. It is quite obvious that aside from factual claims, any arguments we make in debate are subjective and cannot be objectively true or false. Thus the only way truth makes sense in this context, is to the extent that a conceded argument is considered true for the purposes of the round. Therefore there cannot be presumption against such an analytical claim, because there is no way to objectively determine the truth or falsehood of such a statement.
  5. Your claim fails to gain any ground, because then we just have to define what "winning" is. But any idea of winning must be tied to the resolution, for that is the only meaningful restriction on the debate. The aff must be affirming the resolution for it to be policy debate. So winning actually is equivalent to proving the resolution true. That's not at all how it works in any policy rounds I've been in. If an argument is made and conceded by the opposing team, it is accepted as true.
  6. All of this is answered in my argumentation in the previous thread (and even somewhat in the above post), but I'll repeat it anyway. The way we prove the resolution true is by the aff winning the case. That is all my argument says. It says if the aff wins the round, they have proved the resolution true. My argument is no more or less than that. On the opposite side, it says that if the neg wins the round, they have disproved the resolution. If neither team wins, we use presumption as a tiebreaker. But the "presumption" that an argument is true until proven false is not nearly the same as the idea of presumption in a debate round (which is that the neg is presumed to win if neither team has fulfilled their burden), so please stop conflating the two.
  7. It isn't "logically bankrupt," it does make sense. It is arbitrary, certainly, but it's not internally inconsistent. It's essentially the same as the argumentation about the world that we "know the risks of" that is discussed later on. You're still failing to understand my point. My understanding and yours are exactly the same, except in my world, the aff winning their case is a means to the end of proving the resolution, and the neg beating the aff is a means to the end of disproving the resolution. There's no other way for them to do it that isn't already done, so the worlds are nearly exactly the same. If you don't understand that, then you aren't really addressing what I'm saying. This addresses the topicality bit at the end - both interpretations require the exact same things out of the teams. The only difference is essentially the "reason" we vote for the team. This is arbitrary, and I could come up with counter-arguments about the quality of the world each team got to choose. For example, the aff had "infinite prep time" and could be just as squirrelly as the neg is. The neg only had a few minutes of prep time to decide what world they wanted, and their world is inherently undesirable because it's restricted to counterplans that try to solve back for the case advantages. Also, why does the fact that the neg chose the world "more recently" mean aff should get presumption? Just saying it doesn't make it true. None of your response here is relevant, because I didn't say presumption (in this case) has no justification. I only said it doesn't need to, and your argument in part (a) fails because most of the examples you're thinking of don't necessary require a winner to be picked, or can allow for ties. In the baseball scenario, you're making a circular argument: your analogy about the burdens fails, because that can only apply if we've already accepted that the aff has a greater burden than the neg (or that the neg doesn't have one), which is the whole point you're trying to justify in the first place. The world of the counterplan is obviously different from the world of the status quo. However, as you failed to respond to, voting neg is ultimately an affirmation of the status quo, because that's what we are returned to in that situation. So sure, advocating a CP is different from advocating from the status quo, but a neg ballot is still a vote for the status quo, which is all that matters. The CP is only a way of showing that the aff is a bad idea, and nothing more. This was addressed above. I already said that my proposed method for the negative proving the resolution untrue is all the same ones we already accept: topicality violations, critiques, etc. The only difference is that a neg ballot is a vote against the resolution and not against the aff team, but you still have to beat the aff (in the normal way) to prove the resolution untrue.
  8. Until you show me the rule defining presumption, I'm pretty sure my interpretation is just as legitimate as anyone else's.
  9. Have you missed the entirety of the debate? My entire point was that both sides can have a burden, and then at that point presumption is the principle that allows us to make a decision when neither side has fulfilled their burden.
  10. The great thing about debate is that we can use warranted arguments instead of unjustified claims. I have established the claim that there is, indeed, a burden on the neg to do such a thing. I have given several supporting reasons why this should be so. You have failed to justify your claim, and so it is not a compelling reason why I should change my point of view.
  11. I didn't initially start it as simply an arbitrary rule; I gave you what I was taught was the reasoning for presumption, that idea of the "hidden disad," but a moment's thought should lead any reasonable observer to conclude that it's really just a way of breaking a tie, although this is not to say it's an illogical one. It makes sense to the extent that the only way that we "know" the aff is a good thing is based on the arguments the aff makes in round, and if the aff cannot prove within the round that they are doing a good thing, then we should stick with the world whose risks and harms we actually know, as opposed to jumping into a new unknown world (without some proven benefit to doing so). The point is, though, that what you or I think presumption ought to be about, is very much irrelevant. The only goal in this argumentation is to come up with a description of presumption that can completely explain it, because we could then extend it to answer questions such as the one raised in the original post. The crux of my argument is that your theory cannot logically explain the shift in presumption with a counterplan. Your argument is that presumption exists as a way for neg teams to counterbalance the aff's advantage that they can pick any world they like, as long as it's resolutional. However, you then argue that the neg running a counterplan shifts presumption. Presumably you say this because the neg is no longer "stuck with" defending the status quo, so they no longer need that counterbalancing mechanism. This is internally inconsistent for two reasons. The first is that it doesn't explain why the aff should then retain presumption after that occurs - both teams got to choose their own world, so why should aff then get the advantage of presumption? At least in my theory, I recognize that presumption is simply a tiebreaker and doesn't need to have a justification. The second is that counterplans are effectively an advocacy of the status quo - a counterplan itself is a reason not to do the plan, in that the neg has shown (if they win) that the opportunity cost of doing the plan outweighs the actual benefits of the plan. If the neg wins, we do revert to the status quo, obviously. Thus a counterplan is simply a negative advocacy which can cleverly show that the aff plan is not worth doing. As a result, I don't see why presumption should shift (in your theory) because of the neg running a counterplan, because the negative is just using another method to show that the status quo is better than the plan. Of course, this is another debate entirely, and probably one for another thread, so if you disagree, just say so and we can move on instead of spamming this thread. I think you might have misunderstood my point - as I said earlier, the argumentation is coterminal in nearly every instance. I believe that the neg defeating the aff is sufficient to earn them the ballot. The only difference between my interpretation and yours is that the reason the neg has won the round isn't because they "defeated the aff," it was because defeating the aff was their way of disproving the resolution.
  12. Well, as should be clear, the difference is in how we understand presumption, which by most accounts shouldn't be a huge issue because real debates are very rarely ties, but it's still a theoretical issue of at least some significance. My understanding doesn't inherently conflict with that shift, which is all that matters. At its core, presumption is an arbitrary principle that is necessary to resolve a drawn debate, so it can't be "predicted" by any theory about debate. However, the fact that it conflicts with your interpretation is a fatal flaw. It doesn't really matter why presumption shifts, because the shift still contradicts your thesis that presumption exists as a measure against the aff not fulfilling its burden. The fact that the neg shifted its advocacy doesn't alter whether the aff has proved that the plan is better than the status quo. This is a case where the two theories are coterminal as I said - the idea of the critique fits just as well into my interpretation, because in either case the neg is just using an alternative framework to prove the resolution bad (with a normal disad, the neg is using a utilitarian framework, and with a critique, it's essentially just a disad to the aff's discourse, and we say that good discourse is what allows an aff ballot). Topicality is yet another instance where we would both agree in the first place, and has no relation to the distinction between our theories. This is because we both agree it is the neg's job to defeat the aff (the only difference is that you feel that this is the end in itself, whereas I see it simply as a means to the end of proving the resolution untrue). If the neg can prove that the aff was never proving the resolution true in the first place, then the neg has done all it needs to do to earn a neg ballot. In fact, if anything, topicality makes less sense on your side, because you have to show why being untopical is inherently bad in the first place (to me, it seems the only offense you can garner would be abuse).
  13. Most of what you said boils down to the idea that the aff has a positive burden and the neg does not (aff has to prove the resolution, neg only has to disprove the aff), so I'll address that. This simply does not make sense, on a fundamental level. Consider this: why does a specific aff plan affirm the resolution as a general statement? Most people accept that if the resolution is "The USFG should increase public health assistance to Africa," and the aff plan is "The USFG should send free condoms over there," the aff is affirming the resolution. But in reality, that is not the case - the aff is only proving one instance of the resolution true (at least, if we view the resolution as a truth statement). Yet we, as a community, have developed the standard that a specific policy action, if proven to be net beneficial, is a justification for the resolution in its entirety. Indeed, this is what separates this activity from LD, because in LD you are required to prove the resolution true as a whole. So we must consider the neg's job from this lens. Yet in making this assumption, we recognize that the aff is only supporting one particular policy action. Therefore, the only logical way to keep things balanced is if the neg gets the same option - if the neg can prove that the aff plan is not beneficial, then we take that one instance of negation of the resolution as a reason to vote for the neg team. The aff is aiming to prove that the resolution is true, through the use of one representative policy option (I'm sure you'd agree with that), and so the neg must be aiming to prove that the resolution is false, by showing that one example of the resolution is flawed and actually hurts us, and therefore should not be done. Under your interpretation, though, the neg and aff have completely inconsistent objectives, because the neg no longer has to disprove the resolution, but only show that the aff hasn't proved his point. In reality, these two things are generally coterminal in terms of what types of argumentation they encourage, but the theoretical distinction is important with regards to the debate at hand. The reason is then obvious: if the aff and the neg have equal burdens, then presumption can only be a way of breaking a tie. Under your interpretation, only the aff has a positive burden in terms of the resolution, and that just strikes me as unfair and not really what debate should be about. At any rate, even if you disagree with everything I just said, there's an easy way to see why your evaluation of presumption is incorrect: the "standard" interpretation of presumption is that if the neg runs a CP and goes for it in the 2NR, then the aff holds presumption at that point. There is no way that can make sense under your interpretation, because you literally said: If both teams are in a draw in terms of the argumentation, then under your interpretation the aff would have to lose, because regardless of the neg's CP, they haven't proved that the advantages of plan are certain. Yet this is not what presumption is, and therefore you cannot be correct.
  14. The way I understood presumption is that it was originally based on the idea of the "hidden disad," i.e. that if the aff can prove no tangible benefits or costs to their plan over the status quo, then we should reject the aff because there's some infinitesimal risk that an unforeseen impact will occur, which obviously isn't inherent to the status quo. Presumption isn't the idea that because the aff is trying to change the status quo, they have a burden to prove their plan is better than it; that fails, because the negative also has a burden to prove that the resolution is false (in other words, negating is not the same as proving the aff's plan doesn't work). So presumption, under this interpretation, cannot be integrated into a critique framework, because those types of adverse policy effects are not what are germaine to the principles of the critique argument. If it were the case that it's the aff's burden to prove the resolution true and the neg's burden to prove the aff wrong, then I'd see your point. But that's not the case - the neg's burden is to prove the resolution false, and presumption is simply a way for there to be a winner of an otherwise drawn debate, it's not a statement about the nature of policy debate.
  15. Sure, but my point is that the whole concept of "presumption" is based in a policy framework. If we are evaluating the affirmative's plan as a policy action, then we compare it to the status quo and determine which is better through a cost-benefit analysis. If, however, we view the plan through the lens of a critique of methodology, then we are no longer evaluating either the status quo or the world of the plan, but rather the specific way the affirmative is approaching the debate. But at that point, you can't reasonably be said to be advocating the status quo, because you're advocating a particular worldview or principle (or rejecting one, as is more often the case). I'm not sure what the "standard" interpretation of presumption is, if the neg advocates a critique alternative, but at any rate, it doesn't matter for this argument, because on a theoretical level, it is contradictory to advocate both the status quo and the alternative, because the former probably advocates the same reasoning that the affirmative does, just to a lesser extent. The whole point of a critique framework is that you're leaving the policymaker framework, so you can't just claim the status quo as an advocacy.
  • Create New...