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