[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: Bold New Debate Theory


On Sun, 21 Apr 1996, David M. Heidt wrote:

> 
> Hello all,
> 
> After reading the many compelling arguments for plan-plan, I've been 
> convinced that this argument needs to be taken a step further.  I think 
> that the only way to provide truly EQUAL ground is to allow both the 
> affirmative and the negative to shed the evil tyranny of resolutional 
> advocacy altogether.  Plan-plan may allow the negative to neutralize the 
> affirmative's downright unfair advantage of going affirmative, but some 
> borderline loons might argue that it gives the majority of ground to the 
> negative, making it impossible for affirmatives to win.  While the 
> answers to this whine are far too obvious for me to list, I fear that 
> these jokers are never going to be persuaded unless some new kind of 
> theory emerges that allows the affirmative a defense vs. plan-plan. 
> 
> Accordingly, I propose that debaters adopt a 
> counter-warrant--counter-warrant strategy (C-W(s)--C-W(s)2, for short).  
> Tricky affirmatives, in anticipating the negative's plan, could begin the 
> 1ac with a topical example of the resolution (or 2, or 3 examples; 
> there's no reason why more is not better)  and then read as many 
> disadvantages to them as 8 or 9 minutes allows, urging the judge(s) to 
> vote for them and against the resolution all the while.  This 
> C-W(s)--C-W(s)2 strategy offers major advantages:
> 
> 1. It sheds the whole archaic notion of resolutional advocacy 
> altogether.  No one is stuck with having to go affirm or negate the 
> resolution; its now anyone's choice.  What could be more fair?  Under 
> boring or poorly written topics, neither side is forced to advocate 
> change, while under more interesting topics, either side can still jump 
> on the plan-plan bandwagon.  The only thing winning the flip does under 
> this paradigm is determine the speech order (which by itself is obviously 
> still oppressive; however, I'm also formulating a new system under which 
> neither side gets the last speech.  More on that later).
> 
> 2. It provides EQUAL ground for both the affirmative and the negative.  
> The affirmative chooses to disprove the resolution with a 
> counter-warrant, and the negative now has the option of either answering 
> it and running a topical advantageous plan, or by responding with even 
> more insidious counter-warrants themselves:
> 	1ac: Here's two topical examples of the resolution which are 
> 	     obviously bad, and demand its rejection.
> 	1nc: Oh yeah?  Well, here's three examples that are even worse!
> 
> 3.  It simplifies the task of judging enormously.  Under this new theory, 
> lazy judges are rewarded, for all they have to do is decide which team 
> presented the most disadvantageous example of the resolution.  They can 
> just call for the impact cards read by either side, and vote for the 
> biggest one.  Decisions would take at most 30 seconds.  Time spent at 
> tournaments would be dramatically reduced, and we all know that no one 
> likes spending time at debate tournaments anyway.
> 
> Of course, people are bound to present many numerous objections to this 
> theory.  I myself came up with a short list of over a hundred thousand 
> disadvantages.  However, I'm happy to say that after entire seconds of 
> careful thought, most of these disadvantages/responses to 
> C-W(s)--C-W(s)2 can be dismissed with any of the following three arguments:
> 
> 1. They are all non-unique.  Whatever the problem is, it also plagues 
> competition theory as well.  I don't really need to explain this or 
> provide evidence of it beyond some vague generalized assertions; it is 
> self-evident.  Even if this theory is as crappy as the current paradigm, 
> its at least new and exciting.  Or at least its new.
> 
> 2. They are all just whines, not arguments.  Look up the distinction if 
> you're confused.
> 
> 3. None of them apply.  Any responsible advocate of C-W(s)--C-W(s)2 will 
> steadfastly argue that these objections or responses just don't fit the 
> new paradigm.  I refuse to explain this further.
> 
> On the other hand, I have thought of one serious disadvantage to 
> C-W(s)--C-W(s)2 that I'm not sure I can think of a response to.  It might 
> mean that teams would have to research more than one or two arguments the 
> entire year to do well.  In this respect, plan-plan is obviously 
> superior; only the biggest two cases under the topic would be debated and 
> once that research was complete, debaters would never have to visit the 
> evil library again.  For example, under the high school China topic, the 
> only two cases that would ever be run would be the extend MFN case and 
> forward deployment, the two cases with the biggest impacts.  It is very 
> obvious to me that these are the ONLY two cases that should be discussed 
> under a resolution that calls for a change in foreign policy towards 
> China; anything else is clearly frivolous.  The C-W(s)--C-W(s)2 strategy 
> might allow conniving affirmatives to pick smaller cases as 
> counter-warrants,  such as stopping 3 or 4 beatings in Shanghai.  This 
> case has a very small advantage, and a devious affirmative could make it 
> an effective counter-warrant by running a human rights pressure 
> disadvantage against it that had an enormous impact.  This would mean the 
> negative would actually have to do some research to be prepared for this, 
> which is clearly unacceptable.  I think that the only reasonable 
> sollution to this dilemma is to proscibe a rule that says that teams can 
> only debate the two biggest issues under any given topic, or they lose.
> 
> I'm really excited about this new theory.  I hope that anyone following 
> the P2 discussion jumps over to the C-W(s)--C-W(s)2 camp as well.
> 
> Warmest regards,
> 
> David Heidt
> Emory
> 
> 
>
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page