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

Dave and Critiques

Dave seems to make three arguments against my "simplification" of
Critiques.  I will answer each in turn:

1. Critiques are a more substantial indictment of the affirmative advocacy
   than I allow for.

I agree that critiques  often move beyond the examples that I give, but,
   my examples were not comprehensive.  I fail to see why this destroys my
   analogy, however.  If the critique indicts the underlying premise of the
   entire advocacy package  that is still analogous to a counterplan.  I think
   what Dave fails to see is that I am not saying that a critique is a
   counterplan, rather, I am saying  that a critique is similar to a
   counterplan in the sense that it presumes that the affirmative advocacy
   package, rather than just the plan, trades off with a net-disadvantage.  If
   the critique indicts the underlying premise of the affirmative it still
   offers an alternative (not thinking through the lens of the underlying
   premise) and indictment of the advocacy package (the critique).  In
   addition, if the indictment is of the underlying premise....then the
   argument against competition (perm etc.) would not  be net-beneficial and
   the critique would succeed.  My argument is simply that it is faulty to
   look at critiques as non-unique disadvantages (as so many who oppose
   critiques do) and that the creitique itself offers an alternative to
   the advocacy package of the affirmative (in other words you need not
   evaluate case vs. disadvantage, rather, case vs. counter-advocacy.  Finally,
   my intent was not to say a critique was limited to policy-making assumptions
   only to argue that the critique is a competitive alternative to the
   affirmative advocacy package much like the counterplan competes with the
   affirmative plan.  In other words, I see no tension between our
   arguments.

2. Permutations - I think permutations can potentially beg the question of the
   critique because they are a post-facto recognition that changes the
   advocacy package of the affirmative the same way a severence permutation
   effects the advocacy of the affirmative.  The affirmative has made a
   poor argument the critique tests the goodness/badness of that argument the
   affirmative changes the argument to avoid the critique.  Sounds like a
   severence permutation to me.  The critique still competes with the aff.
   advocacy and the perm only proves that the net benefit was true.  The aff
   gets infinite prep time and much more practice and gets to speak first and
   last....these advantages are bal;anced by the fact that the affirmative
   is tied to advocacy.  In addition, the affirmative can always answer the
   critique itself.  Would most judges allow the affirmative to change the
   plan to avoid disadvantages after the 1AC?  Can the affirmative sever out
   of links in the 2AC.  Is it "punishing"the affirmative to expect them to
   make superior answers relating to the disad or counterplan?  Why is
   answering a critique any different?  Now, if the perm does not sever the
   advocacy package and indeed captures the net benefit (solves the advocacy
   problem in a way that allows evaluation of the case etc....)  then there
   is not competition (a forced choice) between the critique and the aff.
   Competition is a concept related to counterplans but not intrinsically
   related.  In other words, all competition means is that a forced choice is
   created by the opposition between arguments and all a perm does is test
   the truth of the claim that such a choice exists.  Niether is only
   related to counterplans, rather, both are related to the interaction
   and judge evaluation of arguments.

3. Policymaking tendencies - Well, your argument here is the antithesis of my
   argument.  I am not arguing that the critique is bound up in policymaking
   assumptions.  I am, rather, using a policymaking analogy do help those
   that are policymakers understand how the argument works.  I do believe that
   many policymaking staples (competition, permutations etc) that are used
   in policymaking but more intrinsic to argument evaluation in general help
   simplify connfused concepts for those unfamilliar or misunderstanding
   critiques.  I have written papers for SCA on the relationship between
   counterplan "abuse" and the policymaking paradigm before (I think it was
   San Antonio).  I believe that many arguments considered abusive (by some)
   in counterplan debates are only abusive outside of the policymaking
   paradigm. Without going into too much detail, I argue that only by
   widening our paradigmatic lens beyond policymaking can we, as debaters
   and judges, rectify the supposed "abuse" of policymaking.  While I do
   not embrace policymaking in my philosophy, it is the default philosophy
   assumed in most college debate rounds.  It is for thios reason, not a
   love of policymaking, that I use the analogy of counterplans to help
   explain critique debates.

Hope that helps clarify my position.  Ultimately, I think we are in agreement
 for the most part.  If I am misunderstanding your arguments feel free to
 clarify.  Josh

Joshua B. Hoe
Asst. Dir. Forensics
Arizona State University
e-mail:IFJXH@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
(602) 965-5578
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page