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

Process Disads -Reply to Croasmun

I'll play.....I think Process disads and counterplans can be great arguments.  I 
use them frequently....have won on them, have lost on them.  I think they're no 
different than most economy disads.(FRB, Bonds, you know, the perception based 
ones.)  I don't think they're silly or stupid and I think they can surely be a 
reason to reject the plan.  Initially, here's why I think they're good.....

1. Pressures the affirmative in a unique way which is a good tool to have as 
negative ground since I think I'll be in a nursing home before we get a limited 
and predictable topic that can win on the ballot.  The plan utilizes, as a tool, 
fiat.  The negative should be able to utilize that same tool as negative ground. 
If you feel your gonna be buff on the link turns you don't have a thing to worry 
about when affirmative.  You're gonna do the same thing the negative is....link 
something off the use of fiat.  It's just another weapon in the arsenal which I 
think is all cool when on the negative. 

2.  Pressures us theoretically.  Cool....we do some systemic thinking about the 
frame of the discussion.  That's no different than Topicallity.  We debate about 
things that aren't neccessarily central to the theme of the case.  If you ran 
Carbon Tax I might wanna debate something besides Carbon Tax bad and Warming 
good.  I may choose to argue Topicallity, which eats your negative "crutch" 
argument below, and say you aren't within the bounds of our discussion realm.
I may choose to run disads that say passing a plan that spends money right now 
is bad(economy), or I may choose to say that passing an environmental policy 
right now is bad because an election, or important floor debate, or test of 
bi-partisanship is coming up.  In order to win these things I have to debate the 
"implementation" of the plan.  So we'll have a "fiat" discussion.  That's more 
along the lines of meta-debate.  We don't just discuss the merits of a carbon 
tax, we discuss the merits of doing something...anything....and we discuss the 
merits of doing a carbon tax....and maybe we'll discuss what implications the 
plan has on our ability to even debate the round at all(topicallity).  I think 
it's good the affirmative has to defend all of that.

3.  It is real world.  The CWC got tabled the first time because of the 
election.  The repubilicans got pro-environment shortly after that to get votes.
The Contract (on) America push in early 95 didn't allow for any deviation in 
legislative activities.  Nothing got considered untill that was over with.  The 
president has an agency that is specifically designed to sheild the executive 
from political ramifications of regulatory changes and programs.  They 
frequently delay publication on the federal register if it will hurt the 
president politically.  Welfare reform last fall is another example.  The budget 
battle this spring is also a great example.  That's why the cards exist to 
support these arguments....because sometimes it's true that certain legislative 
items or executive activities in certain areas have big political implications 
whether they be with the voters or on inter-branch cooperation(or lack thereof).
That's probably pretty educational for us as people who participate in a 
democracy(from time to time).  It certainly increases our understanding of the 
political process and the games that get played up in Washington.

As to whether they are a reason to "REJECT" the plan......


On Wed, 9 Jul 1997, Earl Croasmun <croasmun@juno.com> wrote:

>I have absolutely no doubt that such things are considered in policy
>decisions.  I also have no doubt that debate judges sometimes vote
>politically (e.g., "if I drop this team in quarters, my team will meet a
>weaker opponent in semis").  On rare occasions I have heard judges
>confess to such considerations, although I have never heard a team crass
>enough to make it an explicit argument in the round.  But I do not find
>either to be a reasonable or justifiable reason for a decision.  I would
>hate to be the EPA official who tried to explain to a group of victims
>that (say) 12,000 of them are going to die so that my party can win.
>Even if I didn't have to admit it publicly, I would hate to try to sleep
>at night knowing what I did.

What if my disad impact is a lot more people dying than 12,000?  The terminal 
implication is a lot more than my party winning most of the time.  Your defense 
is purely deontological here.  Absent that discussion I think you'd have a 
harder time sleeping at night if my disad impact was clean and it outweighed 
12,000 people.

Why are they a reason to reject the plan?  If you have to defend a topicallity 
interpretation and if you have to defend assumptions made by the resolution, I'm 
saying you gotta defend the implementation of the plan gosh-darnit.  If the 
passage of any plan right now risks the disad of economic disruption or 
political fallout and that out-weighs the threat of warming from not doing a 
carbon tax then the plan doesn't compete with the status quo.  The plan isn't 
benificial over doing nothing.  I think even a generic link deductively proves 
that doing a carbon tax is a bad idea.  Does it answer whether or not a carbon 
tax itself is good or bad absent an evaluation over implementation?  Maybe not, 
but neither does T or most kritiks.  In this world you can ONLY debate case.
Even warming turns only answer warming abatement policies...not the carbon tax 
itself.  I could only say Carbon Tax Bad.  I just think the affirmative has to 
defend more than that....especially if they are gonna use something like warming 
abatement to weigh stuff out with.

>That's not my main objection to political disadvantages.  It's just
>something that came up in the discussion.  More significant would be: (1)
>in practice they can become crutches for the negative, substituting for
>specific, on-point arguments.  

No worse than anything that isn't a solvency mechanism answer.  I at least gotta 
cut links and impact scenarios.....T and Kritiks would be worse crutches.
Against most big cases I have to go for "on-point" arguments to get my Clinton 
disad to outweigh.

>(2) Against most small cases, the link is
>a joke.  Slapping on a big carbon tax to push CO2 emissions down to 1990
>levels might possibly make a difference in an election or a political
>agenda.  But slightly altering the chemical makeup of the anti-foulant
>used on the hulls of some big ships in order to protect the gonads of a
>few fish will probably not alter the views of a single voter.  

Either;
a.  You're right and you beat the disad's link easily with the small case
or b.  You're wrong and I have a great link story that's mearly based on doing 
something in a time when nothing will be tolerated from one side, or have a 
tight perception story, etc.  

Sometimes links to disads are bad.  Process is no different than ANY other 
argument in the world in this sense.  Eco-crisis key to Space?  Yeah, that's 
really tight.  

>And (3)
>they should be an easy target for anyone who was prepared to
>straight-flip them (either flipping the neg impact or minimizing it in
>some way and running 4 or 5 new impacts going the other way).

Yeah, a liability the negative risks.....you're beating your own arguments now.
ANY disad or kritik runs the same risk.

I think any disad can deductively disprove the desirability of the plan.  That's 
old school negative burden stuff.  Beat the plan or the rez.  Either 
way...you're rejecting the plan.  Why can I only beat the plan's actual action 
as mandated?  Why can't I win on it's funding or implementation?  There's lots 
of ways to force a rejection of "the plan" and that doesn't mean I have to 
always win that a carbon tax, or whatever, is bad.

-slusher------
---siu debate-
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page