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

Re: A decision for the least interventionists to decide....


On Tue, 7 Nov 1995 Pacedebate@aol.com wrote:

>                                  At the end of the debate I decide that the
> aff wins an argument that says the counterplan is topical, which proves the
> rez true so I must vote aff. The neg wins an argument that says the 2AC
> saying the word 'perm' dejustifies the rez so I must vote neg. The neg also
> wins a realism argument that has a conceded 'It's a kritik voting issue'
> impact - whatever that is. My initial reaction is that the perm arg and the
> topical cplan issues are of a procedural nature that should be decided before
> the kritik. However, since both teams win one of these arguments and there
> isn't an argument by either side as to why one should come before the other I
> this point I need to find a tie breaker.

I agree with previous answers that this is a difficult round to decide.
I view myself as a least interventionist but I might vote Aff.  First,
when I am forced to intervene strongly (in Pat's sense of this word),
I personally try to see if I am accepting claims that have tension between
them.  In other words, if possible, I try to avoid any claim comparision
not made by the debaters and accept their claims.  Given that, I try
to accept claims that are at least consistent (and Yes!  I am very aware 
that by doing so I enter the round, too, based on my knowledge of what is
consistent, etc, but desparate times :)... ).  In other words, if two
topicality arguments were being run, and on one Aff was winning 'T is not
a voter' and the neg was winning 'T is a voter' on the other T position
 and T is the only thing in the round, if the debaters don't resolve 
this issue I would try to; I just can't accept both claims into my set
of true claims.  (This situation could obviously be avoided by some
in round argument comparision or cross-application.)

This whole diatribe relates to the round described in that I see some
tension between 'topical counterplans advocate the resolution (and thereby
Aff)' and that 'perms leave the resolution and thereby dejustify it.'
Here's why: How could the perm move from the resolution to another
subset and leave the resolution?  I don't know.  These arguments have
competing assumptions and implications.  If I accept the claim that
everything advocated so far in the round is resolutional, how could
a perm dejustify the res?  So I have some inability to add *both* claims
to my set of claims that are true for this round.

But... I'm nervous.  This is an argument that definitely should be made
in the round, and is pretty subtle tension.  Does it cross my own
personal, least (hopefully!) interventionist line of can I believe
'p' and 'not p'?  I'm not behind the ballot right now, and I would 
hate to have to communicate my decision to the neg, but I would probably
not incorporate the neg claim into my final set of claims that I accept
as true for the round.  Again, this is a tough call, even accepting my
definition of least intervention which may not be the case at all; it
may just be massive intervention masquerading as least intervention :).

> 1) Picked one of the procedural issues and decided which one should come
> first based on my own knowledge (what little there is) of theory.

I guess this is what I do.  And I always thought I was a good judge :(.

bad zack
Cal Debate

PS:  The way the critique relates to advocacy might make all this
     moot.  I agree with Pat that a critique's voting issue could
     be pre-procedural; although the mere concept of a critique is 
     bankrupt, people do run them and win them :).
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page