Role of the Ballot Vs Framework Part 2

Let's use the most common example of this I heard last year, DADT vs Bush Good DA. Essentially the neg says that allowing gays in the military will cause a conservative backlash in the GOP, negatively affecting Bush's ability to pass some piece of legislation, lets say NMD. The affirmative counters that we should not be concerned that other people will backlash to their plan, they say it would be immoral to allow hate mongers to dictate our policy through intimidation and threats, so the politics DA should be ignored entirely.
This is a pretty straightforward example, its not that differant from normal morality claims. In this instance all you would need to do is to make arguments about why we should be concerned with the overall social acceptance of government actions. Some examples could be:
1. The affirmative is essentially an argument for social integration, and backlash arguments are the heart of any debate about social integration because its the prejudice that underlies backlash that prevents social integration now.
The affirmatives argument is analogous to saying we should launch a mission to Mars and ignore gravity- Gravity is the reason launching rockets is difficult. No one would ever say gravity is a "backlash", but just as gravity must be overcome to go to space, social opposition must be overcome for social integration to occur.
To take the analogy a step further, if the affirmative advocated invading Iran to end Islamo-fascism and said we should not be concerned that people in the Iranian army may fight back because they are bigoted and we should be moral, that viewpoint would be considered absurd. This analogy isn't perfect, but I think it is apt, any time you say we should ignore the major reason X is not done now when considering whether or not to do X, you are looking at the picture in a skewed manner.
2. Utilitarianism
In many debates an explanation of Util normally boils down to "body counts judge", which I think misses the point. While util is concerned with the greatest good for the greatest number, in this instance I think you need to focus on the why and the how. Essentially the affirmative is saying that the thoughts/viewpoints/actions of certain segments of society should be ignored or written off because they are not in line with their own beliefs. Sound like the holocaust anyone?
It may be a crude analogy, but every genocide in history has been based on the premise that certain groups can be ignored and trampled at whim because we are morally superior. This is the classic "morality caused the crusades" argument. The affirmative would no doubt counter such an argument by proclaiming "that is not our kind of morality, our morality is something different that would never allow violence".
Here is where you need to get more in depth. Basically, there is a difference between act and rule utilitarianism. Essentially the affirmative is espousing rule utilitarianism, that we should act according to rules that theoretically will promote well being, like not doing violence, being socially inclusive etc. Act utilitarianism says we should judge an action based on its consequences. So on a moral spectrum you could say that things were arranged deontology----rule utilitarianism----act utilitarianism.
Generic utility good arguments are oftentimes worthless because they don't reject the rule utilitarianism the affirmative is advancing. You need more specific evidence about why outcomes determine morality, not rules or intentions. It may be true that generally it is good to follow rules like don't negotiate with terrorists, because on the whole they may discourage terrorists from engaging in violent acts, however, if a terrorist had a doomsday device and was capable of wiping out the world, we would never be in a position to reap the benefits of not negotiating with them. In that instance rule utilitarianism breaks down and we must rely on act utilitarianism.
Similarly, it may be true generally that we should not give in to threats from bigots, but in the instance where failure to do so would prompt a major war or interfere with affirmative solvency, it would be insane to not consider it.
This last argument is particularly important. Basically what the affirmative has done with role of the ballot is attempt to coopt the middle ground by making themselves seem reasonable and still avoiding the major negative position. A "worst case scenario" form of util allows you to reclaim the middle ground and say that while the affirmative may be generally correct in their view of the world, that the circumstances off this particular instance requires us to use rule utilitarianism.
Lets look at a more complex example. Same DADT vs Politics debate. Now the affirmative says the following, their disad is not real world- our plan would only happen in a world where people were already accepting of it so backlash arguments don't make any sense. So basically they are saying that since the plan, left to its own devices, wouldn't pass until it was popular, than we should assume it passes in a world where it is popular.
At first glance, this seems pretty reasonable as a view of fiat, assume that the plan would only happen in...a ...world where the plan would happen... On any level of careful examination it breaks down pretty quickly. Here is why:
1. Fiat exists to deal with problems that exist now.
If we wait until people are accepting of gays to repeal DADT... why would we need to repeal dadt? If society has already accepted gays then the harms outlined in the 1AC are most likely no longer a problem.
2. Carried to its logical extreme this would eliminate all negative ground.
The invade Iran aff would say their plan doesn't happen in a world where Iranians wouldn't like it if we invaded. The ratify Kyoto aff could claim that their plan doesn’t happen in a world where it would negatively affect the economy. While both of these worlds are possible, they are worlds in which the plan is unnecessary either because Iran is no longer a threat or because the economy is no longer dependant on fossil fuels.
A general argument that applies to both of these examples is that they are arbitrary and self serving. They allow the affirmative to whisk away the negatives best literature based argument against doing the plan. If you wanted to make a meta frame argument about role of the ballot you could say that it is anti educational in that it encourages judges to ignore the heart of any given issue and to selectively look at arguments instead of the big picture. This could also be a fairness claim- that it is unpredictable for the negative to exclude the best arguments against adoption of the plan.
Lets look at one more example that isn't politics. Let's say the affirmative gives a boatload of money to Africa for public health assistance, and argues that the US has an obligation due to the legacy of slavery to assist SSA. The negative reads the spending DA and an EU CP. The 2AC responds that the role of the ballot is to make a decision about how the US can respond ethically to the legacy of slavery, and that neither the CP or the disad is relevant in that setting because the disad fails to shift the focus from economics to ethics, and because the CP dodges the issue of our responsibility. What do you say to that?
First, I think it is important to establish your own "role of the ballot".
Not necessarily because you have to, but because you want to cover your bases against any lame "offense defense/competing interpretations" style of argument. So I would make an argument like, "The role of the ballot should be to make a decision about who should assist SSA that maximizes global welfare". So you have basically PICed out of the decision only being about the US and also about it being based on some arbitrary ethical system. Now I would give some offense for this interpretation. For example, you could say that focusing the debate solely on what the US should do or that saying only the US can remedy the historical injustice of slavery is ethnocentric and replicates the logic of colonialism by saying only the US can do what is best. Then I would give some offense against the affirmative's interpretation such as some of the arguments discussed above.
Finally, I would end with some theory arguments about why the negative should get to choose the roll of the ballot because the deck is already stacked in the affirmative's favor. This way I will have a robust defense of one of the most important issues in the debate.