Why does it sometimes seem that there is an inverse relationship between how stupid an argument is and how successful it is? For the purpose of this discussion I will define argument as a complete position, thus things that count as a stupid argument are things like
-politics
-most K's
-consult or condition cp's
Things that are no doubt stupid but I am not referring to here include
-multiple perms are a voter
-dispo bad
-being aff
Few people would say, in all honesty, that any of the arguments above are objectively good (with the exception of some K debaters probably) and yet many people rely on all or some of them for the majority of their neg debates. Why?
I think it's because these arguments are so flawed in 1 or 2 ways that the neg can sit on those flaws, bury them with a million arguments, and get the aff so far of course that they are conceding crucial issues. I call this the "web of stupidity". Basically the idea here is to make an argument that has 3 or 4 points, one of which is overwhelmingly stupid. The aff will rightly focus on this part of your argument. Then in the block, you extend that argument by reading 10+ arguments in support of it, many of which are in and of themselves stupid. Then the 1AR will zero in on these new stupid arguments , but in the process will drop the original stupid argument and many of your non stupid (relatively) extension arguments. They have become caught in the web of stupid.
What do I mean by this? Let's take consult for example. The aff makes the argument that we should consult but do the plan anyway (lie). The neg reaches into their magic bag of stupid and makes the following arguments
1. This is severance- plan is done now, the perm delayes, that severs now
2. Intrinsic- netiher the plan includes a lie but the perm does
3. Leaks- they will find out we lied, they will be very angry
4. Lying is immoral- so you know, don't do that
5. Multiple perms are a VI- you can't have more than one
6. Prior binding consultation is key to restructure the alliance (card)
7. Default neg on the perm- aff has the burden to prove a net benefit, if we win they say yes there is no reason to risk it
8. The perm violates resolved- proves you aren't super sure
That is quite a bit of stupid. However, there are 2 (maybe 3) arguments in there that compared to the rest are almost gaussian in thier genius. They are the perm fwork arg (default neg) and the substance that prior binding is key (which may rely on leaks, which is stupid but when compared to the others is not so bad). Here is what a 1AR I once saw did in response to these arguments
"Group the perm, its not severance or intrinsic- and if it is reject the argument not the team. Bush is leakproof- nothing he does that he doesn't want to be known publically ever gets out. And lying isn't immoral- its key to prevent war- card"
This is a slightly less wordy version, but with the card this took them about 45 seconds. They have become caught in the web of stupid. They have ignored the only credible arguments in favor of answering absurd nonsense. The fact is you will never beat a consult CP if it takes you almost a minute to extend that argument because at the end of the day most judges say "eh, risk" and vote neg. Unless you do a lot more this fate will befall you because no matter how stupid the neg's args are YOUR STRAT IS ALSO STUPID, both in the arguments you chose to go for and the way you are going about it.
So how do you handle stupid? You don't lower yourself to their level, you just blow through it intelligently.
I once saw a debate where the following happend
-the 1AC read a 6 minute advantage about why uranium was harmful to the environment
-the neg read 1 card that says environmentalists are prone to doomsaying
-the 2AC said this doesnt talk about our advantage -uranium- and moved on
-the 1NR spent 4 minutes reading more generic evidence about environmental doomsaying but didn't read any cards about uranium
What did the 1AR do? I will remember it for as long as I live, he said verbatim "They say doomsaying, I say nay saying".
That was it. Pure genius. I have never ever in my life made an argument that at any point approached this level of astounding awesomeness. What on earth could a judge who decided to vote on this argument explain in their rfd? By brutally blowing their stupidity off the 1AR demonstrated just how dumb the neg's arg was.
When people say things like "lying immoral" the proper response is not to read a 30 second card, its to blow them off with a glib/witty remark a la James Bond. Something along the lines of "Lying good- Santa, Easter Bunny, no you don't look fat in those pants" thats it.
The response to this will be "but what if you have a super strict line by line judge, you have just dropped an argument". Well yes and no- you did not actually engage the substance of an incredibly stupid argument- true. But you did cleverly make the point "this is stupid". I don't know a lot of judges who are anxious to vote on lying immoral and the like when they are responded to in any fashion.
Caveat - in order to pull this off, you must have a minimal amount of "stupid cred". By this I mean, if you are a total joker and all your other arguments in the debate are stupid, odds are you wont be able to get away calling the other team out on a stupid argument for obvious reasons.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
More AT: Zizek
I found this guys blog when doing a follow up search on the deadly jester article posted earlier
http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2008/08/zizek-on-violence.html
One good thing about this author- he is a trained psychoanalyst (trained by Lacan in fact) so it should be difficult for the other side to make inane qualifications args.
http://stuartschneiderman.blogspot.com/2008/08/zizek-on-violence.html
One good thing about this author- he is a trained psychoanalyst (trained by Lacan in fact) so it should be difficult for the other side to make inane qualifications args.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Debate Jeet Kune Do
Bruce Lee is the man. I was cleaning up my external hard drive and I found a bunch of Bruce Lee videos I had downloaded a while ago and rather than do the work I was supposed to be doing I re watched them. In particular I remembered watching the video below for the first time years ago and thinking about its applications to debate. For those with short attention spans you can skip ahead to the 3 minute mark.
No style is how I approached debate when I was competing. It was completely un-ideological: whatever I thought would win (stylistically, argument wise etc) I would do it. This arose out of competitive, not philosophical, concerns. If your goal in debate is to win, then no style is probably the approach for you. If you do debate for misguided quasi political reasons, I don't know why you are reading this blog, but you can probably stop.
Even people who inherently understand the theory of this often are blinded by ideology. In the dartmouth podcasts on itunes there is one of John Turner talking about framework. In it he advises you to read the other sides cards to know their arguments so you can defeat them. I agree. Then he talks about how people who never go for politics have a hard time answering it because they don't know the tricks. Preach on brother. Then someone asks him what theory arguments you could make for why the plan should be the focus of the debate... This is where the turner train derails. He says it is difficult for him to do that because during his debate career he was so against it and it bothered him so much that people would make that argument. Cognitive dissonance to table 3. How is it possible that an argument you are unable to explain could bother you so much? Rigid style.
I judged a team whose coaches had "banned" them from going for conditionality bad because they did it too much. In this debate the other side dropped it in the block, but they didn't go for it because their coaches told them not to. Rigid style.
Many 2NC's take what they plan on going for in the 2NC. A smart 1AR then undercovers the 1NR arguments to spend more time on the 2NC, and the 2NC goes for those arguments anyway. Rigid style.
Many purely policy teams read a K in the 1NC and then don't go for it when the other team makes only 2 or 3 bad answers. Likewise K teams sometimes don't go for disads that are poorly answered because they have their heart set on going for fear of death. Rigid style.
These examples are fairly obvious, and I think in the abstract few people would argue that they are "mistakes". Mistakes that could be easily corrected, and yet they happen frequently.
"I have not invented a "new style," composite, modified or otherwise that is set within distinct form as apart from "this" method or "that" method. On the contrary, I hope to free my followers from clinging to styles, patterns, or molds. Remember that Jeet Kune Do is merely a name used, a mirror in which to see "ourselves". . . Jeet Kune Do is not an organized institution that one can be a member of. Either you understand or you don't, and that is that.
There is no mystery about my style. My movements are simple, direct and non-classical. The extraordinary part of it lies in its simplicity. Every movement in Jeet Kune-Do is being so of itself. There is nothing artificial about it. I always believe that the easy way is the right way. Jeet Kune-Do is simply the direct expression of one's feelings with the minimum of movements and energy. The closer to the true way of Kung Fu, the less wastage of expression there is.
Finally, a Jeet Kune Do man who says Jeet Kune Do is exclusively Jeet Kune Do is simply not with it. He is still hung up on his self-closing resistance, in this case anchored down to reactionary pattern, and naturally is still bound by another modified pattern and can move within its limits. He has not digested the simple fact that truth exists outside all molds; pattern and awareness is never exclusive.
Again let me remind you Jeet Kune Do is just a name used, a boat to get one across, and once across it is to be discarded and not to be carried on one's back."
While the above examples are the most prominent, there are many others that are as if not more egregious. The most obvious is insane counterplans, something like an agent CP combined with 4 or 5 advantage counterplans that is also partially plan inclusive. Every time I see one of these debates the aff spends a lot of time on UNWINNABLE solvency deficit arguments. Their only chance to beat these arguments are to
-go for theory- which they are either hesitant to do because they don't think the judge will vote on theory or because they are to lazy to write out answers to the 25 bs reasons the neg gave for why they needed international fiat, conditionality, and plan inclusiveness to balance out the first and last speech...
-impact turn the net benefit- more often than not politics- an argument they should have lots of impact turns to, but are afraid that since the neg gets the block they won't be able to win on them.
Both of these views are rigid and misguided. Lets quickly deconstruct each
A. Judges don't vote on theory- false. This belief comes from a few prominent judges over the last 2 decades being neg leaning on theory- meaning if the neg had a sweet case specific pic and didn't mess up pics bad they wouldn't vote on it. It doesn't mean that every judge in the country will refuse to vote on consult bad. A few short years ago a team won the Glenbrooks on Dispo bad, this year at that tournament almost every debate I saw involved the neg reading 2 CP's and a K all conditional. Now its possible that judges have radically changed in like 5 years, but I doubt it. Neg leaning on theory means judges give the neg a reasonable amount of leeway. Most judges do not think 2 counterplans and a K is reasonable leeway. (obvi there are exceptions)
B. Impact turning is hard- also false. If done correctly, impact turning is the easiest way to win on the aff because it allows you to strategically collapse the debate. Usually affs adopt the following strategy: win the case, win solvency deficit to CP, win defense on DA hoping to win the solvency deficit outweighs. Lets say the neg also extended T and you spend 1 minute on T in the 1AR, that gives you 4 minutes. Whats easier to do in 4 minutes:
-concede the CP solves the case, spend 4 minutes reading impact turns on politics
-Win the case, win a big solvency deficit, win a lot of defense on politics
Correct answer: impact turns. Even if you disagree with that example, the second strategy assumes you theoretically CAN win a solvency deficit. Against an insane counterplan (IC) this is just not possible. Accept it. Move on.
Here is the SP rule of thumb for dealing with IC's- if the CP text takes longer than 20 seconds to read, or includes 2 or more agents one of which is your agent, its time to go for theory or impact turn something.
"To reach the masses, some sort of big organization (whether) domestic and foreign branch affiliation, is not necessary. To reach the growing number of students, some sort of pre-conformed set must be established as standards for the branch to follow. As a result all members will be conditioned according to the prescribed system. Many will probably end up as a prisoner of a systematized drill.
Styles tend to not only separate men - because they have their own doctrines and then the doctrine became the gospel truth that you cannot change. But if you do not have a style, if you just say: Well, here I am as a human being, how can I express myself totally and completely? Now, that way you won't create a style, because style is a crystallization. That way, it's a process of continuing growth.
To me totality is very important in sparring. Many styles claim this totality. They say that they can cope with all types of attacks; that their structures cover all the possible lines and angles, and are capable of retaliation from all angles and lines. If this is true, then how did all the different styles come about? If they are in totality, why do some use only the straight lines, others the round lines, some only kicks, and why do still others who want to be different just flap and flick their hands? To me a system that clings to one small aspect of combat is actually in bondage.
This statement expresses my feelings perfectly: 'In memory of a once fluid man, crammed and distorted by the classical mess.'"
In the dogmatic thinking post I talked about people doing things over and over again because of habit and not critical thought. Another reason people do the same thing over and over again despite poor results is ideological: you will hear someone say something like "I went for T out of principle" or some such similar nonsense. At a basic level you need to decide are you in debate to win or make "principled" ideological stands. Most often this is self deception- you went for T because you were not prepared to go for something else, or because you didn't put the work in ahead of time to make your other strategy viable. Either way, your "fooling" only negatively affects you and your partner.
The last thing I would like to talk about is taking risks. Many people avoid doing something different because they think it is "risky". The problem is that their conception of risk is messed up. An example:
A friend of mine buys about 400 dollars worth of lottery tickets every year. He only spends a few dollars on them a week, but over time that adds up. When I suggested he just put 400 on black at a casino he scoffed at what a ludcirous idea that was.
In gambling (the only real use for math) the concept of expected value is discussed frequently. Expected value can be thought of simplisitically as the amount of money you should expect to win on a bet. If you flip a coin for 10 dollars a flip, your expected value for each flip is 5$, or .5(10) , your odds multiplied by your bet. This doesn't mean every time you flip the coin you get 5 dollars (how could it), it means that is your expected value.
In the lottery example , there is no lottery in the world where betting 400 dollars over the course of the year would give you a higher EV than putting it on black. But since it is only a few dollars at a time the risk is diffused over time, and it seems "less risky", though mathematically it is nonsensical.
Similarly, in debate I think people perceive a change from the normal course of affairs as "too risky". They would rather they keep betting 1 or 2 dollars a tournament as is their habit, then "risk" it on a new strategy. This approach may have some merit in the abstract- instead of deciding to go for the K for the first time in an elim, you may want to go for something you know. However, there are instances where the "habit" approach makes no sense at all (see above), at which point no matter how risky a change is, it has to have a higher EV than staying the course.
Be water
No style is how I approached debate when I was competing. It was completely un-ideological: whatever I thought would win (stylistically, argument wise etc) I would do it. This arose out of competitive, not philosophical, concerns. If your goal in debate is to win, then no style is probably the approach for you. If you do debate for misguided quasi political reasons, I don't know why you are reading this blog, but you can probably stop.
Even people who inherently understand the theory of this often are blinded by ideology. In the dartmouth podcasts on itunes there is one of John Turner talking about framework. In it he advises you to read the other sides cards to know their arguments so you can defeat them. I agree. Then he talks about how people who never go for politics have a hard time answering it because they don't know the tricks. Preach on brother. Then someone asks him what theory arguments you could make for why the plan should be the focus of the debate... This is where the turner train derails. He says it is difficult for him to do that because during his debate career he was so against it and it bothered him so much that people would make that argument. Cognitive dissonance to table 3. How is it possible that an argument you are unable to explain could bother you so much? Rigid style.
I judged a team whose coaches had "banned" them from going for conditionality bad because they did it too much. In this debate the other side dropped it in the block, but they didn't go for it because their coaches told them not to. Rigid style.
Many 2NC's take what they plan on going for in the 2NC. A smart 1AR then undercovers the 1NR arguments to spend more time on the 2NC, and the 2NC goes for those arguments anyway. Rigid style.
Many purely policy teams read a K in the 1NC and then don't go for it when the other team makes only 2 or 3 bad answers. Likewise K teams sometimes don't go for disads that are poorly answered because they have their heart set on going for fear of death. Rigid style.
These examples are fairly obvious, and I think in the abstract few people would argue that they are "mistakes". Mistakes that could be easily corrected, and yet they happen frequently.
"I have not invented a "new style," composite, modified or otherwise that is set within distinct form as apart from "this" method or "that" method. On the contrary, I hope to free my followers from clinging to styles, patterns, or molds. Remember that Jeet Kune Do is merely a name used, a mirror in which to see "ourselves". . . Jeet Kune Do is not an organized institution that one can be a member of. Either you understand or you don't, and that is that.
There is no mystery about my style. My movements are simple, direct and non-classical. The extraordinary part of it lies in its simplicity. Every movement in Jeet Kune-Do is being so of itself. There is nothing artificial about it. I always believe that the easy way is the right way. Jeet Kune-Do is simply the direct expression of one's feelings with the minimum of movements and energy. The closer to the true way of Kung Fu, the less wastage of expression there is.
Finally, a Jeet Kune Do man who says Jeet Kune Do is exclusively Jeet Kune Do is simply not with it. He is still hung up on his self-closing resistance, in this case anchored down to reactionary pattern, and naturally is still bound by another modified pattern and can move within its limits. He has not digested the simple fact that truth exists outside all molds; pattern and awareness is never exclusive.
Again let me remind you Jeet Kune Do is just a name used, a boat to get one across, and once across it is to be discarded and not to be carried on one's back."
While the above examples are the most prominent, there are many others that are as if not more egregious. The most obvious is insane counterplans, something like an agent CP combined with 4 or 5 advantage counterplans that is also partially plan inclusive. Every time I see one of these debates the aff spends a lot of time on UNWINNABLE solvency deficit arguments. Their only chance to beat these arguments are to
-go for theory- which they are either hesitant to do because they don't think the judge will vote on theory or because they are to lazy to write out answers to the 25 bs reasons the neg gave for why they needed international fiat, conditionality, and plan inclusiveness to balance out the first and last speech...
-impact turn the net benefit- more often than not politics- an argument they should have lots of impact turns to, but are afraid that since the neg gets the block they won't be able to win on them.
Both of these views are rigid and misguided. Lets quickly deconstruct each
A. Judges don't vote on theory- false. This belief comes from a few prominent judges over the last 2 decades being neg leaning on theory- meaning if the neg had a sweet case specific pic and didn't mess up pics bad they wouldn't vote on it. It doesn't mean that every judge in the country will refuse to vote on consult bad. A few short years ago a team won the Glenbrooks on Dispo bad, this year at that tournament almost every debate I saw involved the neg reading 2 CP's and a K all conditional. Now its possible that judges have radically changed in like 5 years, but I doubt it. Neg leaning on theory means judges give the neg a reasonable amount of leeway. Most judges do not think 2 counterplans and a K is reasonable leeway. (obvi there are exceptions)
B. Impact turning is hard- also false. If done correctly, impact turning is the easiest way to win on the aff because it allows you to strategically collapse the debate. Usually affs adopt the following strategy: win the case, win solvency deficit to CP, win defense on DA hoping to win the solvency deficit outweighs. Lets say the neg also extended T and you spend 1 minute on T in the 1AR, that gives you 4 minutes. Whats easier to do in 4 minutes:
-concede the CP solves the case, spend 4 minutes reading impact turns on politics
-Win the case, win a big solvency deficit, win a lot of defense on politics
Correct answer: impact turns. Even if you disagree with that example, the second strategy assumes you theoretically CAN win a solvency deficit. Against an insane counterplan (IC) this is just not possible. Accept it. Move on.
Here is the SP rule of thumb for dealing with IC's- if the CP text takes longer than 20 seconds to read, or includes 2 or more agents one of which is your agent, its time to go for theory or impact turn something.
"To reach the masses, some sort of big organization (whether) domestic and foreign branch affiliation, is not necessary. To reach the growing number of students, some sort of pre-conformed set must be established as standards for the branch to follow. As a result all members will be conditioned according to the prescribed system. Many will probably end up as a prisoner of a systematized drill.
Styles tend to not only separate men - because they have their own doctrines and then the doctrine became the gospel truth that you cannot change. But if you do not have a style, if you just say: Well, here I am as a human being, how can I express myself totally and completely? Now, that way you won't create a style, because style is a crystallization. That way, it's a process of continuing growth.
To me totality is very important in sparring. Many styles claim this totality. They say that they can cope with all types of attacks; that their structures cover all the possible lines and angles, and are capable of retaliation from all angles and lines. If this is true, then how did all the different styles come about? If they are in totality, why do some use only the straight lines, others the round lines, some only kicks, and why do still others who want to be different just flap and flick their hands? To me a system that clings to one small aspect of combat is actually in bondage.
This statement expresses my feelings perfectly: 'In memory of a once fluid man, crammed and distorted by the classical mess.'"
In the dogmatic thinking post I talked about people doing things over and over again because of habit and not critical thought. Another reason people do the same thing over and over again despite poor results is ideological: you will hear someone say something like "I went for T out of principle" or some such similar nonsense. At a basic level you need to decide are you in debate to win or make "principled" ideological stands. Most often this is self deception- you went for T because you were not prepared to go for something else, or because you didn't put the work in ahead of time to make your other strategy viable. Either way, your "fooling" only negatively affects you and your partner.
The last thing I would like to talk about is taking risks. Many people avoid doing something different because they think it is "risky". The problem is that their conception of risk is messed up. An example:
A friend of mine buys about 400 dollars worth of lottery tickets every year. He only spends a few dollars on them a week, but over time that adds up. When I suggested he just put 400 on black at a casino he scoffed at what a ludcirous idea that was.
In gambling (the only real use for math) the concept of expected value is discussed frequently. Expected value can be thought of simplisitically as the amount of money you should expect to win on a bet. If you flip a coin for 10 dollars a flip, your expected value for each flip is 5$, or .5(10) , your odds multiplied by your bet. This doesn't mean every time you flip the coin you get 5 dollars (how could it), it means that is your expected value.
In the lottery example , there is no lottery in the world where betting 400 dollars over the course of the year would give you a higher EV than putting it on black. But since it is only a few dollars at a time the risk is diffused over time, and it seems "less risky", though mathematically it is nonsensical.
Similarly, in debate I think people perceive a change from the normal course of affairs as "too risky". They would rather they keep betting 1 or 2 dollars a tournament as is their habit, then "risk" it on a new strategy. This approach may have some merit in the abstract- instead of deciding to go for the K for the first time in an elim, you may want to go for something you know. However, there are instances where the "habit" approach makes no sense at all (see above), at which point no matter how risky a change is, it has to have a higher EV than staying the course.
Be water
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Aff Vs. The K
Not necessarily a devastating card, but definitely a start to a good aff framework/defense of US action. I am interested in checking out this Levy book
Seattlest 9-24-08
Sep. 24, 2008 ( delivered by Newstex) -- Bernard-Henri Levy looks pretty much like you'd expect: a rail-thin Frenchman with a rather dashing coif of hair, who walked to the podium at Town Hall last night wearing a designer suit with his white dress shirt unbuttoned down to the navel (his signature), like a rock star looking to get his (mostly salt-and-pepper haired) groupies' panties in a twist. And in France, where Levy is a star of gossip pages, known only as "BHL," he is something of a rock star. But Levy is also a leading public intellectual who came to prominence in the late 1970s as a anti-Communist liberal and, in contrast to most of the European Left, a leading supporter of Israel. So dashing pretension of the celebrity speaker aside, it was extremely interesting to see Levy only two weeks after seeing Slavoj Zizek speak. Together, these two represent the two poles of the spectrum of the political Left: Levy, the modern progressive-liberal journalist and philosophe; Zizek, the Marxist theorist and radical-chic academic. And yet both have exactly the same message when diagnosing the problems of the modern Left: We're short of ideas and haven't done the leg-work necessary to make ourselves relevant in the post-Cold War world. All of which leaves us thinking that perhaps the real problem is too much thinking. And talking. And arguing. And writing books. Because there couldn't have been more difference between the directions these two international leftist titans are pointing, and anyway, no one seems to be paying attention to them. Levy's appearance was in support of his new book, . In it, Levy seeks to lay out a critique of the problems the Left faces today, the challenges it will have to overcome to remain relevant, and encouraging it to return to its old-fashioned values of internationalism, human rights, and universalism. "Bernard-Henri Levy @ 92Y" by Flickr user . Eloquent despite his accent (the source of a few self-effacing jokes), Levy delivered a passionate call to arms on the above points, complete with fist-pumping enthusiasm. Fundamentally, his argument centered on the corruption of those values and their impact on global politics. Internationalism and human rights, which should be universal, have been corrupted by multiculturalist tendencies and the demands of "realist" foreign policy; all of a sudden, equal rights for women??"a standard in the West??"is a cultural-imperialist imposition on sovereign cultures in the Middle East, say. And the trick works both ways: Whereas once the left was about breaking down boundaries and liberating peoples, now the rhetoric has been adopted by nationalists, afraid of international institutions like the U.N. or the E.U. co-opting their sovereignty and corrupting their unique culture through global capitalist exploitation. Oh, and speaking of all that imperialism, this has engendered an almost conspiracy-panic amongst leftists who are all convinced the U.S. is an imperial power (or at least wants to be), and who see in every act and in every policy a subtext of ruthless self-interest and expansionism. It's on this point that Levy chose to defer to his new book, reading a lengthy passage that begins several years ago with Levy taking part in a discussion on a radio show in France. The subject is the Darfur genocide, and Levy's fellow talking-head a French liberal-leftist and co-founder of the international human rights group Doctors Without Borders. Levy was arguing strongly on behalf of taking direct action (with the potential for military intervention) to stop the genocide, while his opponent, despite his ostensible dedication to human rights, was against it. Ultimately, he lets drop the words "America" and "empire," and Levy sees the truth for what it is: His opponent??"a personal friend??"who should share his dedication to supporting the victims of genocide, is willing to abandon the Darfuris to their fate because he's convinced that whatever America wants to do (and America said plenty about wanting to do something about Darfur) must be a vicious extension of imperialist aims. And this line??"as all do, it seems??"leads to the issue of Israel and the Palestinians. The second part of the excerpt he read from concerned the Sept. 2001 U.N.-sponsored World Conference Against Racism, in Durban, South Africa. For those who've forgotten (which should be just about everyone, because this stuff is all terribly unimportant), the conference descended into chaos because numerous nations, primarily Muslim, wanted a discussion of whether Zionism constituted racism. Western nations balked, a lot of high-minded people traded pot-shots, and the nothing that would have occurred either way happened, and the whole sorry affair was quickly forgotten in the aftermath of 9/11. But in Levy's telling, Durban was a watershed moment, when the left's increasing hostility to Israel revealed itself for the modern anti-Semitism it, apparently, is. What of all the other victims of genocide and racism? he asks, naming off friends or representatives of one ethnically cleansed group after another. What of them and their suffering? Ultimately, he concludes that we've reached a point where anti-American conspiracy-mongering and a latent anti-Semitism have raised the Palestinians' suffering to the non plus ultra of oppression, for which the American empire, with their British poodles and Israeli clients, bear responsibility, and every other racist, cruel, oppressive, chauvinistic government is therefore absolved of any culpability, and their victims silenced, their suffering suppressed. Now, we don't mean to suggest that we don't think Levy has a bit of a point on all this, particularly given the proclivity of lefties to assume that whatever America does must be nefarious and evil (despite all available evidence to the contrary), nor with the willingness of many such people to see more good than there actually is the Ahmadinejads and Chavezes of the world. But the Durban conference? Really? We're reminded of a comment Zizek threw back at a questioner who rambled on endlessly about the crimes of the Bush administration and so on, and then asked "can you comment on that?", desperate to have someone more important than her say, "Why yes! I totally agree, you were right, and everything you think is true and accurate!" Instead, Zizek explained in his patient, professorial way (which made the rather devastating response somehow nicer-seeming) that the tendency of the left to fall back on moralistic arguments really just revealed the poverty of our side, the lack of real initiatives or politics or narratives or ideas that could actually have a real impact on the world. Not having read Levy's new book, we can't really evaluate his arguments (Christopher Hitchens offers ), but to judge by Levy's talk, it sounds like he could do a bit more of the intellectual heavy-lifting himself. Newstex ID:
Seattlest 9-24-08
Sep. 24, 2008 ( delivered by Newstex) -- Bernard-Henri Levy looks pretty much like you'd expect: a rail-thin Frenchman with a rather dashing coif of hair, who walked to the podium at Town Hall last night wearing a designer suit with his white dress shirt unbuttoned down to the navel (his signature), like a rock star looking to get his (mostly salt-and-pepper haired) groupies' panties in a twist. And in France, where Levy is a star of gossip pages, known only as "BHL," he is something of a rock star. But Levy is also a leading public intellectual who came to prominence in the late 1970s as a anti-Communist liberal and, in contrast to most of the European Left, a leading supporter of Israel. So dashing pretension of the celebrity speaker aside, it was extremely interesting to see Levy only two weeks after seeing Slavoj Zizek speak. Together, these two represent the two poles of the spectrum of the political Left: Levy, the modern progressive-liberal journalist and philosophe; Zizek, the Marxist theorist and radical-chic academic. And yet both have exactly the same message when diagnosing the problems of the modern Left: We're short of ideas and haven't done the leg-work necessary to make ourselves relevant in the post-Cold War world. All of which leaves us thinking that perhaps the real problem is too much thinking. And talking. And arguing. And writing books. Because there couldn't have been more difference between the directions these two international leftist titans are pointing, and anyway, no one seems to be paying attention to them. Levy's appearance was in support of his new book, . In it, Levy seeks to lay out a critique of the problems the Left faces today, the challenges it will have to overcome to remain relevant, and encouraging it to return to its old-fashioned values of internationalism, human rights, and universalism. "Bernard-Henri Levy @ 92Y" by Flickr user . Eloquent despite his accent (the source of a few self-effacing jokes), Levy delivered a passionate call to arms on the above points, complete with fist-pumping enthusiasm. Fundamentally, his argument centered on the corruption of those values and their impact on global politics. Internationalism and human rights, which should be universal, have been corrupted by multiculturalist tendencies and the demands of "realist" foreign policy; all of a sudden, equal rights for women??"a standard in the West??"is a cultural-imperialist imposition on sovereign cultures in the Middle East, say. And the trick works both ways: Whereas once the left was about breaking down boundaries and liberating peoples, now the rhetoric has been adopted by nationalists, afraid of international institutions like the U.N. or the E.U. co-opting their sovereignty and corrupting their unique culture through global capitalist exploitation. Oh, and speaking of all that imperialism, this has engendered an almost conspiracy-panic amongst leftists who are all convinced the U.S. is an imperial power (or at least wants to be), and who see in every act and in every policy a subtext of ruthless self-interest and expansionism. It's on this point that Levy chose to defer to his new book, reading a lengthy passage that begins several years ago with Levy taking part in a discussion on a radio show in France. The subject is the Darfur genocide, and Levy's fellow talking-head a French liberal-leftist and co-founder of the international human rights group Doctors Without Borders. Levy was arguing strongly on behalf of taking direct action (with the potential for military intervention) to stop the genocide, while his opponent, despite his ostensible dedication to human rights, was against it. Ultimately, he lets drop the words "America" and "empire," and Levy sees the truth for what it is: His opponent??"a personal friend??"who should share his dedication to supporting the victims of genocide, is willing to abandon the Darfuris to their fate because he's convinced that whatever America wants to do (and America said plenty about wanting to do something about Darfur) must be a vicious extension of imperialist aims. And this line??"as all do, it seems??"leads to the issue of Israel and the Palestinians. The second part of the excerpt he read from concerned the Sept. 2001 U.N.-sponsored World Conference Against Racism, in Durban, South Africa. For those who've forgotten (which should be just about everyone, because this stuff is all terribly unimportant), the conference descended into chaos because numerous nations, primarily Muslim, wanted a discussion of whether Zionism constituted racism. Western nations balked, a lot of high-minded people traded pot-shots, and the nothing that would have occurred either way happened, and the whole sorry affair was quickly forgotten in the aftermath of 9/11. But in Levy's telling, Durban was a watershed moment, when the left's increasing hostility to Israel revealed itself for the modern anti-Semitism it, apparently, is. What of all the other victims of genocide and racism? he asks, naming off friends or representatives of one ethnically cleansed group after another. What of them and their suffering? Ultimately, he concludes that we've reached a point where anti-American conspiracy-mongering and a latent anti-Semitism have raised the Palestinians' suffering to the non plus ultra of oppression, for which the American empire, with their British poodles and Israeli clients, bear responsibility, and every other racist, cruel, oppressive, chauvinistic government is therefore absolved of any culpability, and their victims silenced, their suffering suppressed. Now, we don't mean to suggest that we don't think Levy has a bit of a point on all this, particularly given the proclivity of lefties to assume that whatever America does must be nefarious and evil (despite all available evidence to the contrary), nor with the willingness of many such people to see more good than there actually is the Ahmadinejads and Chavezes of the world. But the Durban conference? Really? We're reminded of a comment Zizek threw back at a questioner who rambled on endlessly about the crimes of the Bush administration and so on, and then asked "can you comment on that?", desperate to have someone more important than her say, "Why yes! I totally agree, you were right, and everything you think is true and accurate!" Instead, Zizek explained in his patient, professorial way (which made the rather devastating response somehow nicer-seeming) that the tendency of the left to fall back on moralistic arguments really just revealed the poverty of our side, the lack of real initiatives or politics or narratives or ideas that could actually have a real impact on the world. Not having read Levy's new book, we can't really evaluate his arguments (Christopher Hitchens offers ), but to judge by Levy's talk, it sounds like he could do a bit more of the intellectual heavy-lifting himself. Newstex ID:
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Top 5 ways to boost your speaker points that require no practice and can be done instantly
1. Don't steal prep. As a debater I had a general contempt for people who did this. As a judge I will wreck your points if you do so. Prep stealing includes
-talking to your partner
-looking for evidence
-asking your opponents questions
A trend seems to be emerging whereby debaters think that if you do any of those things while
-walking to the podium
-pausing after giving the roadmap right before your speech
-you do it quickly
it is somehow not prep theft. It is.
2. Give a good roadmap. How hard is that? Answer: not very. If you have to
-count the number of off slowly taking more than 2 seconds to do so
-retrieve more than 0 flows you forgot to bring up with you
-take prep more than once during the roadmap process
-be reminded by your partner you are dropping an entire sheet of paper
you are not giving a good roadmap. You have not adequately prepared for your speech. In California at local tournaments we still get the ballots with the check boxes on them and the last time I looked at one organization was one of the 6 categories. That means theoretically you could get a 25 based solely on poor organization. I will do everything in my power to bring this back.
Another thing- call case flows the same thing. There is nothing worse than when the neg has like 6 sheets of case, and the 2AC gets up to give their order and insists on using the stupid names they gave those things in the 1AC instead of the things the neg called them. Here's a hot tip- during the 1AC I was playing solitaire because I assumed the neg would go for a K or T pos. Then they surprised me and argued against your case, so I had to label tabs what they called them. Now you get up and where the neg said Hegemony you feel it is important to correct them and call it "competitiveness" and then what the neg called "economy" you call "aerospace". Well guess what- your advantages are both stupid and BOTH THE SAME THING. Now I have no idea which set of 1NC arguments you are answering where so odds are high I will just vote neg on sever perms bad to avoid having to figure it out.
3. Don't be a jerk during cross-x. Most people understand that this means being civil, but it means more than that. The best example I can think of is I once watched a debate where immediately after reading his 1AC Strauss took an enormous bite of a sandwhich and was unable to speak for some time. His cross-xer, one Jonah Feldman, correctly declared "shenanigans" on this practice. If you are the person being asked questions you have a duty (at least in my mind) to answer them in a reasonable, honest answer. Things that do not fulfill this duty include
-lying about what evidence says
-pretending you cant find evidence when asked to read part of it
-ignoring questions you dont want to answer
-saying "we don't take a stance" in response to straightforward obvious questions that you clearly have to take a stance on given your 1AC (most egregious example I can think of is not trivial things like who does the plan but things like after reading a war with china advantage refusing to answer the question how do we know china is a threat-NEWSFLASH- that doesn't get you out of the link after you said so in your speech genius- it probably makes it much worse that you label them a threat for no explained reason. 2nd most egregious example, quote as close to accurately as I can remember
2NC: What countries shouldn't have nuclear weapons
1AC: We don't take a stance on that
2NC: Yes you do, you read a proliferation advantage
1AC: Yes, that's not relevant to our advantage
2NC: What? That doesn't make any sense, explain what you mean
1AC: We don't take a stance on that
2NC: What do you mean, you don't take a stance on what countries or you don't take a stance on what not relevant to our advantage means
1AC: .... both
)
4. Know what your cards say. Ok maybe I lied in the title a little. But I generally think that you should not have read a card in your speech that you had not read prior to said speech. I.e. at some point you should have either cut that card (god forbid), organized that card into a block because you thought it was good, or at least highlighted the camp file you were going to read in your speech. Now I'm not saying if you read a card about the statistical rainfall around rivers in the middle east to answer water wars and someone asks you what those statistics were that you need to know it off the top of your head. But if you say "Obama spending capital now" in the 2AC, and the neg says "on what" you should probably be able to answer that without looking at the card.
No I take that back, you actually DON'T have to have read the card beforehand. It would be nice, but not required. You should remember what the card you read 5 minutes ago says even if you just read it for the first time.
5. Avoid stupid acronyms/abbreviations etc. When in doubt say the full word. Where is the line? Its hard to say. Is obvi ok? Obvi. Tix is definitively not ok. Dispo is, but condo rubs me the wrong way (why is condItionality condo and Condoleeza Rice condi?) Efficiency during speeches is important, but in your roadmap you have all the time in the world to say "poli".
-talking to your partner
-looking for evidence
-asking your opponents questions
A trend seems to be emerging whereby debaters think that if you do any of those things while
-walking to the podium
-pausing after giving the roadmap right before your speech
-you do it quickly
it is somehow not prep theft. It is.
2. Give a good roadmap. How hard is that? Answer: not very. If you have to
-count the number of off slowly taking more than 2 seconds to do so
-retrieve more than 0 flows you forgot to bring up with you
-take prep more than once during the roadmap process
-be reminded by your partner you are dropping an entire sheet of paper
you are not giving a good roadmap. You have not adequately prepared for your speech. In California at local tournaments we still get the ballots with the check boxes on them and the last time I looked at one organization was one of the 6 categories. That means theoretically you could get a 25 based solely on poor organization. I will do everything in my power to bring this back.
Another thing- call case flows the same thing. There is nothing worse than when the neg has like 6 sheets of case, and the 2AC gets up to give their order and insists on using the stupid names they gave those things in the 1AC instead of the things the neg called them. Here's a hot tip- during the 1AC I was playing solitaire because I assumed the neg would go for a K or T pos. Then they surprised me and argued against your case, so I had to label tabs what they called them. Now you get up and where the neg said Hegemony you feel it is important to correct them and call it "competitiveness" and then what the neg called "economy" you call "aerospace". Well guess what- your advantages are both stupid and BOTH THE SAME THING. Now I have no idea which set of 1NC arguments you are answering where so odds are high I will just vote neg on sever perms bad to avoid having to figure it out.
3. Don't be a jerk during cross-x. Most people understand that this means being civil, but it means more than that. The best example I can think of is I once watched a debate where immediately after reading his 1AC Strauss took an enormous bite of a sandwhich and was unable to speak for some time. His cross-xer, one Jonah Feldman, correctly declared "shenanigans" on this practice. If you are the person being asked questions you have a duty (at least in my mind) to answer them in a reasonable, honest answer. Things that do not fulfill this duty include
-lying about what evidence says
-pretending you cant find evidence when asked to read part of it
-ignoring questions you dont want to answer
-saying "we don't take a stance" in response to straightforward obvious questions that you clearly have to take a stance on given your 1AC (most egregious example I can think of is not trivial things like who does the plan but things like after reading a war with china advantage refusing to answer the question how do we know china is a threat-NEWSFLASH- that doesn't get you out of the link after you said so in your speech genius- it probably makes it much worse that you label them a threat for no explained reason. 2nd most egregious example, quote as close to accurately as I can remember
2NC: What countries shouldn't have nuclear weapons
1AC: We don't take a stance on that
2NC: Yes you do, you read a proliferation advantage
1AC: Yes, that's not relevant to our advantage
2NC: What? That doesn't make any sense, explain what you mean
1AC: We don't take a stance on that
2NC: What do you mean, you don't take a stance on what countries or you don't take a stance on what not relevant to our advantage means
1AC: .... both
)
4. Know what your cards say. Ok maybe I lied in the title a little. But I generally think that you should not have read a card in your speech that you had not read prior to said speech. I.e. at some point you should have either cut that card (god forbid), organized that card into a block because you thought it was good, or at least highlighted the camp file you were going to read in your speech. Now I'm not saying if you read a card about the statistical rainfall around rivers in the middle east to answer water wars and someone asks you what those statistics were that you need to know it off the top of your head. But if you say "Obama spending capital now" in the 2AC, and the neg says "on what" you should probably be able to answer that without looking at the card.
No I take that back, you actually DON'T have to have read the card beforehand. It would be nice, but not required. You should remember what the card you read 5 minutes ago says even if you just read it for the first time.
5. Avoid stupid acronyms/abbreviations etc. When in doubt say the full word. Where is the line? Its hard to say. Is obvi ok? Obvi. Tix is definitively not ok. Dispo is, but condo rubs me the wrong way (why is condItionality condo and Condoleeza Rice condi?) Efficiency during speeches is important, but in your roadmap you have all the time in the world to say "poli".
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Digging yourself out of a hole
Ooops, the 1AR dropped the politics DA. If you are like I was when I debated, you have heard stories of such a thing happening and then an "amazing" 2AR will somehow save the day and the aff will still win. It is difficult to imagine how such a thing can happen for most people, and it was for me too. Having judged debates for a while now, it is much easier to see how these things happen and can happen pretty frequently. This relates a lot to the hustling/short game example I gave in the dogmatic thinking post, because people who understand the concepts I am about to explain generally womp those who don't, and the victims never have any idea what hit them. So here are some quick concepts and then we will get into examples
1. Impact assessment vs relative impact assessment- Impact assessment is "our da is fast, big etc". Relative impact assessment is a specific comparison between two impacts expliaining why your's is more important.
2. Certainty vs near certainty- the differance between 100% and 99% is negligable. The differance between 100% and 50% is obviously bigger. Everyone can agree on this. The problem comes in more gray areas. I have heard some pretty funny statistical explanations in debate, I will now try to crudely explain some statistical concepts to illustrate this point that if taken to the absurd could easily result in you sounding stupid, so try and use a little thought. If you are really into math you can easily find lots of books/websites that will go into much greater depth than I will here and maybe even find some cards.
Also, I am going to talk about risks in terms of numbers. Many people think this is stupid, but it is tough to do it any other way.
The neg has a disad. You have a defensive answer. The judge decides that this reduces the risk of the disad by 1/3rd and so they give the disad 66% risk of the impact (extinction).
The neg has a disad. You have 2 defensive answers. The judge decides tha tthis reduces the risk of the disad by 2/3rds, and so they give the disad 33% risk of the impact (extinction).
This is a bit of an essentialization, but lets assume your 2 defensive arguments were one about the uniqueness and one about the link. So there is a 2/3rd chance of uniqueness and a 2/3rd chance of a link. Does this mean there is a 1/3rd chance of the disad?
No. Probabilities for sequential events are mutliplied (more precise explanation) so it is (2/3) (2/3) = 4/9. Thats 44%. Seems better for the neg right? Might be something the neg wants to point out. Thats almost a jump from 1 in 2 chances to 1 in 3.
Here is another way this might play out. The aff wins one defensive arg that reduces the U to 1/3, and the link to 2/3. Left to their own devices some judges might say "ok, the da is 1.5/3, or 50%. In reality the disad should be 2/9 or 22%. The margin of error is even greater here.
Lets assume there is a disad, an add on, and an advantage at the end of a debate. An error of 10-15% in calculating hte risk of each is a possible swing of 45%. Thats huge. And yet very few if any debaters ever make an argument about how to quantify or measure risk other than "they dropped it its certain".
3. Not all extinctions are created equal- teams rarely differentiate impact magnitude anymore, it seems enough that they read a card that says the word nuclear in it somewhere and that means extinction. Or the word "civilization", "survival" etc. Rarely is this evidence making the claim that every person in existance will cease to exist, usually because the impact in question does not have the ability to kill everyone. Regional environment impacts and wars involving non nuclear powers come to mind.
Getting to the point. The 1AR dropped a politics disad with a middle east impact (steinbach). The 2NC gave a weak impact overview with args like "our disad is immediate, it turns the case- war means we won't promote renewables" etc. The aff has a US-china war advantage (with one of those sea of fire impact cards) the neg is winning minimal defense against. The 2NR says the following for impact comparison
"Politics is cold conceeded, that means its 100% risk of extinction. Don't allow any new 2AR arguments. They've conceeded our steinbach card- middle east war causes extinction. Our disad happens faster than the case- also conceeded. The 1AR conceeded that the disad turns the case- war in the middle east means the US would not promote renewable energy anymore- totally takes out the case. If we win 1% defense to the china advantage then you instantly vote neg because we outweigh, just the fact that we read evidence there should be enough"
This isn't a great 2NR, but I am essentializing to make a point and don't really care to type out a 5 minute speech. Here is how I would give the impact analysis in the 2AR:
"Yes, we boned politics, but that doesn't mean game over. Impacts need to be evaluated by a function of probability times magnitude- just because they get 100% of politics doesn't mean you auto vote neg if we can reduce the probability of thier impact. The 2NR claim that their disad has an extinction impact is false- their evidence says quote "a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability". Nowhere does it say a middle east war ends every life on earth. Lets talk for a minute about what a "new argument" is. If in the 2AR I said "no link, obama doesn't push the plan", that is a new argument. Pointing out a factual inaccuracy or logical hole in the negatives statement is not a "new argument". If the other team has not made a complete argument, we don't have the burden of responding to it. Plenty of examples of this exist- judges won't vote on disads if you don't extend the impact, they won't vote on dropped theory arguments if you don't explain why you have to reject the team and not just the argument etc. You can only vote on a complete argument, and a complete argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and evidence. They have no evidence or warrant for thier claim that middle east war causes extinction. None. Zero. This is not a complete argument and should be given zero weight as such. Second, the claim that war prevents us from solving similarly has no warrant- no explanation has been given at any time for why a war in the middle east would stop domestic production of alternative energy. Finally, their "1 percent" doctrine is ludicrous- you need to weigh the relative impacts- i.e a quantified risk they are winning vs the risk we are winning. Lets assume you give this crappy impact card the weight of killing everyone in the middle east - thats 190 million people. Between the US and china there are 1.5 billion people. Our Bangkok post evidence says a US china war causes an all out nuclear exchange turning all of asia into a sea of fire. Lets assume that only kills 1/2 the total population, 750 million people. In order to win our impact outweighs we only need to win that it outweighs their disad we only have to win a little more than a 25% chance of our advantage. Finally, impact comparison is not a new argument. It's the job of the final rebuttals to weigh things out and resolve them fore you. The 2NR had a shot to do so, just because they didn't doesn't mean we can't. They don't need a 3NR- us arguing the case outweighs the dropped disad isn't only a predictable 2AR argument- its the ONLY argument we could concievably make. That the 2NR didn't do a better job trying to shut this down is their fault, not ours. "
This isn't even that good of an overview, but you would be amazed at the wonders those kind of arguments can pull off.
You might think this is a stupid exercise in futillity, but having been around debate for a while I can with confidence state the following
1. The number of people who think "true not new" > the opposition
2. The number of hyper strict, line by line oriented judges <> the number you think would
1. Impact assessment vs relative impact assessment- Impact assessment is "our da is fast, big etc". Relative impact assessment is a specific comparison between two impacts expliaining why your's is more important.
2. Certainty vs near certainty- the differance between 100% and 99% is negligable. The differance between 100% and 50% is obviously bigger. Everyone can agree on this. The problem comes in more gray areas. I have heard some pretty funny statistical explanations in debate, I will now try to crudely explain some statistical concepts to illustrate this point that if taken to the absurd could easily result in you sounding stupid, so try and use a little thought. If you are really into math you can easily find lots of books/websites that will go into much greater depth than I will here and maybe even find some cards.
Also, I am going to talk about risks in terms of numbers. Many people think this is stupid, but it is tough to do it any other way.
The neg has a disad. You have a defensive answer. The judge decides that this reduces the risk of the disad by 1/3rd and so they give the disad 66% risk of the impact (extinction).
The neg has a disad. You have 2 defensive answers. The judge decides tha tthis reduces the risk of the disad by 2/3rds, and so they give the disad 33% risk of the impact (extinction).
This is a bit of an essentialization, but lets assume your 2 defensive arguments were one about the uniqueness and one about the link. So there is a 2/3rd chance of uniqueness and a 2/3rd chance of a link. Does this mean there is a 1/3rd chance of the disad?
No. Probabilities for sequential events are mutliplied (more precise explanation) so it is (2/3) (2/3) = 4/9. Thats 44%. Seems better for the neg right? Might be something the neg wants to point out. Thats almost a jump from 1 in 2 chances to 1 in 3.
Here is another way this might play out. The aff wins one defensive arg that reduces the U to 1/3, and the link to 2/3. Left to their own devices some judges might say "ok, the da is 1.5/3, or 50%. In reality the disad should be 2/9 or 22%. The margin of error is even greater here.
Lets assume there is a disad, an add on, and an advantage at the end of a debate. An error of 10-15% in calculating hte risk of each is a possible swing of 45%. Thats huge. And yet very few if any debaters ever make an argument about how to quantify or measure risk other than "they dropped it its certain".
3. Not all extinctions are created equal- teams rarely differentiate impact magnitude anymore, it seems enough that they read a card that says the word nuclear in it somewhere and that means extinction. Or the word "civilization", "survival" etc. Rarely is this evidence making the claim that every person in existance will cease to exist, usually because the impact in question does not have the ability to kill everyone. Regional environment impacts and wars involving non nuclear powers come to mind.
Getting to the point. The 1AR dropped a politics disad with a middle east impact (steinbach). The 2NC gave a weak impact overview with args like "our disad is immediate, it turns the case- war means we won't promote renewables" etc. The aff has a US-china war advantage (with one of those sea of fire impact cards) the neg is winning minimal defense against. The 2NR says the following for impact comparison
"Politics is cold conceeded, that means its 100% risk of extinction. Don't allow any new 2AR arguments. They've conceeded our steinbach card- middle east war causes extinction. Our disad happens faster than the case- also conceeded. The 1AR conceeded that the disad turns the case- war in the middle east means the US would not promote renewable energy anymore- totally takes out the case. If we win 1% defense to the china advantage then you instantly vote neg because we outweigh, just the fact that we read evidence there should be enough"
This isn't a great 2NR, but I am essentializing to make a point and don't really care to type out a 5 minute speech. Here is how I would give the impact analysis in the 2AR:
"Yes, we boned politics, but that doesn't mean game over. Impacts need to be evaluated by a function of probability times magnitude- just because they get 100% of politics doesn't mean you auto vote neg if we can reduce the probability of thier impact. The 2NR claim that their disad has an extinction impact is false- their evidence says quote "a nuclear escalation, once unthinkable except as a last resort, would now be a strong probability". Nowhere does it say a middle east war ends every life on earth. Lets talk for a minute about what a "new argument" is. If in the 2AR I said "no link, obama doesn't push the plan", that is a new argument. Pointing out a factual inaccuracy or logical hole in the negatives statement is not a "new argument". If the other team has not made a complete argument, we don't have the burden of responding to it. Plenty of examples of this exist- judges won't vote on disads if you don't extend the impact, they won't vote on dropped theory arguments if you don't explain why you have to reject the team and not just the argument etc. You can only vote on a complete argument, and a complete argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and evidence. They have no evidence or warrant for thier claim that middle east war causes extinction. None. Zero. This is not a complete argument and should be given zero weight as such. Second, the claim that war prevents us from solving similarly has no warrant- no explanation has been given at any time for why a war in the middle east would stop domestic production of alternative energy. Finally, their "1 percent" doctrine is ludicrous- you need to weigh the relative impacts- i.e a quantified risk they are winning vs the risk we are winning. Lets assume you give this crappy impact card the weight of killing everyone in the middle east - thats 190 million people. Between the US and china there are 1.5 billion people. Our Bangkok post evidence says a US china war causes an all out nuclear exchange turning all of asia into a sea of fire. Lets assume that only kills 1/2 the total population, 750 million people. In order to win our impact outweighs we only need to win that it outweighs their disad we only have to win a little more than a 25% chance of our advantage. Finally, impact comparison is not a new argument. It's the job of the final rebuttals to weigh things out and resolve them fore you. The 2NR had a shot to do so, just because they didn't doesn't mean we can't. They don't need a 3NR- us arguing the case outweighs the dropped disad isn't only a predictable 2AR argument- its the ONLY argument we could concievably make. That the 2NR didn't do a better job trying to shut this down is their fault, not ours. "
This isn't even that good of an overview, but you would be amazed at the wonders those kind of arguments can pull off.
You might think this is a stupid exercise in futillity, but having been around debate for a while I can with confidence state the following
1. The number of people who think "true not new" > the opposition
2. The number of hyper strict, line by line oriented judges <> the number you think would
Monday, December 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
