Subject /Object Dichotomy 1

Taking a page from Zizek, I would like to change the way subjective and objective are deployed (slightly) when thinking about debate arguments. I will use politics as an example here because I think it is the most prevalent example (kritiks being a close second) but basically any argument can be thought of this way.

1. Objectively good- an argument is either factually true or the evidence for it is vastly superior to evidence on the other side. Example- Global warming is real/bad, stimulus is the top priority etc.

2. Objectively Bad- Evidence is weak/not true examples- CTBT is top priority, CO2 agriculture.


Now subjective is less based on fact, and more based on execution

3. Subjectively good- CO2 agriculture- it can be won with a decent commitment of block time, some tricky cards, and preparation. Similarly the CTBT politics disad can also be won.

4. Subjectively Bad- when a good argument is debated poorly due to lack of skill, poor evidence, etc.


Why are these categories important? I think there are a few reasons

1. Confusing Objective strength with subjective strength- when there is a "good" politics disad, and by good I mean one with quality internal link evidence, it is often times a good idea to link turn and try and win based on the objective quality of your case specific link turns- fight objective with objective. However, when a politics disad is objectively bad, the opposite is true- it is much more effective to contest the internal link /uniqueness with analytics or generic arguments because those are the parts of the disad that are weakest. However, this is not the strategy most teams face. When debating a new politics disad they read their generic link turn block- plan k2 bipart, bipart k2 agenda, plan popular, pop k2 agenda etc. Now the neg reads their generic answers to these. The neg has taken an objectively bad disad and due to poor aff answers ended up in a subjectively good position- debating generic internal link theory. Why on earth would the aff do this- why would you go into a debate and resign yourself to debating popularity good/bad for the agenda as the crucial issue of the debate?

I think this happens mainly because of the insane focus on offense/defense - I have to have some kind of offense on politics. Whenever someone says that in a post round and I query them about how they can have offense without issue specific uniqueness to the random XYZ disad they usually get a blank stare on their face. The idea of winning with defense seems foreign to them. It should not be that difficult to do so. Let's look at the following chain of events

1. Neg reads politics disad- pol cap k2 Djibouti FTA
2. Aff says "Obama's top 3 priorities are stimulus, healthcare and Iraq (card), he is spending capital on all 3 (card), he will spend capital on these 3 before the FTA, therefore the link is non unique. Furthermore there is no threshold- no evidence makes a meaningful distinction between the amount of capital obama will spend on these issues and the amount he will spend on the plan- it is irrational to assume these 3 issues will leave him with the exact right amount left to do the FTA, but that the plan would spend too much".
3. The neg concedes, quits debate, drops out of high school, works as a transient mime for a period before dying due to lack of will to live.

It's not subjectively impossible to defeat this line of affirmative argument but it is very very difficult and requires a lot of prep, a lot of very specific evidence, and a lot of skill.

Generally, if you hear a new politics disad or a disad that is not one of the big agenda items you should assume it sucks. Why? Because if it was awesome more teams would of discovered it and be running it. Will there be an odd debate where someone does break a truly sweet unknown politics disad- yes. Occasionally the key cards to make a disad good aren't found on lexis or google news and so few people find them/put the pieces together. But for the most part a good rule of thumb is that if it was new, it blew.

When this is the case you should be focusing on the parts of the disad that require the most subjective skill to overcome- press them on the internal links, not adopting the objectively best strategy- using link turns.