Did truth testing die?

Jeez. I don't think anyone is responding to the most powerful argument for TT. In a world where we use competing world and default to consequentialism, the debate over moral theory that LD is intended to cover is lost. I am sorry if TT makes it more difficult for you to run a sweet counterplan or disadvantage, but at the end of the day, one of the cool things about LD is our ability to engage in discussion about morality/justice. If we give up on TT, we are strongly encouraged to avoid those types of debates.

For the same reason, I think the criterion has value. Even if Chris is right that it is dumb when we only look to one set of impacts, we can just weigh between the strength of the impacts like he suggests. I know this isn't done frequently in LD right now, but there is absolutely no reason why we couldn't start to say that a big impact to one standard outweighs the minor impact to another criterion even if we say that the criterion with the weaker link is a better test of justice.

Keep the criterion. Keep LD as LD.

Ok I will make kind of a general response because I don't know shit about forum quoting html:

Firstly, and I don't know if anyone has responded to this yet so I urge someone to respond, if the primary reason for the CW model is because it gets rid of unfair neg strat, then how does it plan to counter T, Spsec shells, theory shells and other procedurals? Those are easy to make, no risk, "a priori" arguments that negatives can (and have in policy) run over and over without revising the strat. If negs can still do unfair strat in CW, that means that the sole remaining benefit (besides all the trendiness we get by mimicking policy) to the paradigm is the O/D paradigm, which the only reason I've seen as to why we should use it has been that it curtails bad neg strat, which is seemingly addressed by the above point.

Regardless,

As a general response to the responses against my "fw=metaweighing" argument:

The implication drawn from this is that if CW aims to promote impact calc and less framework, then they will fail to do so since framework can potentially serve as the best strat to take. My example was bad because they were direct opposites, but it still seems like CW won't get rid of fw in its entirety

Response to "There are unique advantages of a comparativist LD over CX"

What are they? It seems that the 1v1 format is the sole thing and the fact that many people like TT, why not just join policy (I know this sounds really cliche)? Someone list the substantive differences from CX to CW LD. Additionally, many people are misinterpreted what I mean when I say people will defer to CX. Those who defer won't be disgruntled at the direction of the activity, rather, that when we become comparativist we directly compete with CX and in the end they will be the much superior activity if it comes down to that, making it logical for novices to join it.

As an aside, this discussion would be so much better placed in our existing "clash of the paradigms" thread.

Alex Bennett wrote:Ok I will make kind of a general response because I don't know shit about forum quoting html:

Firstly, and I don't know if anyone has responded to this yet so I urge someone to respond, if the primary reason for the CW model is because it gets rid of unfair neg strat, then how does it plan to counter T, Spsec shells, theory shells and other procedurals? Those are easy to make, no risk, "a priori" arguments that negatives can (and have in policy) run over and over without revising the strat. If negs can still do unfair strat in CW, that means that the sole remaining benefit (besides all the trendiness we get by mimicking policy) to the paradigm is the O/D paradigm, which the only reason I've seen as to why we should use it has been that it curtails bad neg strat, which is seemingly addressed by the above point.

There are a bunch of problems with this.

First, even if O/D does not solve every possible abusive strat it still has a comparative advantage over TT. O/D gets rid of a lot of no risk negative stats like skepticism, multiple a prioris, etc. So what if it does not get rid of all of them? it is still better.

Second, you never established that those no risk issues are even bad in the first place. Sure theory can be abused but when it is abused it usually loses. Also, a lot of theory arguments are not no risk issues in the first place. If theory is a question of competing interpretations then affirmatives can actually win the round by winning offense to a counter interpretation. There are obviously exceptions to that such as T but I think that overall T is probably something we should retain as a tool. Negatives need the ability to check non-topical and unpredictable affirmatives. If people abuse T and run it against cases that are topical it should not be difficult to deal with because the arguments will be a terrible argument.

Alex Bennett wrote:As a general response to the responses against my "fw=metaweighing" argument:

The implication drawn from this is that if CW aims to promote impact calc and less framework, then they will fail to do so since framework can potentially serve as the best strat to take. My example was bad because they were direct opposites, but it still seems like CW won't get rid of fw in its entirety

My argument was originally just that I think we should make the shift from FW heavy debate to developed impact calculi not that O/D would promote that. However, now that I have though about it I think it would do that because focusing on the FW debate in a round in which offense to a different standard can still be relevant makes no sense competitively. Any argument that could theoretically completely exclude other arguments would either be impact turns or arguments that could simply be rephrased as impact takeouts and retain their utility. The bottom line here is that O/D would discourage creating massive spike filled FWs that can exclude all other arguments because other impacts could still be considered relevant even if they are mitigated.

Alex Bennett wrote:Response to "There are unique advantages of a comparativist LD over CX"

What are they? It seems that the 1v1 format is the sole thing and the fact that many people like TT, why not just join policy (I know this sounds really cliche)? Someone list the substantive differences from CX to CW LD. Additionally, many people are misinterpreted what I mean when I say people will defer to CX. Those who defer won't be disgruntled at the direction of the activity, rather, that when we become comparativist we directly compete with CX and in the end they will be the much superior activity if it comes down to that, making it logical for novices to join it.

Bunch of problems here too.

First, I already explained other advantages. LD has different topics. Our topics are generally more narrowly defined (there are not a large number of plans that could be run), they focus on different issue, and they are often phrased in ways that shake up the burden schemes. There is a smaller work load in LD which many see as an advantage. I could go on.

Second, no novice gives a shit about which paradigm we use. There is no novice in the country who when deciding which kind of debate they want to do says to themselves "Oh, well if I join LD I can't make the argument that because it is impossible to prove hat causality exists that we can't say we should do anything ever then fuck this, I might as well do policy!" In fact I would say that if novices knew that arguments like that were more prevalent in LD they would be more likely to choose not to do LD. There are two reasons:

a.) No one makes those arguments in the real world. The way that people argue and make decisions in every other aspect of life basically uses a form of the O/D paradigm. It makes more sense to people not familiar with debate.

b.) Arguments about the nature of causality, skepticism and the like, make debate less fun because they create unfair burdens. No novice wants to join an activity where they are expected to provide a proof for the existence on causality and do everything else that needs to be done in a debate all in a 4 min speech.

So in conclusion I second Jakes offer. Just let it die.

ctheis wrote:

My argument was originally just that I think we should make the shift from FW heavy debate to developed impact calculi not that O/D would promote that. However, now that I have though about it I think it would do that because focusing on the FW debate in a round in which offense to a different standard can still be relevant makes no sense competitively. Any argument that could theoretically completely exclude other arguments would either be impact turns or arguments that could simply be rephrased as impact takeouts and retain their utility. The bottom line here is that O/D would discourage creating massive spike filled FWs that can exclude all other arguments because other impacts could still be considered relevant even if they are mitigated.

Once again, why are you and Jake hating on framework debate? I think the discussion of ethics and morality is an important component of LD. Even if novices aren't going to be driven away from the activity because we don't use TT, doesn't value debate have some merit in its own right? I am not going to throw the WE ARE BECOMING POLICY DEBATERS argument out there, but I think LD is valuable, in large part, because these discussions are possible through the framework debate.

No one has responded to my argument that a world in which we no longer have framework debate is one where these discussions are not going to happen. If you have to seriously press the affirmative in order to establish a deontological paradigm for the round, the incentive to use that moral theory is significantly lower than it is right now where debaters can easily propose a means-based impact calculus.

JohnnyFontane wrote: Once again, why are you and Jake hating on framework debate? I think the discussion of ethics and morality is an important component of LD. Even if novices aren't going to be driven away from the activity because we don't use TT, doesn't value debate have some merit in its own right? I am not going to throw the WE ARE BECOMING POLICY DEBATERS argument out there, but I think LD is valuable, in large part, because these discussions are possible through the framework debate.

No one has responded to my argument that a world in which we no longer have framework debate is one where these discussions are not going to happen. If you have to seriously press the affirmative in order to establish a deontological paradigm for the round, the incentive to use that moral theory is significantly lower than it is right now where debaters can easily propose a means-based impact calculus.

I addressed this in an earlier post. Deont still has a place in O/D. It would be the impact of the argument and would need to be compared to other impacts in the round. That is where the philosophical discussion would take place it would just need to be articulated in a different way.

Also, me and Jake were talking last night and he believes (and I agree) that the O/D paradigm would probably actually make critical philosophy more tenable in LD. I will let him elaborate on that if he wants to.

I don't see how Chris's suggestion is realistic. It doesn't seem like "You kill 100,000" people weighs easily against "you violate Constitutional rights." I don't think there have been many efforts in the history of philosophy to compare utility and side constraints, which makes me think that high school debaters might not handle this task too well. It seems like only by having a meta-debate to establish the framework can we preserve the philosophical component of the activity.

JohnnyFontane wrote:I don't see how Chris's suggestion is realistic. It doesn't seem like "You kill 100,000" people weighs easily against "you violate Constitutional rights." I don't think there have been many efforts in the history of philosophy to compare utility and side constraints, which makes me think that high school debaters might not handle this task too well. It seems like only by having a meta-debate to establish the framework can we preserve the philosophical component of the activity.

Almost all philosophy does just that actually. Very few authors theorize in a bubble. They generally try to make their philosophy relevant to real world decision making which requires comparing and resolving those kinds of claims. Also, every single policy question deals with comparing those things. For some great examples look to national security debates, FISA, torture, the classification of enemy combatants, the rules of war, etc.

I actually think that the way we do things in debate is not really true to either the philosophies we use or the real life context of the controversies we tackle. Decisions are made by weighing out different concerns and coming to a conclusion based on the harms or benefits of certain courses of action. This is just another reason to prefer O/D to TT.

I think your examples only highlight the problem I am talking about. The debate over torture isn't very productive because the people involved are debating without any agreement on what we should pursue. For people like Dick Cheney and Sean Hannity, torture is great because they believe it enhances American security. For many liberals in this country, the alleged national security benefit is irrelevant because they view Constitutional rights and our ideals as more important goals. So far, that debate hasn't been resolved. It rests on certain assumptions that the public makes about the role of government and whatnot, and because we don't agree, there are two polar opposite sides.

Let's apply this to LD. When we evaluate framework, we can actually debate the moral issue of what matters more: security or the right to a trial, due process, etc. Under a system where we default to utility, this debate won't happen. It is a lot harder to prove that preserving Constitutional rights will better protect Americans than waterboarding some terrorists and getting them to reveal Al Qaeda locations. However, I think the former argument is still an important part of the debate.

By rejecting the truth testing paradigm, we really restrict the arguments that can be made in round.

Actually I think my example is pretty good... Of course people disagree about the issue, that happens with any political issue. It would be no different than if dick Cheney was claiming that the law should not apply because language has no stable meaning so he didnt know torture was illegal or some other TT bullshit. The fact is we would never make the claim that national security is the only thing that should figure into a decision, just as granting absolute protection of rights no matter what the circumstance could also be problematic. The V/Cr and TT make it so that only one set of arguments matter in the discussion but this is ridiculous when put in the context of real decision making which, is inherently a process of comparing various advantages and disadvantages to different courses of action. Those advantages and disadvantages can be of various types and we can argue about which ones are more important (by weighing) but we should not say that only one kind of impact matters. This is especially true with very specific criteria.

ctheis wrote:
There are a bunch of problems with this.

First, even if O/D does not solve every possible abusive strat it still has a comparative advantage over TT. O/D gets rid of a lot of no risk negative stats like skepticism, multiple a prioris, etc. So what if it does not get rid of all of them? it is still better.

Second, you never established that those no risk issues are even bad in the first place. Sure theory can be abused but when it is abused it usually loses. Also, a lot of theory arguments are not no risk issues in the first place. If theory is a question of competing interpretations then affirmatives can actually win the round by winning offense to a counter interpretation. There are obviously exceptions to that such as T but I think that overall T is probably something we should retain as a tool. Negatives need the ability to check non-topical and unpredictable affirmatives. If people abuse T and run it against cases that are topical it should not be difficult to deal with because the arguments will be a terrible argument.

To the first point: I don't think there's THAT much of a problem with a prioris, skepticism and such. A Prioris can be responded with general things like condo logic and so can skepticism. Additionally, I don't think such comparative advantage exists because things like ASPEC and T can only really function within a comparativist paradigm (SPECing and being topical is only relevant if there's an advocacy) thus it doesn't really have all the much of an advantage over TT. Moreover, negative strategy will always be recycled, generic and easier than aff strat since they have no explicit resolve to adhere to, meaning that the rapid topic changes don't hinder them as much (As an aside, I think everyone can agree 5 topics a year is ridiculous).

To the second point: I never said no risk is bad, I just assumed that was the basis of the hate for a prioris, that they are easy to make and no risk, same as T shells. You advocate for T as a check for untopical cases, but don't good a prioris check against a shallow interpretation debate? Doesn't this mean, then, that the delineations between the TT and CW are purely subjective?

ctheis wrote:My argument was originally just that I think we should make the shift from FW heavy debate to developed impact calculi not that O/D would promote that. However, now that I have though about it I think it would do that because focusing on the FW debate in a round in which offense to a different standard can still be relevant makes no sense competitively. Any argument that could theoretically completely exclude other arguments would either be impact turns or arguments that could simply be rephrased as impact takeouts and retain their utility. The bottom line here is that O/D would discourage creating massive spike filled FWs that can exclude all other arguments because other impacts could still be considered relevant even if they are mitigated.

So the general thesis of your argument here is that offense to a different standard that is being refuted still is offense regardless if the fw is excluding it? I know you address this with the point about impact turns and impact takeouts, but what about a skeptical fw that says that nothing is an impact? Doesn't that sufficiently exclude the offense without being an impact turn and not mitigate it as you mentioned? You'll probably respond with something like "O/D excludes skepticism as a legitimate strat" which leads us into another circle. To the point: Most spike filled frameworks can exclude certain things as not being impacts without being directly counter to the aff standard ie if only state based obligations are relevant in ethics then universal, cosmopolitan ethics are irrelevant in the discussion of morality and thus neutral. It seems like that still conforms to the O/D paradigm and seemingly allows fw to be the ultimate win button in CW.

ctheis wrote:
Bunch of problems here too.

First, I already explained other advantages. LD has different topics. Our topics are generally more narrowly defined (there are not a large number of plans that could be run), they focus on different issue, and they are often phrased in ways that shake up the burden schemes. There is a smaller work load in LD which many see as an advantage. I could go on.

Second, no novice gives a shit about which paradigm we use. There is no novice in the country who when deciding which kind of debate they want to do says to themselves "Oh, well if I join LD I can't make the argument that because it is impossible to prove hat causality exists that we can't say we should do anything ever then fuck this, I might as well do policy!" In fact I would say that if novices knew that arguments like that were more prevalent in LD they would be more likely to choose not to do LD. There are two reasons:

a.) No one makes those arguments in the real world. The way that people argue and make decisions in every other aspect of life basically uses a form of the O/D paradigm. It makes more sense to people not familiar with debate.

b.) Arguments about the nature of causality, skepticism and the like, make debate less fun because they create unfair burdens. No novice wants to join an activity where they are expected to provide a proof for the existence on causality and do everything else that needs to be done in a debate all in a 4 min speech.

So in conclusion I second Jakes offer. Just let it die.

On the first point, the unique advantages to CW LD over CX are:
-1v1
-Topics more narrowly defined, different topic areas
-Smaller work load

1 and 3 are smaller logistical things that don't have that much significance. I mean if we present ourselves as "CX with smaller workload and 1v1" then most committed debaters (who probably want a more complex/intensive debate curriculum) will not give a shit and then we become CX minus. Part 2 is a legitimate advantage but most comparativist friendly topics (like ICC, nuke weps etc.) cover similar areas that policy covers, albeit less in depth. Though I'm not accusing you of this, I've heard many CW proponents advocate more of those resolutions than the more "unique" non-policy action based resolutions.

To point 2b, I would first say that this is wrong as the existence of syllogistic analysis in LD is the primary reason for me joining, and I'm sure that was the incentive for many others as well. To point 2 in general, I think you are misinterpreting my arg. I'm saying that if we become CW LD, then we will have no competitive reasons from a logistical standpoint for novs to prefer us. Allow me to copypasta from another thread:

"Pros of CX over comparative LD:
-Longer speeches
-1 topic per year ie more depth in analysis
-Team debate (Novices who haven't conquered a fear of speaking more likely to chose policy because of this)
-More nuanced overall (Policy has been around longer, resolutions designed more with this in mind)
-2 Constructives better for shell based cases"

Eventually we'll see changes like this are necessary for CW (sans the team based aspect) and then we will just assimilate into LD and picking a form of debate will be as meaningless as pushing a giant red button that randomly chooses for you.

Johnny Fontane, let me be straight with you. When you're done reading this post, and you realize that everything will be a-okay after the O/D Revolution, then please be straight with me in return. Don't hold on to TT just because you like it or it seems more conducive to your A-strat, because I promise there is an A+-strat waiting for you in the Heavenly Land of Offense and Defense. Don't hold onto framework just because you're used to it, because I promise there is a world without framework, and it's beautiful. In this war, it's alright to change sides. With that, let's begin:

Chris and I are “hating on framework debate,” not “the discussion of ethics and morality.” We agree that value debate is important, and we agree that “LD is valuable, in large part, because these discussions are possible.” We actually have “responded to [your] argument that a world in which we no longer have framework debate is one where these discussions are not going to happen.” Your reference to “a means-based impact calculus” (keyword: “impact”) in the status quo proves that these concerns are, in fact, weighable issues in the choice between two advocacies.

Here’s the bottom line, and I want you to read this closely because I mean every word of it: If you believe there is a serious case for a given moral theory in making decisions, that moral theory has a place in O/D. If you believe that justice, morality, and ethics (hell, let’s even throw in some meta-ethics) are important—-and not just a cool way to win a meaningless quibble—-then they have a role in O/D. If you believe that we should strive for virtue, live a life of moral rightness, and learn from value debate, then your philosophy has a front-row seat in O/D. If you believe that Rawlsian conceptions of justice and a well-ordered society or Kantian notions of moral freedom and rationality can serve as guiding principles for action, then they can guide a ballot in O/D. This is because those issues have a strong say in making decisions and choosing between competing options. Should we turn the trolley? Should we harvest the innocent man’s organs? Should we torture the suspect in the face of a ticking bomb? Should we tax the rich? Should we prosecute atrocities in an international court? Philosophers have a lot to say about these issues.

O/D debate asks you a question: “Why does that matter?” Having to answer this question is not a difficult task or burden for the philosopher; it’s a fuckin’ opportunity!

Let’s talk about your torture example. You say that the debate is not productive because we can’t agree on what we should pursue. You say that people do not all share the same view on the weighing debate between Constitutional rights and American security, and that this unresolved debate will never be resolved in O/D. You say, “It is a lot harder to prove that preserving Constitutional rights will better protect Americans than waterboarding some terrorists and getting them to reveal Al Qaeda locations.”

I think that just means you underestimate the importance of the Constitution and our individual rights. I actually do believe that “preserving Constitutional rights will better protect Americans than waterboarding some terrorists,” or more accurately, some terrorist suspects. (I didn’t include the “getting them to reveal Al Qaeda locations” part because it unfairly biases the question in your favor; I personally do not trust information squeezed from the inhumane treatment of terrorist suspects.) Debating “what matters more” is an integral part of O/D; that’s the definition of weighing. Even Patrick Henry knew it was all about the choice, bro, all about the comparison of two competing worlds: “Give me liberty or give me death!”

Also, you should remember that defaulting to utility is not the same thing as ignoring everything that smells like deontology or precluding non-utilitarian debate. For instance, in the status quo, most judges default to some sort of post-fiat impact calculus, even if it’s not utilitarian. This default does not mean debaters cannot win on pre-fiat impacts in a discourse K; it just means they have to make the case for it. Our advocacy just means that util debaters can spend more time in the constructives developing offense instead of proving a moral theory that we already assume when making decisions. You’re going to say, “But Jake! It’s so hard to win deontology in that world; why would anyone want to run it?” Maybe because you really believe in it, maybe because it would catch the utilitarian myopes by surprise, maybe because you can spend more time on its development when you don’t waste two minutes on unrelated preempts in the so-called framework.

I think there is a core misunderstanding in how you’re addressing the issues of framework and philosophy in LD (pay attention to rhetoric: I am suggesting that they are separate issues, that framework is not philosophy). You want to hold on to framework because it is currently the flow-space for philosophical issues. In O/D, there can still be philosophical impact analysis, just as there can be philosophical arguments; we just wouldn’t call it a framework because that term carries connotations in TT debate. In TT, framework is the flow-space for one-sentence spikes, preclusive bullshit, superficial analysis, and ridiculous burdens. As I’ve said in an earlier post, “Why should we encourage spike wars, low-commitment advocacies, side inequities, defense-only strategies, underdeveloped comparison, and unfair burdens in an academic activity?”

As Hamlet said, “There are more things on heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” There are more evil, creepy-crawly bullshits in your framework-on-high, Johnny Fontane, than are imagined in your post. You can hold on to your deontology and let go of your spikes.

Chris foreshadowed my case for critical theory and Continental philosophy in O/D. It seems that no TT advocates are concerned with that, so I won’t get too into it. As a recommendation for future research, though, if you're genuinely concerned with the impacts associated with philosophy, you should delve into Continental and critical literature. O/D isn't all about util and policy; there's ample ground for K debaters to criticize the framing of political problems and the distinction between theory and praxis. Most O/D judges accept K alternatives as legitimate advocacies, and that opens a wide window for philosophical reflection. O/D will force philosophy-heavy debaters to research more specific link literature to construct solid, topic-specific (or at least topic-sensitive) advocacies instead of recycling the same old social contract stories every round.

I’m going to end with some Soviet-style revisionist history and edit your final comment: “By rejecting the truth-testing paradigm, we really restrict the arguments that can be made in round to good arguments—-arguments with impacts, arguments that can sway a decision, arguments that can stand the test of comparison.” And if you don’t believe that the concerns of ethics, justice, and morality pass that test, then why do you give a shit about them?

Alright. I think I have been beat on this one. Apparently Mountain View doesn't have my back. That said, I thing that the discussion is largely irrelevant because it isn't like we have rules in LD. There is no (effective) way that the NFL can govern how judges view the rounds. I think that though there may be merits to both sides, competing worlds still needs to be embraced by the community. Some judges buy the view explained by Jake and Theis, but many still don't. As long as we keep rocking with the geocentric universe until next year, I should be fine for my last season.

bakeryjake wrote: Johnny Fontane, let me be straight with you. When you're done reading this post, and you realize that everything will be a-okay after the O/D Revolution, then please be straight with me in return. Don't hold on to TT just because you like it or it seems more conducive to your A-strat, because I promise there is an A+-strat waiting for you in the Heavenly Land of Offense and Defense. Don't hold onto framework just because you're used to it, because I promise there is a world without framework, and it's beautiful. In this war, it's alright to change sides.

This is sick...

Jake, well done sir.

There are still people out there that cling to TT but their numbers are dwindling. O/D is the future, embrace it.

I want to debate about causality and truth not policy bullshit. Consciousness is an illusion existence is meaningless suffering is inevitable OD sucks.

benholguin wrote:I want to debate about causality and truth not policy bullshit. Consciousness is an illusion existence is meaningless suffering is inevitable OD sucks.

You could always read a K.

Just as a preface, and this is not directed towards this post in particular, but the terms "pre-" and "post-" fiat make no sense because fiat isn't an event. No CXer uses these terms anymore because they are nonsense. Besides that this post was very persausive, however, I am still not convinced for the reasons supplied in this post and will elaborate on them.

bakeryjake wrote:Johnny Fontane, let me be straight with you. When you're done reading this post, and you realize that everything will be a-okay after the O/D Revolution, then please be straight with me in return. Don't hold on to TT just because you like it or it seems more conducive to your A-strat, because I promise there is an A+-strat waiting for you in the Heavenly Land of Offense and Defense. Don't hold onto framework just because you're used to it, because I promise there is a world without framework, and it's beautiful. In this war, it's alright to change sides. With that, let's begin:

OK, one more meaningless discursive thing. Firstly, this isn't a "war". I've run PICs, CPs, Ks, DAs and all the other comparative types of arguments in round before. I don't hate CW, rather, I prefer TT moreso than I do CW. I think framing the discussion as a "war" hinders our ability to respectly argue about this and reduces the discussion to the caliber of political punditry. Not that I think this discussion isn't intelligent, its just, there is no "revolution" or "war".

Then again, that rhetoric could've been semi-sarcastic making me come off as a literalist. Well, screw these meaningless differences; lets get to the substance:

bakeryjake wrote:Chris and I are “hating on framework debate,” not “the discussion of ethics and morality.” We agree that value debate is important, and we agree that “LD is valuable, in large part, because these discussions are possible.” We actually have “responded to [your] argument that a world in which we no longer have framework debate is one where these discussions are not going to happen.” Your reference to “a means-based impact calculus” (keyword: “impact”) in the status quo proves that these concerns are, in fact, weighable issues in the choice between two advocacies.

I think that something Johnny failed to point out is CW excludes a lot more philosophy than just ethics. Of course ethics have bearing in CW, but what about things like the philosophy of science and language, the arguments for skepticism? What about arguements that present abstract terms like "ethics" or "justice" as a form rather than as a virtue? These unique types of cases are what brought many people into the activity. You go on to respond later how deontology would interact, which I'll get to in a second, but regardless, it seems only specific prescriptive philosophies can be run in CW while a greater breadth of philosophical literature is available to TT.

bakeryjake wrote:Here’s the bottom line, and I want you to read this closely because I mean every word of it: If you believe there is a serious case for a given moral theory in making decisions, that moral theory has a place in O/D. If you believe that justice, morality, and ethics (hell, let’s even throw in some meta-ethics) are important—-and not just a cool way to win a meaningless quibble—-then they have a role in O/D. If you believe that we should strive for virtue, live a life of moral rightness, and learn from value debate, then your philosophy has a front-row seat in O/D. If you believe that Rawlsian conceptions of justice and a well-ordered society or Kantian notions of moral freedom and rationality can serve as guiding principles for action, then they can guide a ballot in O/D. This is because those issues have a strong say in making decisions and choosing between competing options. Should we turn the trolley? Should we harvest the innocent man’s organs? Should we torture the suspect in the face of a ticking bomb? Should we tax the rich? Should we prosecute atrocities in an international court? Philosophers have a lot to say about these issues.

O/D debate asks you a question: “Why does that matter?” Having to answer this question is not a difficult task or burden for the philosopher; it’s a fuckin’ opportunity!

Again, the point above addresses how CW eliminates a lot of literature we've come to love. If the previous point is responded with some argument like "That philosophy is stupid/irrelevant/doesn't matter" isn't that totally subjective? I don't think the issue of ethics can just be assumed in a debate round. We're an academic activity meant for expanding the mind, not a mathematical event meant for determining who killed more people. It seems boring and pointless.

bakeryjake wrote:Let’s talk about your torture example. You say that the debate is not productive because we can’t agree on what we should pursue. You say that people do not all share the same view on the weighing debate between Constitutional rights and American security, and that this unresolved debate will never be resolved in O/D. You say, “It is a lot harder to prove that preserving Constitutional rights will better protect Americans than waterboarding some terrorists and getting them to reveal Al Qaeda locations.”

I think that just means you underestimate the importance of the Constitution and our individual rights. I actually do believe that “preserving Constitutional rights will better protect Americans than waterboarding some terrorists,” or more accurately, some terrorist suspects. (I didn’t include the “getting them to reveal Al Qaeda locations” part because it unfairly biases the question in your favor; I personally do not trust information squeezed from the inhumane treatment of terrorist suspects.) Debating “what matters more” is an integral part of O/D; that’s the definition of weighing. Even Patrick Henry knew it was all about the choice, bro, all about the comparison of two competing worlds: “Give me liberty or give me death!”

Also, you should remember that defaulting to utility is not the same thing as ignoring everything that smells like deontology or precluding non-utilitarian debate. For instance, in the status quo, most judges default to some sort of post-fiat impact calculus, even if it’s not utilitarian. This default does not mean debaters cannot win on pre-fiat impacts in a discourse K; it just means they have to make the case for it. Our advocacy just means that util debaters can spend more time in the constructives developing offense instead of proving a moral theory that we already assume when making decisions. You’re going to say, “But Jake! It’s so hard to win deontology in that world; why would anyone want to run it?” Maybe because you really believe in it, maybe because it would catch the utilitarian myopes by surprise, maybe because you can spend more time on its development when you don’t waste two minutes on unrelated preempts in the so-called framework.

What is the obsession with defaulting to util? Util on its own tells us nothing about how to adjudicate. Its a metric, which requires a system of value. I still don't get the reason util is so prefered to deontology on any other system of ethics. It just seems arbitrary to default to it. Util math is pretty difficult anyway because of our inability to see the future, so it seems more logical to assess means before ends. It seems like if most judges default utility, deontological cases will have to arbitrarily do more work or find a way to conform to an ends based paradigm (which wouldn't be deontology would it?). Your constitutional rights example is indicative of this: constitution only matters if it ends with more rights garnered.

But I mostly agree with what you say. I understand how ethics comes into play in CW. I just think "ethics" and value based philsophies in general aren't the only relevant, meaningful philosophies to consider in a round.

bakeryjake wrote:I think there is a core misunderstanding in how you’re addressing the issues of framework and philosophy in LD (pay attention to rhetoric: I am suggesting that they are separate issues, that framework is not philosophy). You want to hold on to framework because it is currently the flow-space for philosophical issues. In O/D, there can still be philosophical impact analysis, just as there can be philosophical arguments; we just wouldn’t call it a framework because that term carries connotations in TT debate. In TT, framework is the flow-space for one-sentence spikes, preclusive bullshit, superficial analysis, and ridiculous burdens. As I’ve said in an earlier post, “Why should we encourage spike wars, low-commitment advocacies, side inequities, defense-only strategies, underdeveloped comparison, and unfair burdens in an academic activity?”

As Hamlet said, “There are more things on heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.” There are more evil, creepy-crawly bullshits in your framework-on-high, Johnny Fontane, than are imagined in your post. You can hold on to your deontology and let go of your spikes.

I think you exarcerbate the problem of spikes. If a shitty one sentence spike is extended, why not just refute it? I think the best way to reform the problems in TT would be some kind of metric of justification. If some a priori fw arg is extended and the neg is covering everything else, then wouldn't there be a larger amount of justification against the rez instead of for it? Doesn't a reactualization of the burdens towards a kind of justification paradigm eliminate the qualms while still preserving the parts people like about TT? Lets just get better strat against the bad fw rather than throw out TT all together.

bakeryjake wrote:Chris foreshadowed my case for critical theory and Continental philosophy in O/D. It seems that no TT advocates are concerned with that, so I won’t get too into it. As a recommendation for future research, though, if you're genuinely concerned with the impacts associated with philosophy, you should delve into Continental and critical literature. O/D isn't all about util and policy; there's ample ground for K debaters to criticize the framing of political problems and the distinction between theory and praxis. Most O/D judges accept K alternatives as legitimate advocacies, and that opens a wide window for philosophical reflection. O/D will force philosophy-heavy debaters to research more specific link literature to construct solid, topic-specific (or at least topic-sensitive) advocacies instead of recycling the same old social contract stories every round.

The problem with Ks being a solution to the more limited philosophical topic lit in CW is that Ks still have to operate within some kind of conception of value, so the same type of philosophy will be used or TT-style philosophy will be bastardized in order to fit into the value based paradigm.

Also, as a random comment, why are CWers so vehement about "letting TT die"? If certain regions are TT primarily then why do you care? Chris Theis won the TOC even though there are still a lot of TTers. Not all of us want to debate policy; thats why we chose LD.

I think Alex has the line by line debate covered pretty well at this point. I just wanted to raise one more concern and see what people have to say. Does anyone think the comparing worlds paradigm pushes LD on the slippery slope to exclusion and degeneration that we are seeing in policy debate today?

Let's face it, a CW paradigm (as many people have explicitly mentioned) only further follows in the footsteps of policy debate. Why do we want to imitate the path of that activity? The competing worlds view of the debate seems to only encourage the plans, counterplans, disadvantages, and so on that is making LD progressively more complicated.

Though this may seem like a positive, I think this is a pretty bad thing in the long-run for our activity. As we begin to accept these types of arguments as the norm, the emphasis on evidence and procedural regularity (i.e. the structure of a disadvantage or what have you) increases substantially. Like we have seen in policy this makes it a hell of a lot harder for the little fish to survive against the sharks of the national circuit.

So what? What if people have to work harder? Isn't that a good thing?

I don't think so. As we begin to emphasize pre-tournament preparation over natural skill, public speaking ability, etc., we alienate a lot of potential voices that could participate in this activity. Aside from the fact that a lot of kids just can't put in as many hours as policy debaters do, I think there is another practical concern. The CW paradigm, if you agree that it would emphasize a different version of "good debate", would only further advantage the big schools that have access to a ton of resources.

Let's face it. Even if you have an extremely hard working kid from fledgling debate program x who has a ton of talent, he is never going to be able to compete against a hard working debater from debate hegemon y who has 2-3 other coaches to help with case writing and evidence cutting. This is pretty much exactly what has happened to policy over the last few decades. Today policy is quickly becoming a museum piece in the history of debate. New teams aren't popping up, and local circuits are dying across the country. In the near future (if this isn't already the case), the only place where debaters will find rounds is the national circuit. A vast majority of potential policy debaters will never have the financial or coaching resources to make it to these tournaments.

Alright. So it could potentially suck if we follow policy. Why does TT do anything to prevent this dystopian debate future? I think the TT benefits the small-time debater by emphasizing logic and reasoning over evidence. Every year we see a lot of non-national circuit debaters succeed at NFLs. Even if the judging pool plays a part, I think the fact that people can intuitively deal with the philosophical conflicts commonly found under TT (i.e. deont vs util) is one of the reasons that these debaters can be competitive. Even if you don't have the means to cut a ton of recent evidence to beat the big guns on the plan/counterplan debate, you can still generate good responses to framework arguments if you are a smart kid and a good natural debater.

In my opinion, TT is a much better balance between a hyper-complex debate that disadvantages all newcomers and an extremely accessible form of debate that doesn't emphasize research.

JohnnyFontane wrote:I think Alex has the line by line debate covered pretty well at this point. I just wanted to raise one more concern and see what people have to say. Does anyone think the comparing worlds paradigm pushes LD on the slippery slope to exclusion and degeneration that we are seeing in policy debate today?

Let's face it, a CW paradigm (as many people have explicitly mentioned) only further follows in the footsteps of policy debate. Why do we want to imitate the path of that activity? The competing worlds view of the debate seems to only encourage the plans, counterplans, disadvantages, and so on that is making LD progressively more complicated.

Though this may seem like a positive, I think this is a pretty bad thing in the long-run for our activity. As we begin to accept these types of arguments as the norm, the emphasis on evidence and procedural regularity (i.e. the structure of a disadvantage or what have you) increases substantially. Like we have seen in policy this makes it a hell of a lot harder for the little fish to survive against the sharks of the national circuit.

So what? What if people have to work harder? Isn't that a good thing?

I don't think so. As we begin to emphasize pre-tournament preparation over natural skill, public speaking ability, etc., we alienate a lot of potential voices that could participate in this activity. Aside from the fact that a lot of kids just can't put in as many hours as policy debaters do, I think there is another practical concern. The CW paradigm, if you agree that it would emphasize a different version of "good debate", would only further advantage the big schools that have access to a ton of resources.

Let's face it. Even if you have an extremely hard working kid from fledgling debate program x who has a ton of talent, he is never going to be able to compete against a hard working debater from debate hegemon y who has 2-3 other coaches to help with case writing and evidence cutting. This is pretty much exactly what has happened to policy over the last few decades. Today policy is quickly becoming a museum piece in the history of debate. New teams aren't popping up, and local circuits are dying across the country. In the near future (if this isn't already the case), the only place where debaters will find rounds is the national circuit. A vast majority of potential policy debaters will never have the financial or coaching resources to make it to these tournaments.

Alright. So it could potentially suck if we follow policy. Why does TT do anything to prevent this dystopian debate future? I think the TT benefits the small-time debater by emphasizing logic and reasoning over evidence. Every year we see a lot of non-national circuit debaters succeed at NFLs. Even if the judging pool plays a part, I think the fact that people can intuitively deal with the philosophical conflicts commonly found under TT (i.e. deont vs util) is one of the reasons that these debaters can be competitive. Even if you don't have the means to cut a ton of recent evidence to beat the big guns on the plan/counterplan debate, you can still generate good responses to framework arguments if you are a smart kid and a good natural debater.

In my opinion, TT is a much better balance between a hyper-complex debate that disadvantages all newcomers and an extremely accessible form of debate that doesn't emphasize research.

I think your argument is descriptive of the status quo. Debate is increasingly exclusive. To compete on the national circuit, debaters must attend camp, have resources, and work hard. Judges intervene and vote off things that have nothing to do with debate are disliked and considered unqualified. Thus, debate evolves and tries to emphasize logos over ethos and pathos. From there, debaters adopt strategies most conducive to putting out the most and best logical arguments possible over sounding pretty and being intuitive. Slowly, policy evolved and LD evolved more quickly because we saw what policy debaters were doing.

In my state, the local circuit has died and I must do PF if I go to local tournaments. PF was made precisely to emphasize inclusion (it doesn't require much preparation, gives you a partner to help, is conducive to sounding pretty, and is judged by the average Joe). PF was made to stop debate from getting complex and progressive (probably the reason almost every LDer and CXer I know hates it).

Any way, my point is that the "little fish" you talk about should probably do PF. I'm not trying to sound elitist or anything; they can do what they want and I encourage them to do what they find most fun. However, if they do not have the resources to compete in CX or LD, they can always do PF because PF was made just for them. It emphasizes public speaking and logic over the quality of evidence. It doesn't even have a value structure, so it is a lot easier for people to understand and the resolution is generally fairly clear about what it wants the debaters to do.

Some comments and points of divergence with Old and Fontane as they seemingly are the only ones actively endorsing TT in this thread.

-I'm am not against complexity (and I don't accuse Fontane or Old or that either). I'm pro complexity. We should progressive, evolve, and develop the activity as much as possible. That is not my problem with the CW paradigm.

-I completely agree that debate is exclusionary, but not because of the practices within rounds themselves. Something to consider: there are more people participating in the Korean Starcraft leagues (a video game tournament, to those living under a rock in the 90s) than in debate. Why? Starcraft is fast paced, hard to follow, and complex for the casual player, yet it is a huge spectacle with thousands watching rounds from around the world. Why is that? Starcraft costs 10$. 10! Then you can practice and get better on your own time. Debate with camps, evidence, travel and the like all added in costs a ton. I don't think debate will ever be a cheap activity but right now the price for admission is a tad high. It was the primary reason I wasn't able to go to national tournaments this year and I'm sure others were in similar circumstances. The way I see it, no matter how debate evolves, the financial barrier is the biggest thing preventing a more widespread interest. Usually those who do well have better financial backgrounds and thus have less of an incentive to help those lower on the monetary totem pole. I think this is a unanimous problem most if not all debaters can agree on.

As a general note, I think we need to work towards wider interest in debate as whole.

Johnny Fontane! Do not give up so easily! Mountain View does indeed have your back!

I will not line by line this discussion in the hope of highlighting how much of a dinosaur I realize I now am. A few thoughts:

1) A WORLD OF HOCKEY WITHOUT FIGHTS? WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?!!?

2) Frameworks only function as Theis describes when people read impact calculus in lieu of an actual framework. This does not deny the use for a framework, this just points to shortcomings in the casewriting of today. A proper framework (under the truth testing paradigm) explains what one needs to demonstrate in order for the resolution to be true (the major premise, if you will, of the syllogism). This may contain several parts, such as a section on what it means to be the case that someone "ought" do something, or a section on what types of arguments, that while they may affect the truth or falsity of the resolution, should not be utilized in the debate (such as multiple a prioris). However, what this does not include is impact comparison. For example, what belongs in a framework is an argument such as "it is the case that one ought to do x if doing x produces a better comparative world than not doing x." What does not belong in a framework is an argument such as "stopping dehumanization is more important than protecting lives in determining what one ought do." Yet, time and time again, I hear a standard of "stopping dehumanization" with an argument like the one above. THIS IS NOT A FRAMEWORK ARGUMENT. THIS BELONGS IN YOUR CONTENTION. However, this is not to say that I agree with Chris that we should eliminate the VC altogether. Rather, we should just use them properly. And, when run properly, than if the standard is X (and not Y), then an impact to Y should RIGHTLY have NO relevance in the round.

3) Moerner and Garber are correct that strat-specific theory is the correct tool to check abuse, not a presumption that states of affairs have a moral quality to them. We are critical thinkers! A blanket solution like the comparing worlds paradigm is tantamount to laziness in this regard.

4) Jake, your advocacy literally boils down to "instead of reading a framework at the top of your case, move it down to below your impacts and call it impact calculi instead of a framework." That is, unless you believe additionally that one should not have to defend the link between a plan of action being "good" or "bad" (whatever that means) and a statement that one should not do that plan of action being true, in which case I must accuse you of advocating that debaters should make incomplete arguments. The only advantage one might garner from allowing incomplete arguments in the face of the fact that they are, well, incomplete, is that you get to avoid no risk neg strats. but the point above about strat-specific theory solves that problem. And the disadvantage to allowing (read: DEMANDING) incomplete arguments is, I think at least, irrefutable. Philosophy is concerned with the discovery of truth. We use deduction, and if you believe in it, induction, to come to conclusions about what we think to be the case. If we allow incomplete arguments, we are being disingenuous with regard to that objective. Now, you could say that LD is not all about philosophy, it is also about policy. But this is false for the reason that such a statement treats policy issues as something distinct from philosophy. I believe that policy issues are relevant in LD, but ONLY instrumentally to demonstrating particulars (minor premises) with the intent of completing arguments and forming conclusions. Which is to say, you can have your O/D, so long as you defend why O and D are relevant, and how you want us to look at O and D, IN YOUR FRAMEWORK. If you want to call your framework impact comparison and put it at the bottom of your case, fine. I've heard the same thing called a contention, a justification, a minor premise, an observation, an advocacy, an act, a scene, sometimes it's not labelled at all. But what it always is (or at least needs to be) is an ARGUMENT. And without a defense of a link between the claims in the case and the truth of the resolution, an argument is simply incomplete.

4)Finally, a pre-empt. I think what you might say is that there is no reason to believe that the arguments have to be about truth for them to be complete arguments. That is, one might think that we are policymakers in debate, and that arguments need only be instrumental in favoring one policy (or plan of action) over another. If you believe this, however, you are subject to the most damning of the criticisms against the comparing worlds paradigm so far presented in this discussion, and that is that you are then comitted to the complete elimination of philosophical debate. This is so because policymaking presumes consequentalism, as alluded to by Garber. This is where comparing worlds breaks down, and becomes what Moerner aptly refers to as "incoherent." You eliminate deontology, for example, because even if you demonstrate that a violation of a side constraint, one should still do X if it produces a better state of affairs, but call it "immoral but necessary." Refer to the other thread about truth testing, the second to last post for a more complete explanation of why ALL philosophy goes away. And no, critical political theory is NOT philosophy.

I believe this addresses most of what Jake said. To sum it up, Frameworks are necessary to force comparing worlds debaters to defend the assumption of their case that one should determine the truth of the resolution by assessing whether the plan of action discussed in the resolution produces a better world than not doing the plan of action. Or, if the comparing worlds paradigm does not make this assumption and rather assumes that we are policymakers rather than judges of what is or is not the case (IE an assumption about the role of the judge and the resolution as opposed to an assumption about a specific philosophical belief), then the comparing worlds paradigm eliminates philosophical debate. Finally, strat-specific theory solves the entirety of the abuse story presented in favor of the comparing worlds paradigm.

JohnnyFontane wrote:I think Alex has the line by line debate covered pretty well at this point. I just wanted to raise one more concern and see what people have to say. Does anyone think the comparing worlds paradigm pushes LD on the slippery slope to exclusion and degeneration that we are seeing in policy debate today?

Let's face it, a CW paradigm (as many people have explicitly mentioned) only further follows in the footsteps of policy debate. Why do we want to imitate the path of that activity? The competing worlds view of the debate seems to only encourage the plans, counterplans, disadvantages, and so on that is making LD progressively more complicated.

Though this may seem like a positive, I think this is a pretty bad thing in the long-run for our activity. As we begin to accept these types of arguments as the norm, the emphasis on evidence and procedural regularity (i.e. the structure of a disadvantage or what have you) increases substantially. Like we have seen in policy this makes it a hell of a lot harder for the little fish to survive against the sharks of the national circuit.

So what? What if people have to work harder? Isn't that a good thing?

I don't think so. As we begin to emphasize pre-tournament preparation over natural skill, public speaking ability, etc., we alienate a lot of potential voices that could participate in this activity. Aside from the fact that a lot of kids just can't put in as many hours as policy debaters do, I think there is another practical concern. The CW paradigm, if you agree that it would emphasize a different version of "good debate", would only further advantage the big schools that have access to a ton of resources.

Let's face it. Even if you have an extremely hard working kid from fledgling debate program x who has a ton of talent, he is never going to be able to compete against a hard working debater from debate hegemon y who has 2-3 other coaches to help with case writing and evidence cutting. This is pretty much exactly what has happened to policy over the last few decades. Today policy is quickly becoming a museum piece in the history of debate. New teams aren't popping up, and local circuits are dying across the country. In the near future (if this isn't already the case), the only place where debaters will find rounds is the national circuit. A vast majority of potential policy debaters will never have the financial or coaching resources to make it to these tournaments.

Alright. So it could potentially suck if we follow policy. Why does TT do anything to prevent this dystopian debate future? I think the TT benefits the small-time debater by emphasizing logic and reasoning over evidence. Every year we see a lot of non-national circuit debaters succeed at NFLs. Even if the judging pool plays a part, I think the fact that people can intuitively deal with the philosophical conflicts commonly found under TT (i.e. deont vs util) is one of the reasons that these debaters can be competitive. Even if you don't have the means to cut a ton of recent evidence to beat the big guns on the plan/counterplan debate, you can still generate good responses to framework arguments if you are a smart kid and a good natural debater.

In my opinion, TT is a much better balance between a hyper-complex debate that disadvantages all newcomers and an extremely accessible form of debate that doesn't emphasize research.

I'm trying to stay out of this debate both because I'm a lightweight in compared to almost all of y'all and given my notorious habit of making an ass out of myself when I do, but I felt it necessary to jump in when I read this post as someone who both is an avid believer in CW and someone who does, in fact, come from a much smaller program than some of y'all.


The first arg is that the growing of CW makes things like evidence more important and de-emphasizes logic, etc. To start, this is patently false. Both my teammate Erik and myself won combined probably at least a dozen rounds on jan feb alone by pointing out logical flaws with evidence. How, you ask? Simple. Any time someone reads a card that I can't pick out a clear warrant for in listening to it, or if the warrant seems sketchy, I'll go grab the card with them when they're done with the page, and read what they didn't cut out. All across the board, Debaters (and I'm not exempt from this generalization) power tag evidence/make claims that aren't really supported by the evidence they're reading. Call them out on this, and go in depth with your research. Policy teams have gravitated towards Ks and more generic concepts (like Heg) as a means of checking back bigger programs. LDers can (and to some extent) do the same thing under either Fw. The constitution/due process nc you wrote for Jan/Feb has a framework (i use term in a more generic sense to encompass all rez analysis, O/D, CW, TT, V/C, etc arguments) that you can reuse on either side next time there is a USFG actor resolution (and to anyone who thinks policymakers operate under a strict util framework, i'd say you're severely miguided in a couple of senses - not only do they normally have to deal with this piece of paper called the constitution, but they have to deal with these people called lobbyists, or even more importantly, their constituents, and chances are they aren't all cold entities that only look to the greatest good). A lot of times, if you do good work on one topic, the research will carry over to others.

Additionally, what's wrong with expecting debaters to be able to produce high quantity and quality research? It fosters better, more developed argumentation, it teaches them skills that are actually useful in school, and evidence is frankly normally better warranted than random analytics. It doesn't have to be that way, it just is. A focus on evidence and structure (which, btw, you can find just by going to wikipedia), is not at all a reason why some debaters are going to be less advantaged than others.

Also, if you're concerned about diversity and encouraging people who can't afford to go to camp being able to do LD, answer this: Why is it that UDL (urban debate league) teams are able to clear at TOC in Policy, yet there are very few inner city schools with LD programs? Could it be that the immense focus on very dense philosophical texts and logic theory-based argumentation is even LESS accessible than a style that basically requires you to have a laptop with an internet browser and a word processor (a low end one is a couple hundred dollars) and either access to a library (which is like $2 tops) or have a college student as an assistant coach. Research isn't nearly as hard to do as say, understand all the logical and philosophical jargon that has been the basis of TT.


Your second argument is that evidence based debate necessitates having more assistant coaches and disadvantages the smaller schools. Since your username isn't your actual name (there is no "Johnny Fontane" according to the NFL site), I have no idea of knowing where you go to school. The school i go to is fortunate enough to have a tremendous budget, but in terms of the number of students that are seriously committed to debate, our team is very small. As of now, my teammate and I will be relying on what we can do, plus what our head coach, one of our school's policy coaches, and some friends of ours that are coaching other schools now can do for us in their spare time. We spend a vast majority of our practice time doing research and practice rounds. Why? because research is the only thing that we can use to equalize the playing field. We've both developed fairly good researching skills over the past year, and can use this to our advantage by picking strategies that require good research and familiarity with the literature. Smaller schools should embrace the idea of CW because researching and card cutting is something that you can get good at without coaches/camp/etc. Simply by reading articles and footnotes and constantly refining your search, it is very easy to find very good evidence that you can rely on for most of the topic.


Your third argument is about NFLs. I'd say this has more to do with topic selection than debate style. If NFLs had more prescriptive topics (ie icc, nukes, etc), I'm fairly confident the style would change to reflect that. Plus, once again, SMALL SCHOOLS CAN DO RESEARCH. Is it easy? No. But if you are smart, and you try to find the best evidence possible instead of settling for mediocre evidence, it is easy for smaller schools to win. Even solid prepouts aren't unbeatable - chances are 99% of the arguments you've heard before, and the ones you haven't, well there's a decent chance the reason you haven't is because they aren't extremely good. If you do work (ie good research, write up blocks, etc), CW is not your enemy.


I'm not quite sure if this post proves CW is better than any other method of debate for anyone. All I'm trying to say is that from the perspective of one of those "small schools", it ain't nearly as hard as you're making it out to be to win under CW without a large team.


EDIT: To clarify, when I say "CW", I'm merely defending a paradigm similar to the way Nebel simplifies O/D, one where both debaters are to prove that whatever their position is produces a more desirable outcome than that of their opponent.

P.Rai wrote:Johnny Fontane! Do not give up so easily! Mountain View does indeed have your back!

I will not line by line this discussion in the hope of highlighting how much of a dinosaur I realize I now am. A few thoughts:

1) A WORLD OF HOCKEY WITHOUT FIGHTS? WHAT ARE YOU THINKING?!!?

2) Frameworks only function as Theis describes when people read impact calculus in lieu of an actual framework. This does not deny the use for a framework, this just points to shortcomings in the casewriting of today. A proper framework (under the truth testing paradigm) explains what one needs to demonstrate in order for the resolution to be true (the major premise, if you will, of the syllogism). This may contain several parts, such as a section on what it means to be the case that someone "ought" do something, or a section on what types of arguments, that while they may affect the truth or falsity of the resolution, should not be utilized in the debate (such as multiple a prioris). However, what this does not include is impact comparison. For example, what belongs in a framework is an argument such as "it is the case that one ought to do x if doing x produces a better comparative world than not doing x." What does not belong in a framework is an argument such as "stopping dehumanization is more important than protecting lives in determining what one ought do." Yet, time and time again, I hear a standard of "stopping dehumanization" with an argument like the one above. THIS IS NOT A FRAMEWORK ARGUMENT. THIS BELONGS IN YOUR CONTENTION. However, this is not to say that I agree with Chris that we should eliminate the VC altogether. Rather, we should just use them properly. And, when run properly, than if the standard is X (and not Y), then an impact to Y should RIGHTLY have NO relevance in the round.

3) Moerner and Garber are correct that strat-specific theory is the correct tool to check abuse, not a presumption that states of affairs have a moral quality to them. We are critical thinkers! A blanket solution like the comparing worlds paradigm is tantamount to laziness in this regard.

4) Jake, your advocacy literally boils down to "instead of reading a framework at the top of your case, move it down to below your impacts and call it impact calculi instead of a framework." That is, unless you believe additionally that one should not have to defend the link between a plan of action being "good" or "bad" (whatever that means) and a statement that one should not do that plan of action being true, in which case I must accuse you of advocating that debaters should make incomplete arguments. The only advantage one might garner from allowing incomplete arguments in the face of the fact that they are, well, incomplete, is that you get to avoid no risk neg strats. but the point above about strat-specific theory solves that problem. And the disadvantage to allowing (read: DEMANDING) incomplete arguments is, I think at least, irrefutable. Philosophy is concerned with the discovery of truth. We use deduction, and if you believe in it, induction, to come to conclusions about what we think to be the case. If we allow incomplete arguments, we are being disingenuous with regard to that objective. Now, you could say that LD is not all about philosophy, it is also about policy. But this is false for the reason that such a statement treats policy issues as something distinct from philosophy. I believe that policy issues are relevant in LD, but ONLY instrumentally to demonstrating particulars (minor premises) with the intent of completing arguments and forming conclusions. Which is to say, you can have your O/D, so long as you defend why O and D are relevant, and how you want us to look at O and D, IN YOUR FRAMEWORK. If you want to call your framework impact comparison and put it at the bottom of your case, fine. I've heard the same thing called a contention, a justification, a minor premise, an observation, an advocacy, an act, a scene, sometimes it's not labelled at all. But what it always is (or at least needs to be) is an ARGUMENT. And without a defense of a link between the claims in the case and the truth of the resolution, an argument is simply incomplete.

4)Finally, a pre-empt. I think what you might say is that there is no reason to believe that the arguments have to be about truth for them to be complete arguments. That is, one might think that we are policymakers in debate, and that arguments need only be instrumental in favoring one policy (or plan of action) over another. If you believe this, however, you are subject to the most damning of the criticisms against the comparing worlds paradigm so far presented in this discussion, and that is that you are then comitted to the complete elimination of philosophical debate. This is so because policymaking presumes consequentalism, as alluded to by Garber. This is where comparing worlds breaks down, and becomes what Moerner aptly refers to as "incoherent." You eliminate deontology, for example, because even if you demonstrate that a violation of a side constraint, one should still do X if it produces a better state of affairs, but call it "immoral but necessary." Refer to the other thread about truth testing, the second to last post for a more complete explanation of why ALL philosophy goes away. And no, critical political theory is NOT philosophy.

I believe this addresses most of what Jake said. To sum it up, Frameworks are necessary to force comparing worlds debaters to defend the assumption of their case that one should determine the truth of the resolution by assessing whether the plan of action discussed in the resolution produces a better world than not doing the plan of action. Or, if the comparing worlds paradigm does not make this assumption and rather assumes that we are policymakers rather than judges of what is or is not the case (IE an assumption about the role of the judge and the resolution as opposed to an assumption about a specific philosophical belief), then the comparing worlds paradigm eliminates philosophical debate. Finally, strat-specific theory solves the entirety of the abuse story presented in favor of the comparing worlds paradigm.

In this post, I will address Prashant's concerns because I think they crystallize the better arguments made by Alex et al. If someone is dying to see a line-by-line defense of my earlier post against Alex, I will do that, but I've been busy so I haven't had the time yet. I think the most important issues in that debate have already been addressed in that post, and the most important arguments reappear with Prashant. If there are other pressing issues, please let me know.

On the issue of the VC model and framework (#2): I'll speak for myself and not Chris here, but I agree that impact comparison isn't really framework and those kinds of things do not belong in the framework, especially in a TT model. My point was that the VC doesn't make sense in an O/D model because O/D is based on impact comparison (weighing) and not preclusion (VC). I am saying, after the Revolution, the VC should and probably would die out. I don't care whether or not the VC exists under TT, because my advocacy is that TT goes bye-bye and the VC along with it.

On the issue of laziness in the O/D model (#3): I think the opposite is true. In TT, debaters are encouraged to avoid genuine impact comparison and weighing in favor of techniques that have no real-world applicability. In TT, debaters have an incentive to cut down on research and bulk up on spikes. In TT, debaters have good reason to rest on presumption instead of offense. In TT, debaters get away with criticism without alternatives and recycled skepticism arguments with no topical links and no impacts to weigh against the case. In short, O/D means better clash.

Prashant asserts that it is lazy to presume O/D in order to prevent abusive strategies. But TT has its own presumptions, like any paradigm. The purpose of a debate paradigm is to structure the relevance and irrelevance of arguments. Prashant is not defending a tabula rasa paradigm (à la mode de Walter Alan Ulrich), but a hypothesis-testing paradigm (à la mode de Zarefsky), which presents its own blanket solution to solve the supposed harms of other paradigms. I have argued that it is lazier to presume that debaters do not have to defend an advocacy than it is to presume that one advocacy may be comparatively better than another advocacy (why is that wrong, by the way?).

On the first #4 paragraph, not to be confused with the second #4 paragraph: My advocacy does not boil down to “instead of reading a framework at the top of your case, move it down to below your impacts and call it impact calculi instead of a framework.” If I were to “boil down” my advocacy to a sentence, it would be this: “The affirmative burden is to present a topical advocacy and defend it in comparison to a competitive negative advocacy.” In other words, the better debater (i.e. the winner of the ballot) is the one who presents the preferable advocacy. This is in contrast to TT’s presumption: “The affirmative burden is to prove the resolution true; the negative burden is to prove the resolution false.”

I believe that most framework arguments are unnecessary and would disappear in O/D. What would remain are impact comparison arguments, which are currently (mis)placed in the framework. If framework is gone, these impact comparison arguments would move below the impacts and become weighing. I have not been posting on this message board to encourage debaters to change the order of their cases; that is not the crux of my argument. I have only encouraged debaters to view philosophical controversies as just another type of impact comparison.

Prashant believes that it is an “incomplete argument” if debaters do not “defend the link between a plan of action being "good" or "bad" (whatever that means) and a statement that one should not do that plan of action being true.” Let me add a parenthetical “whatever that means” to “a statement that one should not do that plan of action being true.” Either way, O/D is not just about “a plan of action being good/bad”; it is about one advocacy being better than another. In the end of an O/D debate, it is not enough to just prove that your advocacy is good, because your opponent’s advocacy may be better.

Also, Prashant’s argument is non-responsive, because it presupposes that the ultimate burden is to prove the resolution true. This argument is akin to me saying, “Just because the resolution is true doesn’t mean the affirmative advocacy is better than the negative advocacy!” and accusing truth appeals as therefore being incomplete. That argument misses the point, and this demonstrates why we have paradigm debates and not merely strategy-specific theory—because we need a paradigm to structure the relevance and irrelevance of arguments in debate.

Prashant says, “Philosophy is concerned with the discovery of truth.” I take issue with this approach. While I respect the rigor of many analytic philosophers, I believe that a “timeless, selfless quest for truth” (Quine) should not be the ultimate goal of philosophy. I believe that the love of wisdom is valuable for its own sake, but also that wisdom is a guide for human conduct and that philosophy is all about making choices—this is a core belief in O/D. O/D asks, “What are the stakes?” and if a philosopher can’t answer that, then I’m not interested. Also, I completely agree that policy issues are not distinct from philosophy; I believe that the theory/praxis distinction is a bad idea. This means that philosophical issues are not isolated, and they are “important in ways that crossword puzzles are not” (Hare); they certainly have something to say in making choices, which is why they have a role in O/D.

Let’s go to the second #4, the pre-empt. Yes, I do hold that “there is no reason to believe that the arguments have to be about [the] truth [of the resolution] for them to be complete arguments.” Supposedly, this means philosophical debate goes bye-bye. If this is true, it is definitely not because “policymaking presumes consequentialism”; as I have said earlier, even if O/D defaults to consequentialism, that does not preclude debaters from presenting non-consequentialist theories. Also, I see no reason why philosophical debate is defined exclusively by the “consequentialism vs. deontology” debate; that’s an insult to philosophy. And now Prashant begins the power-tagging: O/D somehow “breaks down” and is “incoherent” because it forces us to compare advocacies and impacts! C’mon, seriously? Even if deontology had no role in debate, that wouldn’t make debate “incoherent.” Choose these words more carefully, or at least defend them.

Also, O/D does not eliminate deontology. I recognize that debaters would not be able to run deontology if both sides violate a side constraint or if the violation is inevitable, but I also see no reason why those violations are relevant anyways. It is reasonable to claim that there should be an absolute side constraint on torture, and that an advocacy that entails torture is, therefore, worse than one that allows other harms to occur. As Chris and I have said, it is easy enough to weigh the violations of a side constraint against traditional utilitarian concerns. Finally, “ALL philosophy goes away” is such a stretch. Once we recognize that philosophy is not isolated from policy concerns, it is easy to see that O/D fosters philosophical debate. Unless you believe that there are NO aspects of philosophy that have a role in making decisions (the only demand of O/D), then this claim is B.S. I also believe that critical theory and Continental philosophy are, indeed, philosophy, so unless Prashant can prove otherwise, then K ground is pretty good.

Thanks for the answer Jake. I want to respond, but I'm taking the LSAT in a week, which also happens to be finals week here in LA, so no can do right now. I do, however, promise to get back to this ASAP. Meanwhile, perhaps you can clarify some things for me.

What does it mean to compare two advocacies? Does that mean we compare which one is more true? What is an advocacy anyway? Is it an argument in favor of an action? If this is the case, are we judging which argument is more true? Or are we judging which argument is more persuasive (i.e., which action we would rather take, given the two arguments in play)? What metric do we determine which advocacy is more persuasive (is it which argument is more true, or is it something else)? How do we determine what advocacies we allow people to take up?

On the issue of philosophy/politics/truth: is it not just as much an assumption to say that the theory/praxis distinction is a bad idea as it is to say that it is a good one? Does O/D eliminate the possibility for one to question whether "stakes" are relevant? Finally, I think you misunderstand deontology if you think a deontologist would "weigh" the "impact" of violating a side constraint against utilitarian concerns. Deontology rejects this approach to ethics altogether. A deontologist would not say, to use your example, that an absolute side constraint against torture is good because it produces X benefit. Rather, A deontologist would say that an absolute side constraint against torture is necessary to remain consistent with a moral maxim, that is, that treating someone as a means to an end is immoral. To force a deontologist to compare the violation of a side constraint to some consequentalist impact is to PRESUPPOSE consequentalism. You are excluding the deontologist before the comparison between deontology and consequentalism even begins.

Your claim that a violation of a side constraint is irrelevant if it occurs on both sides also seems to side with the notion that O/D eliminates deontology. Deontology would say that both actions are immoral, And if an action is immoral, certainly you would agree that it has some relevance to a resolution that uses the word "ought," right?

Additionally, your claim that the elimination of deontology does not render debate incoherent is not responsive. I do not presuppose that consequentalism vs. deontology is comprehensive of philosophy. Refer to my post on the other thread (it is the second to last post, I believe) for why several other key branches of philosophy play no role in O/D. These include Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Language, and Philosophy of Mind. To put it in context, almost nothing that anyone in my philosophy department works on would play a role in O/D. This holds true for many other well regarded programs in the U.S. as well. Like I alluded to earlier, the ONLY philosophy for which O/D makes room is critical theory, which in my opinion, is not philosophy. It is political theory. But that is an opinion of mine, which I force no one to hold. Run your Ks, but do not eliminate other philosophy simply because there is K ground. It is with this in mind that I used the words "boiled down" and "incoherent," and I stand by those words. My point is not that K ground is bad, but rather that K ground is NOT ENOUGH.

I look forward to your response.

P.Rai wrote:Thanks for the answer Jake. I want to respond, but I'm taking the LSAT in a week, which also happens to be finals week here in LA, so no can do right now. I do, however, promise to get back to this ASAP. Meanwhile, perhaps you can clarify some things for me.

What does it mean to compare two advocacies? Does that mean we compare which one is more true? What is an advocacy anyway? Is it an argument in favor of an action? If this is the case, are we judging which argument is more true? Or are we judging which argument is more persuasive (i.e., which action we would rather take, given the two arguments in play)? What metric do we determine which advocacy is more persuasive (is it which argument is more true, or is it something else)? How do we determine what advocacies we allow people to take up?

Comparing two advocacies means choosing between two options—the affirmative and negative advocacy, although perhaps negatives may claim the right to defend multiple advocacies. How this choice is made is subject to in-round debate. I don’t see how an advocacy can be “more true” than another advocacy (although it is possible for an advocacy to be “more truthful” than another advocacy—for example, telling the truth versus spreading a lie), and, no, an advocacy is not “an argument in favor of an action.”

In the technical sense, arguments are not advocacies, and advocacies are not arguments; we make arguments to justify our advocacy. Usually, an advocacy is a course of action, although that is not the only type of advocacy. In general, an advocacy is a proposal, support, recommendation, endorsement, whatever term you want to use, of a particular cause. This cause may be a world, policy, philosophy, interest, theory, or mindset; the possibilities are pretty vast, only restricted by two demands in the debate round: (1) that it be prescriptive, and (2) that it be compared to a competitive advocacy. Other constraints, such as topicality, are matters of theory debate within this paradigm. You ask about a metric for comparison: as I have said, that metric is subject to in-round debate (which is a major role for philosophy), but this paradigm would default to a utility calculus because that is the most basic method of comparison between two options—which option is better?

P.Rai wrote:On the issue of philosophy/politics/truth: is it not just as much an assumption to say that the theory/praxis distinction is a bad idea as it is to say that it is a good one? Does O/D eliminate the possibility for one to question whether "stakes" are relevant? Finally, I think you misunderstand deontology if you think a deontologist would "weigh" the "impact" of violating a side constraint against utilitarian concerns. Deontology rejects this approach to ethics altogether. A deontologist would not say, to use your example, that an absolute side constraint against torture is good because it produces X benefit. Rather, A deontologist would say that an absolute side constraint against torture is necessary to remain consistent with a moral maxim, that is, that treating someone as a means to an end is immoral. To force a deontologist to compare the violation of a side constraint to some consequentalist impact is to PRESUPPOSE consequentalism. You are excluding the deontologist before the comparison between deontology and consequentalism even begins.

To clarify, I only stated my personal belief that the theory/praxis distinction is bad; that is not an assumption of the O/D paradigm. I was agreeing with you that philosophy and policy are interconnected, and expressing that O/D allows for a wide range of advocacies within its basic constraints. No, O/D does not eliminate the possibility for one to question whether “stakes” are relevant, but that argument would never a round-winner, nor should it be. That’s a pretty horrible argument: “It is not important to prove that your argument is important.” If you really can’t answer the question, “What is at stake?” then there is no reason why we should care. Can you prove otherwise?

You say, “A deontologist would say that an absolute side constraint against torture is necessary to remain consistent with a moral maxim, that is, that treating someone as a means to an end is immoral.” That’s fine. I do not demand that “the violation of a side constraint” present a consequentialist impact, but that morality be compared to a consequentialist impact; you acknowledge this. Comparing the importance of moral law to a consequentialist effect does not presuppose consequentialism; it forces you to debate against consequentialism to win that comparison. You even refer to “the comparison between deontology and consequentialism,” which is exactly what I’m talking about. The point is is, you have to prove that it is more important to be moral than it is to maximize utility, if the deontologist is correct that morality and utility are distinct. You have to prove that it is better to choose an advocacy that does not entail torture over an advocacy that does entail torture, because morality is more important than the speculative, amoral, utilitarian benefits of torture. Any good ethicist can explain the stakes here, why morality is important, and compare it to other values.

The moral of the story is this: If LD is values debate, why can’t we compare values?

P.Rai wrote:
Your claim that a violation of a side constraint is irrelevant if it occurs on both sides also seems to side with the notion that O/D eliminates deontology. Deontology would say that both actions are immoral, And if an action is immoral, certainly you would agree that it has some relevance to a resolution that uses the word "ought," right?

Yes, if an action is immoral, then that probably has some relevance to a resolution that uses the word “ought.” This does not mean that we have a final answer, that we do not need to compare which advocacy is more consistent with the principles of morality. Your approach is still stuck in the TT logic, that the negative only needs to prove that we “ought not” do X, that the affirmative violates one itsy bitsy, necessary but insufficient burden.

Also, if both actions violate a side constraint, then that harm is non-unique. Are you really encouraging debaters to go for non-unique impacts? That makes debate pretty stupid, and it makes morality pretty stupid, because it removes any basis for making decisions if we say, “No,” to everything. If your conception of morality requires X, and we will always violate X (i.e. violations of X are inevitable or non-unique), that does not mean that we are always immoral; it just means that your conception of morality sucks and cannot guide conduct. Why should we care about a morality that condemns us all to hell regardless of our choices?

P.Rai wrote:
Additionally, your claim that the elimination of deontology does not render debate incoherent is not responsive. I do not presuppose that consequentalism vs. deontology is comprehensive of philosophy. Refer to my post on the other thread (it is the second to last post, I believe) for why several other key branches of philosophy play no role in O/D. These include Philosophy of Science, Philosophy of Language, and Philosophy of Mind. To put it in context, almost nothing that anyone in my philosophy department works on would play a role in O/D. This holds true for many other well regarded programs in the U.S. as well. Like I alluded to earlier, the ONLY philosophy for which O/D makes room is critical theory, which in my opinion, is not philosophy. It is political theory. But that is an opinion of mine, which I force no one to hold. Run your Ks, but do not eliminate other philosophy simply because there is K ground. It is with this in mind that I used the words "boiled down" and "incoherent," and I stand by those words. My point is not that K ground is bad, but rather that K ground is NOT ENOUGH.

If none of the professors in your philosophy department work on anything relevant to O/D, then that just means they do not work on issues that are important to human choices. You really think these philosophers of Science, Language, and Mind can’t explain the impact of their studies? If you asked your professors, “Why is this important?” do you really think they’d respond, “It’s not.” Do you really not have ethicists at UCLA, or philosophy professors concerned with human conduct and choices? Do your professors really confine themselves to exclusively descriptive claims in their research? If you answered, “Yes,” to these questions, then I ask, “Why should we care if you can’t run these arguments?” Explain to me why this ground matters, and why we should care if you lose it. And if you answered, “No,” then there is a role for those branches of philosophy in O/D.

If a given branch of philosophy has a role in making decisions and choosing between competing options, then it has a role in O/D. Gimme a break (of that Kit-Kat Bar): this list is certainly not confined to critical theory. I’m going to copy/paste from page 3 of this thread, just to hammer the point:

“Here’s the bottom line, and I want you to read this closely because I mean every word of it: If you believe there is a serious case for a given moral theory in making decisions, that moral theory has a place in O/D. If you believe that justice, morality, and ethics (hell, let’s even throw in some meta-ethics) are important—-and not just a cool way to win a meaningless quibble—-then they have a role in O/D. If you believe that we should strive for virtue, live a life of moral rightness, and learn from value debate, then your philosophy has a front-row seat in O/D. If you believe that Rawlsian conceptions of justice and a well-ordered society or Kantian notions of moral freedom and rationality can serve as guiding principles for action, then they can guide a ballot in O/D. This is because those issues have a strong say in making decisions and choosing between competing options. Should we turn the trolley? Should we harvest the innocent man’s organs? Should we torture the suspect in the face of a ticking bomb? Should we tax the rich? Should we prosecute atrocities in an international court? Philosophers have a lot to say about these issues.”

So, here's my question to you, Prashant: Why should we care? Explain why the philosophy ground you lose is important, why it is good ground you should have, and why the importance of that ground loss outweighs the other harms of TT. See, even competing interpretations is just a theory form of O/D; it all fits together after the Revolution.