Skip to content
March 31, 2012 / compassioninpolitics

Reasons why the politics disadvantage is the worst disadvantage in policy debate

1. Don’t answer the resolutional question as much
2. Relies on min-max reasoning structure (although the aff does, probably to not the same extent)
3. More fragmented literature based (not intrinsically bad, but its like trying to predict the stock market–the internal link is terrible as a predictor.). Its like reading tea leaves.
4. I think the represenativeness heuristic in economics proves the link is terrible (almost) every time.
5. Its generally descriptive evidence & probably not prescriptive.
6. The intent of the author wasn’t probably to be quoted in such a way, versus the affirmative.
7. Principle of double effect….although this probably takes out the aff too.
8. Non-intrinsicness answers. Perm the DA.
9. Probably worst case scenario, but probably takes out the aff too. Its a poor model of logic and reasoning (even with the counterplan)–its infintessimally small risk
10. The politics DA of any DA has been empirically disproven again and again.
11. Given that fiat is so different from things that are on the President’s agenda–it wouldn’t shift credit or blame.
12. 24 hour news cycle DC coverage = politicized news, with editors who have an agenda to frame the news to sell newspapers. (Political Spectacle, etc..)

I realize some of the reasons above are rather shaky–I’m just thinking through some of the reasons. Admittedly, this is probably the post I feel least good about on the blog. I think some of the answers may in fact help answer the politics DA–although something more solid like add-on advantages & we solve the DA & impact turns & impact takeouts are probably some of the best ways to answer the DA.

Advertisements

One Comment

Leave a Comment
  1. compassioninpolitics / Mar 31 2012 8:49 pm

    It turns politics more into a horse race than it already is.

    It takes the merits of policy off the table.

    Link cards are inevitably contrived and out of context. Its the neg burden to prove that the author meant to be taken in that context and the percentage of risk they would assign is 100% versus 30% or less.

    “Cult of the politics disad”

    Bad decision model & policy analysis (can’t think of a reason exactly, but I’m sure there are)

    Negates system theory thinking & the misunderstands the multi-dimensional nature of the laws of causality (the aff does too), but to a lesser extent. The types of risk taking the aff is involved in are different.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: