Skip to content
January 1, 2014 / compassioninpolitics

Revealing the Status of Arguments–The Case Against Secrecy of the Status of Counterplans and Critiques (Dispositionality and Conditionality)

Because its more of a truth-seeking and educational event than a strategic win at any costs one.
Your commitment to what you say is a key component of the speech process and the debate process.
Not saying is another link to theory.
And it doesn’t actually destroy advocacy…..that time of advocacy is out of “Art of War” not out of Aristotles Rhetoric or other texts on truthfinding. Its anti-thetical to the education process, which goes beyond game-personship. Your rhetorical assertion to the contrary doesn’t come to terms with this fundamental fact.

In a world of secrecy, we might as well result to other tactics of war as welll……where we steal evidence or use power in the round etc… You open up a large can of worms.

See also the literature around “Open Source Debate”–its the exact opposite argument pretty much.

————————————————————————————————————–

The ballot is uniqueness for theory.

Also, the SQ theory and community is antithetical your theory….so thats the uniqueness.

The idea of theory and non-uniqueness is pretty absurd–no theory would win ever. Its all about linear degrees–its game of inches of abuse and those inches matter.

Your argument though is analogous to picking any argument and saying you wont answer cross-examination about it.

Either arbitrarily or for strategic reasons.

Intent I think it irrelevant.

Reciprocal openness creates a level playing field.

This creates a radical strategy skew. And….new advocacy shifts in the 2nr are tantamount to new arguments. Thats an independent voter.

And it justifies entirely new 2ar strategies. Not my fault you don’t get a 3nr (don’t start none won’t be none) aka you started it.

Even if you decided to reveal earlier–I think the insinuation that you could justifies a WHOLE LOT OF NEW arguments flexibility on the aff that were “latent” or “secret” until later.

Also….this is functional conditionality anyway. Thats what it is. But its conditionality in drag.

————————
>>>”why disclosing the 2nr options before the 2ac is key.”

Argument status or function. Its clarification. Not answering cross-ex questions is shady. You are hiding behind obsfication in a way thats unreciprocal and unfair–given they answered your questions.

——————————————————————————————————————————–

>”There are an infinite number of theoretical objections.”

Factually not true. Theory files would be the size of schools or even the universe….not 30 to 100 pages long.

The distinction between round & non-round is silly. Because its application is in round–this argument pretty much only has meaning in so far as its run in debate.

“There are an infinite number of theoretical objections. ”

It does prove though that fiat is almost totally unneccessary. Thought experiments and scenario planning don’t require fiat per se (at least I don’t think–I’ve only been kicking this around in my head for less than a day). Also proves why K alts are just as bad as the aff. Although at the end of the day….you still probably have framework args to deal with. It doesn’t get you all that far.

Community fairness norms are important–they preserve community. And community and fairness trumps strategy. Thats why we are so open about arguments and cites and even whole cases. Openness and reciprocity is the norm. You violate that norm.

Its a forced choice–its a choice between collegial and hyper-competivie–one world or the other–inch by inch. We have no need to be hyper-secrecy agents–that doesn’t serve the educational institutions or our long term education or truth seeking function.

You shatter a community norm based on collegial and open exchange in the context of reciprocal exchange of information.

And you uniquely destroy our ability to determine if your end game strategy will be. Given the aff is far more tied to a stable advocacy–if anything the neg should be more stable–less conditional. Those conditionalities infinitely increase with the explicit goal of strat skew versus education and fairness.

Voting neg. risks a downward spiral of community norms by rewarding a new vector or opportunity for secrecy & neg shadiness.
In normal discussions the issue of credibility and advocacy hinges on you not being shady–being the Dick Cheney versus the Dan Shalmon of debate. You choose to be Smithers (on the Simpsons) or Socrates. The choice is yours.

>>>”The advocacies in the 1nc are the only advocacies that could be in the 2nr”

How they fit together is important…..(or else why aren’t you telling me). The impact gets back to the contradictions & thus the truth debate.

I just ran and did an errand before I typed this out…and thought about a potential idea. Something around the issue of community/ethic of care versus the ethic of strategy and power. I think it would have to be out of the feminist literature……but possibly other ones. Also there are probably a TON of k links around security……this massively skews the negs. advocacy on the K given its in round use of power/secrecy…..(given I’m only talking). And you could make the later arguments without any literature base–although it would probably help. My guess is there is a secondary source in terms of foucault about this.

>>>>”Link uniqueness matters in all arguments in my opinion. Take arguments like side bias. If the neg has the block thats a warrant as to saying that the neg is ahead. That’s not a reason to vote aff, but it’s a uniqueness answer to ground in a theory debate.”

I’m not sure how this makes sense in the context of other theory arguments which are more analogous to this particular issue.

This is based on an idea of stacking fairness on one side or the other–it seems to hedge more against you than for you. (i haven’t fully developed this argument….sorry)

Or you could make the argument this is double-dispositionality or double-conditionality……the confluence of theory arguments creates unique abuse. No other team or very few do.

—————————————————————————————————————————–

>>>>>”Regardless of how any of us feel about this, switch side debate checks the potential abuse on either side.”

Ok aff or neg should always win–switch side checks abuse. Excellent theory.

To me most of the abuse of this isn’t potential–its actual. The ability of me not to fully check your contradictions or how they will be advocated until the 2nr seems ridiculous.
You not taking any stand on the position….means you aren’t taking a position on your ethics….means my severance perms and other shady perms are now justified.
Me running new perms in the 2ar is also justified. They were just my secret, secret perms.

>>>>>”However, i still don’t see any answer to the point i’ve made above about how at the end of the day, the cp/k is still going to be run as condo, regardless of whether advocacy status’ are disclosed or not.”

Which is to say….your condo bad links apply or??????

>>>>> “Whether or not there is an aff bias this year, it goes without saying that disclosing advocacy status’ gives the aff an advantage that is not directly reciprocal to the negative team.”

There is an implied reveal of the aff when they read the plan text–absent theory craziness by the neg.

Also, they have to come out about it, if you ask. Or thats the implied community norm which serves education.

Plus, there is the external impact to “credibility” as well as “advocacy”
1) running shady arguments. running super-secret arguments
2) running contradictory arguments
should be assigned less credibility–prefer our arguments. They also destroy neg. advocacy of the alternative. Saying for an anti-capitalist to say both globalization good and globalization bad–fundamentally causes paralysis and confuses any potential movement–it directly undercuts it. If the anti-war movement says hege good and hege bad–they aren’t going to get alot of followers–and they aren’t going to achieve any change because they are constantly going to be shifting from one to the next without making any real headway in an attack. Thats politics 101. Thats movements 101. Thats psychology 101. Thats communication 101.

Advertisements

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: