Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Jump to topic:

Abusive Argumentation

debatability
Posts: 1,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 5:40:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A recent debate competition has got me thinking, what exactly makes an argument "abusive?"
Usually abusive argumentation is considered to be an argument that allows the one debater to have less ground than the other.
Looking at the recent resolution, "Just societies ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased." I ran into problems with my neg case which advocated for multiple contradicting counterplans... which i argued should be considered viable options because every society is different. Since no society is fully just, the burden on the negative would be to show that one of their plans (rather than presumed consent) would increase harmony within the population and itself for a society with problems that specific plan can solve.

I didn't really think about such an argument being abusive until the competition, simply because I've rarely encountered problems with abusive arguments before. I've never really been taught specifically what makes an argument abusive. Evaluating my case, I can understand why such ideas would be unfair, given that the affirmative cannot successfully attack 3 or 4 organ procurement systems in the small time allotted to them, while the negative only attacks one. Also, with such argumentation, the negative has 3 to 4 times more ground than the affirmative.

Which brings me to a couple questions:
1. Would such a case be considered "abusive" on a site like DDO given that it is written debate, rather than spoken?
2. How would you, as a debater, react to a case such as that?
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 5:48:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Abusive arguments are always interesting to think about. As a general benchmark for what's abusive or not, you're right that if it's denying your opponent debating ground or making it impossible to win, it's probably abusive. As an example for what an absuive argument is I always refer back to skepticism; it's an issue that if the Neg is winning will win them the debate, but if the aff is winning isn't sufficient to win. But the aff also HAS to respond to it otherwise they lose.

As for your case, I couldn't really tell you if it was abusive or what I would do against it if I heard it in a round because just that; I haven't heard it in a round.

Just from hearing about it briefly though it doesn't sound abusive. You're basically just advocating that there are Alts to PC and because there are Alts then there's no reason to default to presumed consent. That doesn't really sound abusive.
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
MonetaryOffset
Posts: 559
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 5:53:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 5:40:12 PM, debatability wrote:
A recent debate competition has got me thinking, what exactly makes an argument "abusive?"
Usually abusive argumentation is considered to be an argument that allows the one debater to have less ground than the other.
Looking at the recent resolution, "Just societies ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased." I ran into problems with my neg case which advocated for multiple contradicting counterplans... which i argued should be considered viable options because every society is different. Since no society is fully just, the burden on the negative would be to show that one of their plans (rather than presumed consent) would increase harmony within the population and itself for a society with problems that specific plan can solve.

I didn't really think about such an argument being abusive until the competition, simply because I've rarely encountered problems with abusive arguments before. I've never really been taught specifically what makes an argument abusive. Evaluating my case, I can understand why such ideas would be unfair, given that the affirmative cannot successfully attack 3 or 4 organ procurement systems in the small time allotted to them, while the negative only attacks one. Also, with such argumentation, the negative has 3 to 4 times more ground than the affirmative.

Which brings me to a couple questions:
1. Would such a case be considered "abusive" on a site like DDO given that it is written debate, rather than spoken?
2. How would you, as a debater, react to a case such as that?

I obviously know nothing about formal debate, so take what I have to say with a grain of salt, but I personally don't consider what you did abusive. In fact, I think it was clever. I've always viewed counterplans as daring, as they require you to take on at least half of the burden of proof. It would be safe, I would think, to merely attack one case and force your opponent on the defensive, instead of being able to flesh out their arguments in light of your case. Indeed, it's slightly easier in some respects if you had three counterplans, but that only means that you had less time to allocate to defending each.

So, I don't think what you did was even close to abusive.
~JMK

9:43 P.M. EST, Nov 5, 2014: I became a basic white girl.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 6:07:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Are these things abusive or unethical in debating.

1. If your opponent has multiple debates watching them closely so you can post your argument with perfect timing so they are forced to give it less attention.

2. Mostly using good sources but peppering in one that helps your case. And will be overlooked that is complete BS. What's the chances of somebody checks all 20 citations?

3. Just making up stuff when your opponent uses a bunch of jargon, because you know that your opponent is speaking over the voters' heads and the voters will just be annoyed and believe what you say.

4. Intentionally misrepresenting what statistics mean, say and are.

5. Making a few short arguments that you know are BS but also know will eat up a lot of your opponent's word count so your real arguments slip through without adequate space to refute them.
whiteflame
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 6:08:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 5:40:12 PM, debatability wrote:
A recent debate competition has got me thinking, what exactly makes an argument "abusive?"
Usually abusive argumentation is considered to be an argument that allows the one debater to have less ground than the other.
Looking at the recent resolution, "Just societies ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased." I ran into problems with my neg case which advocated for multiple contradicting counterplans... which i argued should be considered viable options because every society is different. Since no society is fully just, the burden on the negative would be to show that one of their plans (rather than presumed consent) would increase harmony within the population and itself for a society with problems that specific plan can solve.

I didn't really think about such an argument being abusive until the competition, simply because I've rarely encountered problems with abusive arguments before. I've never really been taught specifically what makes an argument abusive. Evaluating my case, I can understand why such ideas would be unfair, given that the affirmative cannot successfully attack 3 or 4 organ procurement systems in the small time allotted to them, while the negative only attacks one. Also, with such argumentation, the negative has 3 to 4 times more ground than the affirmative.

Which brings me to a couple questions:
1. Would such a case be considered "abusive" on a site like DDO given that it is written debate, rather than spoken?
2. How would you, as a debater, react to a case such as that?

1. Yes and no.

Yes, in that as a debater, I would argue that it's abusive for my opponent to have access to multiple counterplans whereas I can only have one advocacy. I believe that to be a valid claim, as I would argue that it's abusive to allow my opponent multiple advocacies that they can boot out of under any justification.

No, in that as a judge, I wouldn't vote on it. I don't view it as a case of abuse, per say, but rather a case of trying to distract attention. If the opponent falls for it, I accept that it's an effective ruse, though I might deduct conduct. If someone, however, makes the argument I posed above, then I would only regard one of their counterplans as an actual advocacy, and the others would simply be treated as alternatives without substance.

2. I'd levy the argument I gave above first, though it would be more detailed and talk about what ground should be allowed to the opposition in the debate.

The second thing I'd do is knock each of them out with claims of vagueness. If you're presenting multiple counterplans, you're probably explaining very few (if any) of them well. I'd say that we don't know how most of them function, and therefore we should ignore them within the debate. They can't just be unexplained alternatives, they have to be fleshed out, just like the case proper. I'd probably throw in some "no link/impact/brink/warrant" just to make sure they're tossed aside, and perhaps throw out a few turns on those that have gotten more justification. That gives me some offense on your offense, turning the ground advantage against you.
YYW
Posts: 36,294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 7:02:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Zaradi and Whiteflame have both laid out pretty good explanations of what constitutes abusive argumentation. I just want to add that what constitutes "abuse" is still pretty subjective. While there may be a fairly clear standard for what makes an abusive argument abusive, the application of that standard gets into murky ground. Especially with policy debaters who claim that their opponents are being "abusive" it's clear that a theory based retort comes only when there are no others. If it's justified, I might vote against someone if I think that it's incontrovertible that an argument is abusive but I say "might" because I've never seen such an argument in the eight or so years I've been doing this. Ever. Not at local, circuit or the national tournament.

Typically, semantic arguments are the ones I've seen people describe as "abusive" most commonly (like, arguments over the definitions over words) such that one debater is trying to "define" their way to victory. That would appear to, as Zaradi said, leave the opponent no argumentative ground. But really, if the scope of the debate has shifted to semantics, there are bigger problems at hand. Even still, I've never seen a normative argument I thought was abusive.

Positive arguments are abusive by definition, because the answer is the kind of thing that can be stated objectively. (There is no argumentative ground against an objectively true statement, just as there is no argumentative ground against a false statement.) The meaning of a word, for example, can be objectively known -and sometimes (like the conditional aid LD resolution) the very definition of "humanitarian" as an adjective had some broader implications to both sides, which generally made that one of the worst LD topics that the NFL has chosen in recent memory. Even still, there is no such thing as an abusive normative argument -and insofar as all arguments over "ought" questions are normative, they cannot be abusive. Generally, if you think your opponent is making an abusive argument, I'd suggest being creative in how you respond. The perception that an argument is, itself, abusive, is usually the result of the "oh crap!" moment debaters have when they can't think of anything else to say.

But, there are all kinds of methods of argumentation which are abusive. Let's be clear to distinguish abusive "kinds" or "strategies" of debate with "abusive arguments" themselves. You're a lot more likely to run into abusive "strategies" than abusive "arguments." Whiteflame mentioned this, and I'm going to elaborate on it.

Scattershot argumentation is kind of the debate equivalent of shock and awe. LDers, PFers and Policy nuts in progressive districts tend to be the worst for this. They'll have five contentions and twenty sub contentions each with their individual sub sub contentions and the like. Most of what they say will be weak, cheap and hollow but progressive/tabula rasa judges will reward that kind of nonsense because when the voting issues are addressed at the end of the debate and 15 of the 20 sub contentions in three of the five contentions went unaddressed -that gives the appearance of a 'manufactured' loss. That's an abusive tactic, but the only reason it exists is because there are certain judges who reward it. This is one of among many reasons Policy has become such a worthless event, but I digress.

Falsifying evidence is an abusive strategy. In more colloquial terms, this is the tactic known as bullshitting. The intentional or unintentional misrepresentation of evidence in favor of one's side is just about as "abusive" as it gets, in terms of strategies. It's really common, especially with novices, and with shitty LDers who overstate the impact of their own evidence such that it makes it impossible for a reasonable judge not to vote for them. The whole point of normative debate is that, at least in theory, the available evidence for each side is such that both sides are argumentatively viable. Bullshitting makes that an impossibility, and I've seen ignorant judges (or shitty tabula rasa judges who just assume that the debaters got their facts correct) award victory on that even though debater's opponent's called out their nonsense.

There are other examples, but those are the ones I thought I'd address here.
Tsar of DDO
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 8:36:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 5:40:12 PM, debatability wrote:
A recent debate competition has got me thinking, what exactly makes an argument "abusive?"
Usually abusive argumentation is considered to be an argument that allows the one debater to have less ground than the other.
Looking at the recent resolution, "Just societies ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased." I ran into problems with my neg case which advocated for multiple contradicting counterplans... which i argued should be considered viable options because every society is different. Since no society is fully just, the burden on the negative would be to show that one of their plans (rather than presumed consent) would increase harmony within the population and itself for a society with problems that specific plan can solve.

I didn't really think about such an argument being abusive until the competition, simply because I've rarely encountered problems with abusive arguments before. I've never really been taught specifically what makes an argument abusive. Evaluating my case, I can understand why such ideas would be unfair, given that the affirmative cannot successfully attack 3 or 4 organ procurement systems in the small time allotted to them, while the negative only attacks one. Also, with such argumentation, the negative has 3 to 4 times more ground than the affirmative.

Which brings me to a couple questions:
1. Would such a case be considered "abusive" on a site like DDO given that it is written debate, rather than spoken?

No, most people on DDO don't care about theory arguments. You can get away with a lot.

2. How would you, as a debater, react to a case such as that?

I wouldn't care. I think it's poor topic drafting, not the debater's fault. The reason presumed consent is a super-neg biased topic is precisely because neg can propose a lot of different systems, most of which are better.

The only legitimate abuse arguments are in Policy and LD when the Neg tries to run a bunch of "conditional" arguments to get a "time skew" so that the affirmative can't answer. Both events are special in that affirmative has less time in the following speech than the negative. In policy, the negative team has 13 minutes in the "block" (the 2NR and 1NR) and the affirmative has only 5 minutes to answer. It's unfair to run 16 counterplans because you're spreading the affirmative too thin just for the sake of winning, and ultimately, you only go for one of them in the 2NR. It results in a very shallow debate because Aff can only put one response on each counterplan. The time skew in LD isn't quite as bad -- 5 min to answer a 7 min speech if I remember correctly. I don't judge LD, but I'd have a harder time voting for "conditionality" type arguments in LD, given the time skew isn't as bad.

I think theory is never an issue in PF. Each team has exactly the same amount of time, staggered in the same way.

The only other time abuse comes in is on topic interpretation. I'll reject an abusive interpretation that gives one team NO ground or too little ground. Too little ground means I can't think of a round-winning argument they can make. They only have non-persuasive arguments open to them.

However, like with all theory, there's a key question of whether you reject the argument or the team. An abusive interpretation of the topic just means you reject that interpretation in favor of a more reasonable one. A time skew is not correctable. You have to vote down the team that did it. That's the only available remedy.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 8:47:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 8:36:51 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 10/4/2014 5:40:12 PM, debatability wrote:
A recent debate competition has got me thinking, what exactly makes an argument "abusive?"
Usually abusive argumentation is considered to be an argument that allows the one debater to have less ground than the other.
Looking at the recent resolution, "Just societies ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased." I ran into problems with my neg case which advocated for multiple contradicting counterplans... which i argued should be considered viable options because every society is different. Since no society is fully just, the burden on the negative would be to show that one of their plans (rather than presumed consent) would increase harmony within the population and itself for a society with problems that specific plan can solve.

I didn't really think about such an argument being abusive until the competition, simply because I've rarely encountered problems with abusive arguments before. I've never really been taught specifically what makes an argument abusive. Evaluating my case, I can understand why such ideas would be unfair, given that the affirmative cannot successfully attack 3 or 4 organ procurement systems in the small time allotted to them, while the negative only attacks one. Also, with such argumentation, the negative has 3 to 4 times more ground than the affirmative.

Which brings me to a couple questions:
1. Would such a case be considered "abusive" on a site like DDO given that it is written debate, rather than spoken?

No, most people on DDO don't care about theory arguments. You can get away with a lot.

2. How would you, as a debater, react to a case such as that?

I wouldn't care. I think it's poor topic drafting, not the debater's fault. The reason presumed consent is a super-neg biased topic is precisely because neg can propose a lot of different systems, most of which are better.

The only legitimate abuse arguments are in Policy and LD when the Neg tries to run a bunch of "conditional" arguments to get a "time skew" so that the affirmative can't answer. Both events are special in that affirmative has less time in the following speech than the negative. In policy, the negative team has 13 minutes in the "block" (the 2NR and 1NR) and the affirmative has only 5 minutes to answer. It's unfair to run 16 counterplans because you're spreading the affirmative too thin just for the sake of winning, and ultimately, you only go for one of them in the 2NR. It results in a very shallow debate because Aff can only put one response on each counterplan. The time skew in LD isn't quite as bad -- 5 min to answer a 7 min speech if I remember correctly. I don't judge LD, but I'd have a harder time voting for "conditionality" type arguments in LD, given the time skew isn't as bad.

It's a 4 to 7 time skew, but that's enough to give a neg the advantaged there.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
Zaradi
Posts: 14,125
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 9:00:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 8:47:26 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/4/2014 8:36:51 PM, bluesteel wrote:
At 10/4/2014 5:40:12 PM, debatability wrote:
A recent debate competition has got me thinking, what exactly makes an argument "abusive?"
Usually abusive argumentation is considered to be an argument that allows the one debater to have less ground than the other.
Looking at the recent resolution, "Just societies ought to presume consent for organ procurement from the deceased." I ran into problems with my neg case which advocated for multiple contradicting counterplans... which i argued should be considered viable options because every society is different. Since no society is fully just, the burden on the negative would be to show that one of their plans (rather than presumed consent) would increase harmony within the population and itself for a society with problems that specific plan can solve.

I didn't really think about such an argument being abusive until the competition, simply because I've rarely encountered problems with abusive arguments before. I've never really been taught specifically what makes an argument abusive. Evaluating my case, I can understand why such ideas would be unfair, given that the affirmative cannot successfully attack 3 or 4 organ procurement systems in the small time allotted to them, while the negative only attacks one. Also, with such argumentation, the negative has 3 to 4 times more ground than the affirmative.

Which brings me to a couple questions:
1. Would such a case be considered "abusive" on a site like DDO given that it is written debate, rather than spoken?

No, most people on DDO don't care about theory arguments. You can get away with a lot.

2. How would you, as a debater, react to a case such as that?

I wouldn't care. I think it's poor topic drafting, not the debater's fault. The reason presumed consent is a super-neg biased topic is precisely because neg can propose a lot of different systems, most of which are better.

The only legitimate abuse arguments are in Policy and LD when the Neg tries to run a bunch of "conditional" arguments to get a "time skew" so that the affirmative can't answer. Both events are special in that affirmative has less time in the following speech than the negative. In policy, the negative team has 13 minutes in the "block" (the 2NR and 1NR) and the affirmative has only 5 minutes to answer. It's unfair to run 16 counterplans because you're spreading the affirmative too thin just for the sake of winning, and ultimately, you only go for one of them in the 2NR. It results in a very shallow debate because Aff can only put one response on each counterplan. The time skew in LD isn't quite as bad -- 5 min to answer a 7 min speech if I remember correctly. I don't judge LD, but I'd have a harder time voting for "conditionality" type arguments in LD, given the time skew isn't as bad.

It's a 4 to 7 time skew, but that's enough to give a neg the advantaged there.

Yeah the 7-4 skew is a b*tch to overcome. I remember constantly having to drill giving 1ARs because I always mismanaged my time in the 1AR
Want to debate? Pick a topic and hit me up! - http://www.debate.org...
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/4/2014 9:04:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 9:00:59 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 10/4/2014 8:47:26 PM, bsh1 wrote:
It's a 4 to 7 time skew, but that's enough to give a neg the advantaged there.

Yeah the 7-4 skew is a b*tch to overcome. I remember constantly having to drill giving 1ARs because I always mismanaged my time in the 1AR

It is a difficult speech, and everyone has their own strategy to tackling it, but if the neg spreads, it can be very unfair to the Aff.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
debatability
Posts: 1,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 12:05:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
i appreciate the in depth responses. it's interesting to see what everyone thinks. i wasn't expecting my case to be taken that way but during my first round (where the judge suprisingly disclosed) the judge explained that while i did win, he found my case to be extremely abusive and gave me minimum speaker points. if this adds any credibility to the judge, this was the person who won nationals and placed 3rd at harvard last year. i ran into a similar problem in all the rounds with such a case... and it does make sense when taking into a count the 7 vs. 4 minute speech times
debatability
Posts: 1,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 12:07:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/4/2014 9:04:46 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/4/2014 9:00:59 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 10/4/2014 8:47:26 PM, bsh1 wrote:
It's a 4 to 7 time skew, but that's enough to give a neg the advantaged there.

Yeah the 7-4 skew is a b*tch to overcome. I remember constantly having to drill giving 1ARs because I always mismanaged my time in the 1AR

It is a difficult speech, and everyone has their own strategy to tackling it, but if the neg spreads, it can be very unfair to the Aff.

definitely true.
in relation to the last tournament i went to, i should clarify that i never spread... however looking at it through the eyes of my opponent, it's probably very hard to successfully attack 3 or 4 counterplans as well as framework WHILE rebuilding their own case in such a short amount of time.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 1:08:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/5/2014 12:07:43 AM, debatability wrote:
At 10/4/2014 9:04:46 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/4/2014 9:00:59 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 10/4/2014 8:47:26 PM, bsh1 wrote:
It's a 4 to 7 time skew, but that's enough to give a neg the advantaged there.

Yeah the 7-4 skew is a b*tch to overcome. I remember constantly having to drill giving 1ARs because I always mismanaged my time in the 1AR

It is a difficult speech, and everyone has their own strategy to tackling it, but if the neg spreads, it can be very unfair to the Aff.

definitely true.
in relation to the last tournament i went to, i should clarify that i never spread... however looking at it through the eyes of my opponent, it's probably very hard to successfully attack 3 or 4 counterplans as well as framework WHILE rebuilding their own case in such a short amount of time.

Honestly, as a judge, I wouldn't vote you down, but I'd hate seeing you run 4 counterplans. It means the depth of the debate will be really shallow. You just can't do any of those counterplans justice allocating 2 min or less to each. I'd rather see you pick one, like financial incentives or mandated choice, and offer a more in-depth analysis about why it's better than presumed consent.

I personally don't buy your "best fit for the society" argument. The net benefits from each is not unique to the society. Financial incentives are good because they theoretically benefit both parties (more organs, money to pay for the funeral). Mandated choice is good because it better upholds autonomy.

Maybe if you explained your argument better, I wouldn't dislike it as much, but it sounds kinda generic to me. Let each society choose. I don't like wishy-washy advocacies.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
debatability
Posts: 1,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 1:23:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/5/2014 1:08:36 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 10/5/2014 12:07:43 AM, debatability wrote:
At 10/4/2014 9:04:46 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/4/2014 9:00:59 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 10/4/2014 8:47:26 PM, bsh1 wrote:
It's a 4 to 7 time skew, but that's enough to give a neg the advantaged there.

Yeah the 7-4 skew is a b*tch to overcome. I remember constantly having to drill giving 1ARs because I always mismanaged my time in the 1AR

It is a difficult speech, and everyone has their own strategy to tackling it, but if the neg spreads, it can be very unfair to the Aff.

definitely true.
in relation to the last tournament i went to, i should clarify that i never spread... however looking at it through the eyes of my opponent, it's probably very hard to successfully attack 3 or 4 counterplans as well as framework WHILE rebuilding their own case in such a short amount of time.

Honestly, as a judge, I wouldn't vote you down, but I'd hate seeing you run 4 counterplans. It means the depth of the debate will be really shallow. You just can't do any of those counterplans justice allocating 2 min or less to each. I'd rather see you pick one, like financial incentives or mandated choice, and offer a more in-depth analysis about why it's better than presumed consent.

I personally don't buy your "best fit for the society" argument. The net benefits from each is not unique to the society. Financial incentives are good because they theoretically benefit both parties (more organs, money to pay for the funeral). Mandated choice is good because it better upholds autonomy.

Maybe if you explained your argument better, I wouldn't dislike it as much, but it sounds kinda generic to me. Let each society choose. I don't like wishy-washy advocacies.

Very true. The debates I did ended up focusing more on my framework of maximizing choice and less on why the actual counterplans are bad. I actually only ran three at the beginning and I was able to put a *decent* amount of time into each. I think the main problem with the case was that I wasn't able to elaborate on the plans as much as I would have wanted to. I could have with spreading, but I'm usually opposed to that. I'm actually planning on debating this case on ddo soon, so that should give clarification pertaining to the idea that every society has different needs.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2014 3:45:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/5/2014 1:23:21 AM, debatability wrote:
At 10/5/2014 1:08:36 AM, bluesteel wrote:
At 10/5/2014 12:07:43 AM, debatability wrote:
At 10/4/2014 9:04:46 PM, bsh1 wrote:
At 10/4/2014 9:00:59 PM, Zaradi wrote:
At 10/4/2014 8:47:26 PM, bsh1 wrote:
It's a 4 to 7 time skew, but that's enough to give a neg the advantaged there.

Yeah the 7-4 skew is a b*tch to overcome. I remember constantly having to drill giving 1ARs because I always mismanaged my time in the 1AR

It is a difficult speech, and everyone has their own strategy to tackling it, but if the neg spreads, it can be very unfair to the Aff.

definitely true.
in relation to the last tournament i went to, i should clarify that i never spread... however looking at it through the eyes of my opponent, it's probably very hard to successfully attack 3 or 4 counterplans as well as framework WHILE rebuilding their own case in such a short amount of time.

Honestly, as a judge, I wouldn't vote you down, but I'd hate seeing you run 4 counterplans. It means the depth of the debate will be really shallow. You just can't do any of those counterplans justice allocating 2 min or less to each. I'd rather see you pick one, like financial incentives or mandated choice, and offer a more in-depth analysis about why it's better than presumed consent.

I personally don't buy your "best fit for the society" argument. The net benefits from each is not unique to the society. Financial incentives are good because they theoretically benefit both parties (more organs, money to pay for the funeral). Mandated choice is good because it better upholds autonomy.

Maybe if you explained your argument better, I wouldn't dislike it as much, but it sounds kinda generic to me. Let each society choose. I don't like wishy-washy advocacies.

Very true. The debates I did ended up focusing more on my framework of maximizing choice and less on why the actual counterplans are bad. I actually only ran three at the beginning and I was able to put a *decent* amount of time into each. I think the main problem with the case was that I wasn't able to elaborate on the plans as much as I would have wanted to. I could have with spreading, but I'm usually opposed to that. I'm actually planning on debating this case on ddo soon, so that should give clarification pertaining to the idea that every society has different needs.

I'm interested to see how you argued it.... I don't think it's as good as just arguing one or two of those counterplans straight up. I've heard similar arguments before. I don't think it's the right approach to policymaking. People respond to incentives that are near universal. You pick the organ donation policy that maximizes donations while minimizing problems dealing with bodily autonomy and consent.

I think mandated choice and financial incentives are easy to argue. You compare donation rates in mandated choice and presumed consent states. They're about the same. But mandated choice simply changes the default at the DMV from "check to box to become a donor" to "check the box to opt out of donating." It plays on the power of default. In contrast, presumed consent is horribly invasive and assumes ("presumes") without ever asking that everyone has consented to the state taking their organs. It feels a bit like body snatchers. If presumed consent is okay, so is necrophilia (without consent). You're dead, so you lose all interest in your body. Someone can f**k it without your consent. Cuz you're dead. Presumed consent assumes there is no dignitary interest.

Financial incentives are also autonomy upholding because they acknowledge that you have a property interest in your body. You own your body. Simply taking someone's organs when they die is like stealing. In fact, it's arguably unconstitutional under the Takings Clause, since organs have real value (a kidney sold for $5 million on eBay once, which shows the approximate value of a kidney based on high demand).

These are universal arguments. Personally, if a Pro debater answered your entire "societal choice" framework by saying that we should prefer the policy that gets the most donations because lives outweigh, that 15 second response is a sufficient answer for me on your framework. I don't see why "societal tailoring" outweighs lives. And if lives are the important metric, you have to prove that the other methods are at least as effective. "Choice" is hard to quantify. I guess autonomy is also hard to quantify, which is why it's better if you can prove equal or nearly equal donation rates. But even so, I would value bodily autonomy and consent above "societal choice." To me, your argument is overly simplistic. It's like saying that a buffet is automatically better than ordering a la carte because you have more options. But a fancy steakhouse is simply better than Souplantation. There are more important metrics when judging food than mere "choice." If that's true with food, it should be even more true with complex systems like organ donation policies.

Also, to me the death blow to your argument is that people can and do choose presumed consent. So your "choice" framework justifies an Aff vote as much as Neg. Many European countries (which are democracies) have chosen presumed consent. So you can't prove "ought not" just because some societies might choose something else. That doesn't prove that a society would become "unjust" merely by adopting it.

A better framework is that in a utilitarian calculation, if an alternate system can achieve near-equal donation rates but with less of a violation of autonomy then you would prefer that system as more utility maximizing.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
debatability
Posts: 1,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2014 4:07:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/5/2014 3:22:46 PM, UchihaMadara wrote:
Thanks to everyone in this thread for the help you have given me in my upcoming debate with Debatability on this subject.

oops
you were NOT supposed to see this thread