Author: Matt Liu, University of Wyoming Director of Debate Quickdraw posts are snapshot reflections that are usually spurred by observations the WDR staff have while judging at Wyoming tournaments. This quickdraw is about vagueness arguments in policy debate. Wyoming debaters love to talk about vagueness! There's some ups and downs to this phenomenon, but I think to make arguments about vagueness more effective we need to reconceptualize how they're executed. In short, vagueness arguments should almost always be made as solvency deficits, not as procedural arguments. In addition, debaters should avoid asking how the plan is implemented, and instead make arguments about what the normal means of implementation would be based on their strategic self-interest. Read the complete article below the fold. The most common vagueness argument is about a disconnect between the plan and solvency. Here are some examples:
Let's talk about that funding debate. The aff could (arguably) specify a funding mechanism in the plan. However, most of the time they won't. The major reason why is specifying how the plan is funded guarantees competition for counterplans that offer alternative funding mechanisms, and the aff wants to avoid that. The aff can't dodge the DA debate (more on this later), but most 2As aren't in the business of handing the neg guaranteed counterplans. So how do we determine how the plan is paid for when the aff doesn't specify? The answer is normal means, and that is determined through a debate about what the most likely implementation of the aff is. There are a lot of different ways you can argue what normal means is. You could look to what the advocates for a program call for. Some major federal job guarantee advocates like Senators Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren think it should be funded by a wealth tax, so you could argue that is the likely normal means of funding. You could also define words in the plan (or resolution) to support your interpretation. For example, defining “fiscal redistribution” as “tax and transfer” will support the idea that the aff has to be funded through taxation. The neg might want to make this argument to get links based off a big new tax (for an econ DA or the IRS DA, for example). On the other hand, you could point to political realities like GOP control of the House. Maybe Republicans would insist that a major new social spending program be funded by reducing funding to existing social safety net programs. The neg might want to advance this argument to get the link to tradeoff turns or DAs. Social security is paid for through payroll taxes, so maybe an expansion of social security would be paid for by expanding payroll taxes. The aff might want to say that historically the USFG is not shy of funding major new programs through deficit spending. They could say this to avoid links to taxes and tradeoff DAs. Which of these is right? It's a debate! The side that better defends the warrants for their position will win. You are better served by advancing an argument about what the normal means of the aff is than asking questions about it. This is particularly true in cross-x: argue, don't ask. When you ask, for example, how the plan is funded, you give the aff an ethos edge. You give them the high ground. You don't need to ask about something if you already know the answer. When you do, the judge will automatically doubt future arguments you make about this. If you knew, why did you ask? Confidently control the terrain of the debate by instead making the argument that serves your interest. This might just mean not raising the funding question right away. Instead, advance your argument in the 1NC (ex: wealth tax econ DA) and let the link debate about how the plan is funded play out from there. The neg should also pick a lane. You have strategic self-interest in making an argument about how the plan is implemented or funded. Do you want the aff to be a wealth tax because you have great arguments that that's bad? Argue the aff is a wealth tax. Do you want to read the tradeoff turn to cancel out the aff's solvency or win a DA to another social safety net program? Argue the aff trades-off with existing social safety net programs. Don't waffle between these or proffer that the aff could be either: pick the path that's beneficial for you and stick to it. This is just as true for the solvency questions addressed above. Is a "Federal Indian Health Insurance Program" pretty vague? You betcha. There's a thousand different ways that idea could play out, with major differences in how the program would work. Rather than phrase this as a procedural objection, however, make an argument about how it would likely play out that strategically benefits you. For example, if the aff said indigenous-run clinics are key to solvency, argue that a FIHIP doesn't result in indigenous-run clinics. Argue that normal means is the USFG will continue to think they know what's best for natives, because that's what they're doing in the status quo -- as indicated by the aff's own evidence! Is "green jobs" a pretty vague phrase? Yeah, I think so. Wind and solar jump to my mind, but I bet Republican Senators and Representatives from fossil fuel states think carbon capture on coal power plant stacks is a "green" job. If the aff results in funding the coal industry through carbon capture programs, does that implicate aff solvency? Maybe, maybe not. It's a debate! Vagueness arguments as procedurals usually don't play out well for the negative. Instead of advancing a procedural vagueness concern, try identifying your self-interest. What do you want the aff implementation to look like? What gets you the best DA links and case args? Then make an argument that that is what the normal means of the aff would be, an argument backed by good reasons.
0 Comments
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
MissionWyoming Debate Roundup is dedicated to providing quality debate content to Wyoming and Rocky Mountain area high school debaters. We’re a resource for Wyoming debaters by Wyoming debate coaches. Categories
All
Archives
February 2024
|