A Question on PICS

[Dingess]

So at Jewell's debate camp today we were discussing PIC theory. Specifically how to theoretically object to PIC arguments when the resolution mandates the government team passing a large piece of legislation. Fore example

Rez: USFG should pass H.R. 3200
Plan: Usfg passes H.R. 3200
The only topical option for the affirmative is to pass H.R. 3200, however, a negative team could pick out of any of the hundreds of provisions in H.R. 3200 giving an unfair research burden on the affirmative. Now I think that there needs to be a unique theoretical objection to this kind of PIC. Just running PIC's bad is problematic because I and most judges believe that PIC's as a whole are not bad and I think very few rounds are won on that argument.

So we thought that a possible way to approach this argument would be to say when the Plan gives the affirmative team one topical option PIC's are illegitimate. I would argue that many resolutions that give government teams one topical option deal with large pieces of legislation, proposals, etc. I think that in policy these small PIC's were acceptable because you had one topic for an entire year but in Parli this becomes a problem.

We also discussed the possibility of requiring all PIC's to be textually and functionally competitive :shake but we didn't know how that would bode with judges/didn't really understand the argument ourselves.

Any thoughts would be appreciated

[Fife]

I know a lot of people disagree with me on this front and it's probably because I haven't found a way to articulate it properly, but I think there is room to say that those types of counterplans aren't competitive...

My thought process on this is twofold, the first being that amendments to the bills happen during the debate and passage of bills all the time, what fiat "does" seems to be neither static or stable, and as such leaves room for what is involved in the passage of plan, like amendments to remove objectionable portions of the plan.

Second, it would seem like an amendment such as that could happen even after the passage of plan, meaning that the plan itself doesn't preclude the counterplan from happening.

I've found those styles of arguments to be especially persuasive in front of judges that don't have a real concrete conception of what "fiat" is and/or does. To me, it makes sense as a kind of gut-check argument on whether or not that is a reason to reject the plan.

There would also be room for a topical counterplans bad discussion, which I am generally opposed to, but I think you could spin it in a slightly different light in these specific instances. In a world where the resolution is: "pass policy x" and the PIC is some sort of derivative of policy x, then the PIC would still be an affirmation of the resolution. Usually the defense for topical counterplans is derived from the gov's right to parametracize, but in a world where the resolution removes that advantage/right you might be able to get more weight out of the topical counterplans bad argument.

Also, you could go back to the whole amendments argument, claiming that the amendment that creates the PIC is normal means and thus the permutation of "do the counterplan" would be legitimate.

Like I said though, these arguments are all uphill battles, but in a world where you're going to get waxed on the impact debate, it may be worth the effort.

[Robear]

dingess after dark

I think a major factor when determining the legitmacy of a pic is how substantial the change to plan is. If you could find a way of proving that its simply a minor repair to ur plan then i think it'll be easier to prove illegitimacy.

[swanson]

From what I have seen at the camps I have gone to over the last 2 years and the discussions I have had there is a lean towards PICS needing to be textually competitive.
This just means you have to think for about 30 seconds more on the Neg.

As to functionally competitive I think this is still a little more discussion to be had on the subject that I have not been a part of before I can answer from a communal perspective.

The "substantial" change that Robear talks about is a good place to find ground to argue theory from but there is a rather dim brightline there. How much to to much, how much is enough, and how does it change round to round? I would make the argument for the time trade but I do not think that it is a likely winner in many to most situations.

I do think that a new discussion is warranted on this type of argument though. Recycling the old policy backfiles just isn't doing it right now I think. Calderwood has said it before and I agree; we need more parli specific theory arguments as opposed to policy arguments.

[CC Weaver]

Dingess:

Your argument re: research burden interests me . . . doesn't the neg have to do just as much research to FIND a flaw as the aff does to defend the flaw? If you have good reasons why these kinds of CP's skew the research burden, wouldn't that be a compelling argument to make in the standards debate on a PICs bad position?

Furthermore, aff's who research well know areas of the legislation that might be weak. You should probably build in some offensive reasons why the obvious PIC ground is good. For instance, in the HR3200 debate, you might want to read an argument about why having government insurance is good to preempt the "eliminate the public option" PIC.

Also:
I disagree with Fife (!!!!) regarding the topical counterplans argument. If the rez calls for passing legislation, and the CP passes a portion, but not all, of that legislation, then it would not be passing any past or current iteration (presumably) of the legislation, meaning it's non-topical.

[BReid]

doesn't the neg have to do just as much research to FIND a flaw as the aff does to defend the flaw?

Not really. The unique burden couched against the affirmative in these sort of situations is that they're expected to uphold the full 1000+ pages of a piece of legislation. As you may have guessed, it's difficult to, in twenty minutes, read through the full thousand pages of the bill i to block out every possible PIC that might arise as a result of sections and passages that are undesirable. Conversely, as the neg, it's really not difficult to skim a small section of a bill and find something worth PICing out of, writing your blocks, and being on your way.

[plush]

So at Jewell's debate camp today we were discussing PIC theory. Specifically how to theoretically object to PIC arguments when the resolution mandates the government team passing a large piece of legislation. Fore example

Rez: USFG should pass H.R. 3200
Plan: Usfg passes H.R. 3200
The only topical option for the affirmative is to pass H.R. 3200, however, a negative team could pick out of any of the hundreds of provisions in H.R. 3200 giving an unfair research burden on the affirmative. Now I think that there needs to be a unique theoretical objection to this kind of PIC. Just running PIC's bad is problematic because I and most judges believe that PIC's as a whole are not bad and I think very few rounds are won on that argument.

So we thought that a possible way to approach this argument would be to say when the Plan gives the affirmative team one topical option PIC's are illegitimate. I would argue that many resolutions that give government teams one topical option deal with large pieces of legislation, proposals, etc. I think that in policy these small PIC's were acceptable because you had one topic for an entire year but in Parli this becomes a problem.

We also discussed the possibility of requiring all PIC's to be textually and functionally competitive :shake but we didn't know how that would bode with judges/didn't really understand the argument ourselves.

Any thoughts would be appreciated

sometimes you don't always need a permutation to beat a c/p. i mean, throw down your theory. it's sorta like this (http://xkcd.com/628/)
. however, why don't you just run politics on the c/p? i mean, you know the pic is coming, and you know that the dems coalition in the house is based around passing this large bill as is, pelosi has sorta made that the big deal, if they pic out of something to placate republicans, and pass the modified hr3200, that prolly fractures the dems coalition in the house, which is solid now and key to such wonderful things as infrastructure, a new energy grid, solving global warming, prolly intervening in sudan, and a consistent and reasonable foreign policy. plus, straight turn whatever advantage they are running, stick them with the counterplan, and if they try to kick it, go for the abuse. you've all agreed health care is good but for the part they pic out of, the game isn't that hard at that part impact turn it, put on some extra offense, maybe a little defense saying what they say isn't as important, and try some theory. also:

perm: do both plan and counter plan- we will defend the entire pmc and the text of the c/p.
solvency-
1our arg is they can be permed b/c the rez says pass hr3200---hr 3200 _is_ what the pmc is----they take some stuff out and still call it hr3200, but it's not. it's something diff (like it would be non-topical if it were a plan)--if i were to allow this sort of c/p competition, i could feed the starving billions every opp round, but just name it the same thing as plan and i'd never lose.
2it works--you can pass both hr3200 and the one that lacks what they cut out (if they _ban_ part of hr3200 that seem a little extra competitive.). the mandates of plan would still be passed and implemented, we solve case 100%
3perm is advantageous- we keep the dem coalition intact, b/c we pass and implement the plan, but also placate the dumb republicans worried about NOBAMA'S KENYAN DEATH PANELS! mainly cause they're dumb.

then i'd try to use the theory you talked about in the orig post, again---it's like the xkcd cartoon, i'd bank more heavily on the impact turns and sticking them with the c/p. it also might be helpful to at somepoint wave your hand and mention that this "isn't the advocacy you're looking for" and that maybe its time you gave up such things like this advocacy and deathsticks. goodluck


-matthew

p.s. and i know my disad was minorly specific to the hlth cr bill, but ya know, you can always prep out that coalition disad and apply it and write out some obvious impact turns to the obvious pics in prep as the mg while the pmc writes the pmc.

[boredguy8]

So golden.

[CC Weaver]

I love Matt Plush.

[tychedasein]

And I love the triumvirate of Plush+Weaver+Fife. My heroes.

[AdamK]

If you have good reasons why these kinds of CP's skew the research burden, wouldn't that be a compelling argument to make in the standards debate on a PICs bad position?

This.

There's no reason to avoid CP theory on this issue, specifically pics bad. You've got a good warrant as to why pics hurt MG predictibility. An impact is all that you need to win a theory debate, and you need to turn your MG predictability standard into a bigger impact than whatever else they want to talk about it.

[AdamK]

OK, I kinda get what you're saying. For some reason I thought you were arguing about making a permutation.

I agree with Kyle that the specificity of your interp in this situation is pretty beneficial. It makes a lot of typical pics good arguments irrelevant, and it strengthens your predictability standards, as a level of unpredictability is no longer reciprocal if there's only one topical aff.

[WillVT]

textual competition would solve this quite nicely. cannot add words to our plan.

[UberNovi]

textual competition would solve this quite nicely. cannot add words to our plan.

this.

perm do the counterplan

also i never thought of running politics on a pic like that...plush = awesome

[ultravires]

textual competition would solve this quite nicely. cannot add words to our plan.

winnnnnner