Micro-political Action [Archive]

Gavin499

01-31-03, 02:55 AM

Obviously I write this being well aware that a large chunk of people probably won't read this until after Pt Loma, and likely therefore until after they already see/hear/discuss more about the issue. The basic premise of micro-political (if you want to use that label) cases is to re-establish the debate that is something that we can actually control. As you pointed out, why pretend we can change federal policy in this round, rather we ought to be willing to take action ourselves.

The cases can vary, some of the instances can literally be the "beginning of a movement." Like an advocacy that the judge and both sides ought to circulate petitions, steal items (to fight capitalism), tear down flyers, etc. These actions are local and can have an impact. Other variation involves a simple advocacy. Let's not pretend we can actually be the USFG rather let's establish that it would be best if we all believed and endorsed the resolution... Again it allows us to evaluate the practical implications of the action while still enabling us to focus on things that can be done individually...

I think it is an interesting framing of the debate world, and doesn't really allow any linking out of groud. C/P's, DA's, K's, etc. all still attach... anyway, I need to pack for the Bloodbath at the Beach, which I imagine I'll see many of you all at...

Gavin
CSULB

Properwinston

01-31-03, 03:54 AM

Matt,

I've faced the LB micro-fiat/performative cases twice. The first time I came across it I wasn't paying enough attention to the PMC so I never understood what their actual fiat was. This threw me off because my meta arguments never addressed their actual case.

At the LB warmup I Audrey and her partner ran a case that involved bringing rap into college classrooms. The fiat was tricky because it had three planks, such as protests and a petition. But even before the plan section of their constructive they ran a pre-fiat contention about the need for giving non-PhDs a right to be heard. I ran some broad Harold Bloom arguments about the need to preserve the Canon and some Ks against pomo's attack upon institutions and hierarchy. We won because the judge thought that if the plan had solvency, then the case bit our off-case. It was by far one of the best rounds I've participated in this season.

I mentioned in an earlier post that people are turning their entire rounds into pre-fiat voters. Hence, the performative paradigm. I like plan focused rounds but either way, I think debates about judging paradigms need to become more common and are much more fruitful than T.

thedancingbear

01-31-03, 04:24 AM

Well, this is a little bit hard to evaluate having not seen this, so I'm just going to assume what Gavin says is true: these cases advocate direct judge action.

The first problem seems to be T. But there are more interesting theoretical issues.

How about this one: Tell the judge to do everything the gov says and don't waste a second longer in this round. Leave after the LOC if you believe the gov. Don't turn in your ballot, just go steal things/tear down fliers/photocopy stuff. Tell the judge to give the ballot to the Opp and they will waste their time filling it out while the judge affects meaningful social change.

Or: accept the Gov advocacy. But drop them, to create a culture of martyrdom. Write this on the ballot. Everyone will be so surprised at your weird RFD they will want to talk about the round and the advocacy of the Gov therein. Then, maybe THEY TOO will rip things down, photocopy things, and steal! Voting Opp multiplies your solvency.

Or: Stand up for a POI. Offer the PM a dollar. If they take it, run 8 minutes of performative contradiction. (This assumes the anti-capitalism case.)

Or, if you don't have a dollar, just ask the PM where she got those nice clothes. Then run 8 minutes of performative contradiction.

Or, if they won't take your POIs, just run 8 minutes of performative contradiction arguing that if they believed in their advocacy they wouldn't be wasting time fooling around for ballots.

Another POI idea: ask them why they want the ballot, if this is a "real" advocacy and they are really trying to encourage political change. If they say they don't want the ballot then we have the world's sweetest permutation.

All of which is a fancy way of saying:

"Wrong forum!"

Cheers :)
Ian

patio11

01-31-03, 05:09 AM

Well, always wanted to do the following but never have had the guts.

POI the PMC with the following : "So we should do what we can to undermine the system, right?"

Hear answer in the affirmative.

Get up, walk to the judge, take the ballot, and leave.

Patrick McKenzie

thedancingbear

01-31-03, 05:14 AM

That's awesome.

Especially if you filled it out for a Gov victory, gave yourself 100 speaks, and wrote an original poem as the RFD.

Cheers,
Ian

patio11

01-31-03, 05:22 AM

Or, for a little less extreme of an approach :

Argue against their judging paradigm with Preaching to the Choir. Doesn't do anything positive for social change to cross-apply the judge's graduate thesis in the debate round. Argue that the pervasive "fight the power" rhetoric in the debate community is the only reason the other team is doing it -- to get the almighty W by a blantant appeal to prejudice. Offer them the chance to give up the W to make a statement.

Then defend the SQ. Shouldn`t be too hard to come up with a defense for truth, justice, and the American way. Step on a few toes during the defense. Claim that YOU are the true revolutionary here, because no debater comes out and says that they're pro-capitalism -- they spend time trying to prove the other oppresses more than they do. Say that you've had it with all that, that the SQ is better than all alternatives in evidence, and that the movement plan is a disaster in the making. Point out that the "anti-war movement" is a bunch of well-intention folks marching to the step of ANSWER, a world front for Stalinism. If the new movement doesn`t have an actual alternative to "The Man", they'll just end up imposing something worse. Scream that you're being oppressed by the hegemonic CDC every time they try to argue on any of the specifics. ;)

Patrick McKenzie

Pattybar

01-31-03, 07:41 AM

Hello,

How about this...

POI, so -- if your advocacy is so important, what are you doing here?

LO ---Judge, unless this is the only round this team debates all tournament, performative contradiction... i.e. they are wasting their time debating instead of doing, and if gov advocacy is so strong, it is wrong (strict act utilitarianism) for them to do anything other than their advocacy.

So 1) Vote opp on comp add, as if the gov really believes their advocacy, at a minimum they won't participate in any future or elim rounds -- the opp team can consistently participate in all future rounds and further discussion and thought on other important issues.

or 2) vote opp on the idea that gov is being inconsistent and that inconsistency is bad because it undermines 100% of gov advocacy... thus, you end up voting opp on presumption.

Patty

boredguy8

01-31-03, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Pattybar
So 1) Vote opp on comp add, as if the gov really believes their advocacy, at a minimum they won't participate in any future or elim rounds -- the opp team can consistently participate in all future rounds and further discussion and thought on other important issues.Well, at some point, though, there is usefullness in 'getting the word out' (and in not ending sentences with prepositions). So, while I love your analysis on "two sides", it seems like the government does have the right to do something other than their advocacy. Like, I suppose we'd allow them to sleep, as well. Expressing the call to action is necessary to bring the people together. (Though, I think I agree if they claim solvency of the actually 'doing' increasing solvency. Like, if they claim every theft is a dent in "The Man", they should be out there denting. If they're not out there denting, there's something else more important, etc.)

--Joey

AhhAlegra

01-31-03, 01:01 PM

OK, so I am slow, but why would you steal things, again? How would that fight anything? Like, you know "The Man" isn't a real guy, right, so he's not watching your pilfering and getting mad...

Sorry, but that just struck me as a really dumb idea, both as a case and practically. The other examples given made a bit of sense. Someone more "revolutionary" than me can enlighten me.

pdano

01-31-03, 05:44 PM

If you're inciting people to go out and commit crimes (theft, etc.) in the case, is the speech itself grounds for a conspiracy or incitement charge? Any law students out there that can answer this?

Dan

Pattybar

02-01-03, 01:18 AM

Hello,

I do think the basic opp response is fair... if you are going to claim that debate is just a game and that we really should be doing something instead, then how is it reasonable to continue playing the game when real action is a viable alternative?

Think about it this way, say we are playing Monopoly and someone chokes on a chip... and doing the heimlick on them would disrupt the game in favor of a real life good action... if the action is a valuable one, shouln't it at least be important enough to interrupt the game to do?? If the action is one that takes more than a few minutes and you know you should do it, how is it reasonable to continue playing the game?

The same reasoning applies to the gov round, if their advocacy is persuasive then debate is just a game and the judge and gov team should be doing something instead...

If they are trying to claim advantages from simply having the round, then that is a bogus claim and without any sort of merrit... as the debate wouldn't happen without the opp and then both teams can't win.... further, the ballot says, "the best debating was done by ____________________, not "_____________ was on the right side of the resolution...".

Patty

PancreasMatt

02-04-03, 10:00 PM

patty, that last bit clicked some butler stuff- grant the foucault args about power structures being bad, debate really really poorly, then tell the judge to engage in butlers subversive resistance (basically mockery and irony directed at powerful norms) by votinig for the team that did the WORST debating. heh heh. mock the power structure of debate by lying on the ballot, lol.

PancreasMatt

02-05-03, 03:00 AM

well, maybe not such a rockin idea i had jason, but it was a fun thought. heh. doesnt habermas say stuff about the public and private spheres needing to be separated? im not sure, since i have only read about him in relation to Foucault, but that could give me some sweet answers. yeah, foucalt doesnt say they're all bad, but he does say you can't ever really accept them as good too, right? anyways, im still running my "hedgemony of the Camera" argument no matter what, just cause i think its a way to out left foucault.

Pattybar

02-05-03, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by NotAnOrganMatt
patty, that last bit clicked some butler stuff- grant the foucault args about power structures being bad, debate really really poorly, then tell the judge to engage in butlers subversive resistance (basically mockery and irony directed at powerful norms) by votinig for the team that did the WORST debating. heh heh. mock the power structure of debate by lying on the ballot, lol.

Oh, so that is what those 'bad' judges are doing... just imposing their own micro-political action against debate....

We had a PLUM last night, and while Dr. Dreher's ballot was excellent and clear (which I say even when he dropps them :) ) the other two of three made little sense... one actually said that there was little opp (my team) could do to win the round --- as the case study (stuff of another rant, later please....) convinced him of the truth of the resolution.. i.e. neither team needed to waste breath actually debating!

Down with micro-political action on the part of MN judges,
Patty

welltemperedsubject

02-05-03, 06:08 PM

I'll defend micro-political action strategies. There are a couple of preliminary clarifications that are important:

First, micro-political action cases operate from the assumption that debate could have a meaningful contribution to make in the real world to ongoing public controversies. I think most of us accept this basic premise. If you believe debate is just a game that has no consequences and nothing to contribute to public understanding of collective problems then you can be the exception. I see my participation in debate as a meaningful part of my participation in our political system. I learn and share knowledge about a wide variety of issues with people inside and outside of the debate community. I think I am prepared to make better decisions about public controversies because I have been exposed to good (and bad)arguments on both sides of the issue. I share my knowledge from debate in class, with family, and with friends.

Second, micro-political action does not mean we have to go protest/fund raise on the streets instead of debating. The very act of making public argumentation the center of micro-political practices has a long tradition in our democracy. First, there is no reason a team could not both be active in communities outside debate but also be active in the debate community. Next, the process of engaging in debate makes the results and decisions that emerge from our micropolitical actions stronger. They have withstood scrutiny. Last, debate intersects with our personal lives - there is no reason to depersonalize a debate round by suggesting that because one side presents personal stakes they lose. Most of the arguments about punishing micro-political action would apply to all of debate. If a team claims racism is evil does the opp say - "Well what the hell are you doing here? If you really believe that a practice is wrong you should be out there doing something about it rather than staying in here debating" Wow, you have a great strategy there - so now anyone who says there is a problem in the world and offers a possible approach to deal with it should have the ballot stolen from the judge so that real world action can be encouraged. I see no reason why micro-political action cases are more susceptible to the "go out and make a difference" argument than traditional cases. If you really believe in something then perhaps defending it publicly is an important and valuable action. Under the logic that every gov team should be acting on the problem if it really matters (rather than just debating it) it is hard to imagine a gov team ever winning. I defend that debate is an important and valuable form of action. There is no performative contradiction if you believe that debate matters. If you think the debate round is irrelevent then you would not be running micropolitics cases. You'd be out drinking and partying.

So that said, here is my basic defence for micropolitical approaches to problems:

Micropolitical approaches provide an important sense of moral and political agency for individuals. Instead of creating a role-playing simulation of what dominant elites in society would hypothetically do to solve problems, micropolitics challenges individuals to realize that they can make an individual difference by affirming their beliefs and actions. With this approach people can come to realize that bottom up approaches to dilemmas can be effective and important. Instead of operating from an elite norm of top-down advocacy, the micropolitical approach allows political subjects to embrace individual agency in our community. Instead of thinking of problems through a state-centric lens, this approach understands that dissent can mobilize around discourses circulated within communities. That said, I think many of you would find the arguments offered by Roland Bleiker (2000) in his book Popular Dissent, Human Agency, and Global Politics to offer excellent examples of how individual actions through discourses have led to meaningful change at the international level. Bleiker shows how poetry, novels, and the like played a strong role in the bringing down of the Berlin Wall. Even if you don't like that example, look to revolutionary America where a set of discourses (speeches and writings) acted as a catalyst for action against Great Brittain. Individuals who are willing to advocate for social change exert their agency with the aims of improving the system.

I am proud to be part of a community that allows for political subjects to discuss what we can do as individuals to make a difference in the world and I am ashamed to read posts that would derisively mock those people who chose to personally endorse individual action. Instead of seriously engaging the arguments for why an individual should accept or reject a set of actions/beliefs some of you suggest sabotage. No one told Dr. Martin Luther King not to speak in his community because "just speaking or debating" is irrelevent. How cynical are we to think that individual action and speech is meaningless - and how terrible for a community that is about advocacy to ever say that it does not matter. Our community should try to contribute solutions to public controversies - we should be about testing ideas and solutions. And if we ever arrive at consensus that debate is an irrelevent game then it will certainly be time for me to get out.

Micropolitics is about investing debate with collective meaning - it is all about saying that debate matters. We must constantly make decisions about what is right and wrong, good and evil - and we do debate because we get the chance to try to persuade others of our convictions. We should not discourage ambitious and inventive apporaches to thinking and decision-making. Defending micropolitical action does not mean endorsing that debate is meaningless. It means the opposite. Debate can be full of meaning and importance, it shapes the ethics and understanding of hundreds of participants. Micropolitical approaches are all about saying how important and valuable our community is and can be. I think many of you have it backwards. Advocates of micropolitical approaches DEFEND debate and want it to be more meaningful than simulations that are divested of political subjectivity.

welltemperedsubject

02-05-03, 10:08 PM

Tutakai

(1) I think you misunderstand the point. First, there is a whole school of critics who support hypo-testing and games theory who are the exception to my broad assertion that debate matters. I have plenty of friends who think that debate is just a game - they need a different set of arguments than traditional folks who think debate is an important public activity. I assume the reader thinks debate matters - thus I use that premise to support my point. If you (the reader) are a games theorist, then the exception to the debate matters point is in question and will have to be resolved. Do I need to defend that debate matters or can we all agree?

You suggest that setting up a distinction betwen people who defend that debate matters and people who don't is unethical and misrepresents. Maybe you are being unethical by suggesting my fair point is a straw man thus stifling debate. Maybe it is unethical to call something an unethical strawman on the basis of setting up two rival conceptions or competing perspectives. When you say I am uncharitable and unfair, maybe ethics should demand you provide something resembling a warrant. Why the antagonism in your post? I see nothing in that sentence that deserves the label unethical. Surely, in all fairness, this point is largely irrelevent anyway to the question I am concerned with - which is whether micropolitics is defensible or not. We can call each other names (or call each others arguments names if you prefer) but that does little to meaningfully contribute to the question of the legitimacy of micropolitical action in debate rounds. I continue to want to defend that the micropolitical approach is a good and fair approach to debate.

(2) When is a ballot not about what we should do or not do? I think all decisions and actions in debate are important. They shape and forge our ethics and understanding of the world. Micropolitical cases do not DISPARAGE debate as an activity - that is the whole point of my post. They represent what is best in debate - the desire to use the force of argument to initiate change. I'd have to hear more about the Texas Tech example to get what you mean. By way of counter example look at Fort Hays - they have engaged in a micropolitical approach to debate for several years. I would hope that instead of encouraging sabotage that we would engage the arguments - why should individuals act in a particular way? Should indivuals protest war with Iraq or not?, should we as individuals support campus actions to support gay and lesbian rights or not? Let the issue be decided by the force of the better argument.

(3) Would it be unethical to straw man you into an active vs passive citizenry? Perhaps you can explain what alternative to activism you envision and how any gov team could endorse any cause without being activist? Besides that, micropolitical proponents do not say we offer real action so we win - they ask for a discussion of the merits and disadvantages of individual beliefs to determine the outcome of the round. I imagine that is what the folks from LB would say and that is certainly what the policy side does. The argument is not and never has been "we spoke so we win." If you ever saw a team do that I would hope that you would not assume that they represent all of micropolitics debaters. The argument is not that because we are real we win. The argument is that by endorsing or refusing individual actions we impact the world and the gov/aff has a proposal for individual action that they believe has benefits that provide reasons to endorse the action (and to act on that endorsement). The "we spoke so we win/we are real so we win" is an oversimplication of micropolitics that is pretty much wrong.

(4) I absolutely agree that the issue should be decided in round. I posted because several responces to the initial post advocated for short circuiting the debate. I think lots of people posting have not seen a micropolitics case or have a severe misunderstanding of what the approach is all about. When I read about a desire to sabotage rounds to stop the practice I thought it was worth my time to respond.

(5) No, my suggestion is that speech is action. Intentions alone do not matter. But debating does.

boredguy8

02-05-03, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by welltemperedsubject
They represent what is best in debate - the desire to use the force of argument to initiate change.I think the problem occurs, as I think Jason pointed out, when you suggest that you should win on the fact that you argue a position in the first place. For example, suppose I were arguing "USFG stop Plan Columbia". I don't see how I could claim to win despite post-fiat disadvantages. Why should I win just because I talk about a subject area? Or suppose I were doing FGM - again, while it's a (arguably) horrible practice, why should I get to claim pre-fiat wins just because I say FGM bad? I don't see the logical connection.

--Joey

thedancingbear

02-06-03, 12:26 AM

Someone explain to me why all "micro-politial" cases cannot become "macro" with the following line of arguments/questions:

1. So you're going to a rally about the death penalty.

2. I guess this means you don't think the death penalty is good to have.

3. If I can show it is good to have, do I win?

If the answer is no then I think micro cases show their true colors: that is, being about blind activism rather than reasoned advocacy.

If the answer is yes then the Gov has spent a long time running a very normal type of case.

In fact, it seems the Gov't has bifurcated their ground: not only do they have to win at the policy "DP is bad" level but also at the smaller micro level -- which is wide open for critique from a lot of different directions.

Why do the LO that kind of favor?

Cheers,
Ian

thedancingbear

02-06-03, 12:42 AM

Ah. Yes, I see the potential for abuse.

These cases do seem to uniquely prey on judge biases -- without advocating specific *action* they aren't vulnerable to a lot of normal arguments.

I say, out-left them.

"Protest? Protest legitimizes the current governmental structures by working within their rules, you racist fascist! Vote Opp in protest of this classist heterosexism. P.S. Foucault."

Just teasing,
Ian

welltemperedsubject

02-06-03, 03:14 PM

I remain convinced that there is no intrinsic abuse in a micropolitics case. I must admit I am suprised that some of you will defend a gov teams right to locate this house as individuals making decisions but simultaneously suggest that they should have to defend large scale actions instead of defending personal convictions.

For ISam - If the micropolitical action is to attend a rally for banning the death penalty you do have massive ground. You can defend that the death penalty is good and say that the judge should not attend a protest for something they don't believe in. You can grant that micropolitics are effective and argue that the net result is that the death penalty gets overturned triggering (albeit a bit later on) all of your dis-ads and Ks. Or you can get really sophisticated and argue through authors like Hardt and Negri (2000) that movements get swallowed up as fuel for the empire. You could talk about how protests have become spectacles that are objects of contemporary ridicule. The uniqueness debate and the counterplans may be radically altered but that could happen just as much when a Gov team defends a resolution as a fact or value instead of a policy. I am not sure why micropolitics is necessarily more abusive than a multitude of other strats. You yourself have suggested pretty decent ground. Can we agree that micropolitics is legitimate and defensible and should not outright be excluded from the activity?

For Tutakai - You are correct that many teams play to the judge pool preferences by making arguments that racism, sexism, capitalism etc. are bad. How are these arguments unique to micropolitical cases? If we agree that we can have a value debate or a policy debate where the agent of action is a person, group, or government why is it more abusive when an individual says they really believe and will act on their beliefs? They still have to defend those beliefs. Take the example of protesting for Native American land rights to grasslands/national parks. Is the difference between government action and individual action so great as to justify denying a Gov team the right to define TH as individuals? I can't see how the location of the agent of action or the call for action calls for intervention any worse than a Gov team that says they think the government should give the land back. The only major difference I see is that the micropolitics gov team has a plan that they care about enough to say that they will implement it and that they invite the critic and the other team to join them.

If there is a propensity to intervene then I think it has more to do with problems in the judging pool than with the strategy itself. Further, if the micropolitics personalizes the issue so too does defining TH as the people in the room. When we run value cases we skew the ground available for the other team and deny them the ability to run their usual generic crap. Should I not be able to run my gun control case that says that as a matter of morals we should not build or use weapons designed to distinguish human life? I mean I skew the ground and likely have played to my judges liberal biases. I think that approach is fine - instead of being predisposed against it if I was a judge I would be fine listening to it as a value case and I imagine the other side would still have good arguments about why we should build weapons to extinguish human life. Sometimes value debates get to the heart of the issue better than policy debates that degenerate into questionably linkable disads. Anyway, the real problem may be poorly worded resolutions that allow for advocacy to be pretty flimsy. If the resolution allows for protest then I'd suggest Opp teams prepare their grass roots movements fail/protest bad arguments or start to generate some decent non-protest counterplans. If protest is admissible under the phrasing of the resolution then I say go micropolitics. I can think of no reason to bring a predisposition against micropolitics cases into a round. If we support the idea that intervention is a horrible thing then we should not bring a bias against micropolitical cases into the round.

thedancingbear

02-06-03, 03:43 PM

I don't think _any_ argumentative strategy (other than lying, etc) should be excluded from the activity. The appropriate response of an Opp to a micro case is to beat the case -- same as any other type of advocacy.

I'm just saying I don't think micro cases are a particularly good _idea._ :)

Cheers,
Ian

patio11

02-06-03, 07:04 PM

Tutakai

You ask if I am not reading the whole posts. Did you read the post that said "Get up, walk to the judge, take the ballot, and leave."??? I take that to be an outright exclusion. Even if that represents sarcasm in the extreme I feel comfortable saying that we as a community should not so derisively mock a legitimate strategy.

That was my suggestion. I think you might have missed the point of the advocacy. Its not sarcasm designed to mock the strategy -- its sarcasm designed to mock "capitalism and rules are bad". Consider it a performative method to demonstrate the disadvantage to the plan. If you argue against structured frameworks and "capitalist morality" then you shouldn't be able to appeal to "Stealing is wrong, judge, make the bad man stop!" Furthermore, if I actually did the "take the ballot and run" thing, I'd stop at the door and just wait to see what happened -- although, to be honest, there is NOTHING that can be done to win the debate at that point short of the judge falling asleep.

Its not exclusion, in fact, it is the very opposite. They introduce a new rhetorical style and an appeal to prejudice, I grant the first and basically argue performative contradiction on the second. How is that exclusion, except that they lose?

Patrick McKenzie

welltemperedsubject

02-06-03, 07:51 PM

Tutakai

You ask if I am not reading the whole posts. Did you read the post that said "Get up, walk to the judge, take the ballot, and leave."??? I take that to be an outright exclusion. Even if that represents sarcasm in the extreme I feel comfortable saying that we as a community should not so derisively mock a legitimate strategy.

I take this forum to be an opportunity for people to discuss beneficial and detrimental aspects of debate. To suggest good and bad changes in the activity. Many of the posts on this thread have been about why micropolitical approaches can be problematic, encourage intervention, and can be generally unfair. I disagree and would defend the approach.

When you first suggested I had unethically misrepresented the divide between games theorists and critics of argumentation I thought I made pretty clear what I think about how you establish what you think is ethical. You never responded to my post - to disagree, to apologize, to yell at me etc. I think that you asking me if I have read all of the posts when you do not even show me the courtesy of reading and responding to my points on ethics in my previous responce does not reflect well. Where do you have me saying that all people on this thread believe that micropolitics should not be allowed? I say that "I can think of no good reason to bring a predisposition against micropolitics into the round" That is my argument. You can agree with it, disagree with it, or ignore it. I find it rather rude for you to suggest I an unethically misrepresentating others without explaining how and why. Please feel free to DIRECTLY QUOTE me - where exactly do I "misrepresent key statements by others in the discussion." Point out as many examples as you like.

welltemperedsubject

02-12-03, 12:12 PM

How does my saying

"Can we agree that micropolitics is legitimate and defensible and should not outright be excluded from the activity?"

and saying

"I can think of no reason to bring a predisposition against micropolitics cases into a round. If we support the idea that intervention is a horrible thing then we should not bring a bias against micropolitical cases into the round."

Misrepresent anything you say?

I am glad Isam clarified that he does not advocate exclusion or sabotage - not that I EVER in any way ACCUSED him of those behaviors.

And I am also glad that you also think that exclusion and/or sabotage are not desireable. I never ACCUSED you or ever misrepresented you as defending exclusion or sabotage. Where do I misquote you? Where do I misrepresent you? I am not even sure how those statements I made imply I am ignoring you.

welltemperedsubject

02-13-03, 09:46 AM

I have repeatedly referenced the post that suggested it would be ok to grab a judges ballot. I asked Isam to clarify (since he participated in the original set of posts) if he felt that way and he was clear in saying that he did not. While he and I disagree about the merits of a micropolitical strategy I have a great deal of respect for him.

Now you continue to say that "no one advocates exclusion." Do you not view SABOTAGE as a strategy of EXCLUSION? Even if there was no sabotage post - how did I misrepresent you? I take the accusation of misrepresentation seriously - you are in effect calling me a liar. When you sarcastically apologized were you conceding that I did not unethically misrepresent you?

I can see why others on other threads have had issues with you. You enjoy hurling accusations at people. You are unwilling to consider the possibility that in even one case you might be wrong or that you might have misjudged someone. I don't expect anything more from you. Perhaps you will feel the need to hurl one more set of insults. Maybe you will find one final cheap shot. It will not be anything unexpected.

welltemperedsubject

02-13-03, 02:29 PM

If you had issues with whether we call grabbing a ballot sabotage/exclusion or not you certainly waited a long time to bring them up. For one thing, Patios response posted AFTER you insulted me. Even if I accept his clarification that sabotage is not exclusion(which I will need time to think on) there is still you telling me I unethically misrepresented you BEFORE he ever suggested that sabotage was a rhetorical strategy. I was not even given the opportunity to agree or disagree with his interpretation on whether the example illustrates exclusion. Even if I found myself agreeing with his point, I find nothing I said to be an unethical misrepresentation.

And you have still have made rude accusations that you are unwilling to retract. I still want to know --- Where did I misrepresent you? Where did I lie about what you had said? Can you even point to a place where I ignored you? At this point you are ready to defend sabotage as not necessarily being about exclusion. That is a completely independent topic. I am angry that you have suggested I unethically misrepresented you when I have been clear from the start that I view sabotage as a strategy of exclusion and I have never attributed that strategy to you. I never lied or misrepresented. I was not "Talking to myself." I had a very specific instance of what I saw as exclusion and for a series of like eight posts you have chosen to ignore my reason and to say I unethically misrepresented. You have treated me with sarcasm, derision, and hostility. Instead of being polite (as Patio and Isam) and clarifying and offering reasons you have instead done nothing but accuse. Now you are ready to debate whether the example I used is or is not exclusion.

Why did you hurl insults if all you really wanted to say was that the instance I used to suggest that we as a community not exclude micropolitical approaches is not a good example? Instead of short circuiting the whole conversation you could have simply clarified. Instead you chose a mean spiritied approach of throwing out a series of malicious insults. At this point it is irrelevent whether or not the example Patio used represents or does not represent exclusion. I had plenty of reason to believe prior to his clarification that it did. Even if we all agree now (which I'd want to think on first) that my example is not a full out example of exclusion I did nothing to unethically misrepresent you. Lets not change the topic to whether the example is good or bad. Your original accusation was that I had no reason to suggest that anyone was advocating exclusion. I think I had a pretty good reason. Your warrant was never that Patios example was inclusive as opposed to exclusive. That is what you are changing it to now. Just answer me straight up for once. Did I unethically misrepresent you?

I have read multiple threads now where you have used the same tactics with others that you are using with me. Instead of engaging the ideas you insult and demean the participants.

patio11

02-13-03, 08:39 PM

A few random comments.

First of all -- deep breath everybody. We're playing theory games about a theory game here ;)

Second -- could you guys cite me as Patrick, Mr. McKenzie, or some reasonable fascimile thereof when you argue with/about me? ;) I prefer it to my internet nickname when having conversations pertaining to real life (and debate is a RL activity for me).

Third -- I think Tutakai (whose real name is Jason IIRC, but please correct me if I'm wrong, only been here for 2 weeks...) and I are being confused for each other a bit.

I say the "steal the ballot and walk" response to a PARTICULAR kind of micropolitical action case is both justified and inclusive. Tutakai says that I'm just defending this as a "Well, would be kind of cool to do X" scenario -- which is true. I, however, WOULD do it in a round if I a) had the opportunity and b) would not screw my partner by doing so. Tutakai has not expressed support for me actually acting on this theory game.

For one thing, Patios response posted AFTER you insulted me. Even if I accept his clarification that sabotage is not exclusion(which I will need time to think on) there is still you telling me I unethically misrepresented you BEFORE he ever suggested that sabotage was a rhetorical strategy.

I believe that this misunderstanding is related to the imprecision of talking over the Internet. Tutakai correctly intuited that I was suggesting a rhetorical strategy from the very first post I made on the subject.

I am, by the way, right on the merits of that strategy ;) Its rhetorically and ethicically justified and, even better, could actually win a round ;)

On a completely unrelated note, the team that argued Parli Bad all last year taught me half of what I know about parli ;) (We are talking about WU Cerulo and Rao, right?)

Patrick McKenzie

welltemperedsubject

02-15-03, 11:01 AM

For T - I discussed sabotage back on 2-5 well before you decided I was misrepresenting you. It was the sole basis for my comments about why I am afraid the community may be disparaging a viable debate practice. You say that I did not mention it until yesterday and that is a LIE. You previously insulted me by saying I am not reading the full text of the thread. Go back and look at my post on 2-5. That post is plenty clear - but if you somehow managed to miss the section on sabotage then you only had to go to my very next post that again references sabotage and short circuiting the argument process. Frankly, I find it pretty repugnant to throw accusations at people for the very actions you yourself are engaged in.

I never asked you to respond to or defend the sabotage scenario - you started this whole mess by saying that no one advocates exclusion and by saying I unethically misrepresented you. I have consistantly explained sabotage as the basis for my points on that subject. I have never attributed those beliefs to you or Isam (although in Isam's earlier posts he did discuss some strategies that seemed pretty close to sabotage). You have just repeatedly ignored my reasons and not bothered to read the entirety of my posts. I count three separate posts of mine during this exchange that directly mention sabotage and short circuiting a round as the basis for everything I have ever said about exclusion. I count zero times when I have indicated that you advocate exclusion.

If I unethically misrepresented you I imagine the text of the posts would be a great source of evidence. The reason you feel you are in a catch 22 is because you did not carefully read my previous posts. Instead you jumped to conclusions and rather rudely started insulting me. I never unethically misrepresented you.

For P Mckenzie - Even if the micropolitical case is to destroy the capitalist system - posting flyers like the gorilla girls across university campuses or calling for theft and destruction of property -I would still contend that grabbing a ballot is aimed at exclusion. Speech about theft is different than theft itself. Now it may be a creative rhetorical strategy to exclude but it is still about short circuiting the debate process. If the exclusion is justified it would be difficult to find out why without finishing the round.

I could support an explanation of a hypothetical - as in your suggestion that you stop at the door (hopefully returning to continue the debate afterwards) or explaining the strategy and asking the critic to give you the ballot at the end of the round if they agree with your justifications. But to outright close the debate off seems problematic to me. They have not closed off debate with their words. It would be your actions that collapse the debate. If a micropolitical gov team tried to grab the ballot during the PMC I suspect you would be furious (rightfully so) about not getting the chance to respond. They should have that same right to respond to your strategy. Debate it out in the round and let the force of the better argument prevail. Include the arguments from both sides rather than allowing either side to exclude the arguments of the other.

patio11

02-16-03, 07:38 PM

For P Mckenzie - Even if the micropolitical case is to destroy the capitalist system - posting flyers like the gorilla girls across university campuses or calling for theft and destruction of property -I would still contend that grabbing a ballot is aimed at exclusion. Speech about theft is different than theft itself. Now it may be a creative rhetorical strategy to exclude but it is still about short circuiting the debate process. If the exclusion is justified it would be difficult to find out why without finishing the round.

Speech about theft is different than theft itself -- granted. However, the micropolitical case under discussion advocates theft AS speech. If you suggest using theft as a political weapon, and then theft gets used against you as a political weapon, well, cry me a river, you got what you wanted. It doesn't short circuit the debate process in the least -- micropolitical action is an innovative debate strategy which you yourself say gets excluded because it doesn't conform to our expectations of links, disads, etc. Stealing the ballot is... an innovative counterstrategy which you would exclude because it doesn't conform to your expectations of links, disads, etc. If you grab the "our advocacy is real life" ground for yourself, don't be suprised when it bites you in the posterior.

I could support an explanation of a hypothetical - as in your suggestion that you stop at the door (hopefully returning to continue the debate afterwards) or explaining the strategy and asking the critic to give you the ballot at the end of the round if they agree with your justifications. But to outright close the debate off seems problematic to me. They have not closed off debate with their words. It would be your actions that collapse the debate. If a micropolitical gov team tried to grab the ballot during the PMC I suspect you would be furious (rightfully so) about not getting the chance to respond. They should have that same right to respond to your strategy. Debate it out in the round and let the force of the better argument prevail. Include the arguments from both sides rather than allowing either side to exclude the arguments of the other.

Again, how is this exclusion unless the definition of exclusion is "losing a debate round"? I am NOT closing off the debate in this scenario -- the affirmative gets a speech to make their case, and I offer ONE EXTREMELY COMPACT argument against it. That argument is logically unassailable -- supposing I actually left the room, there is nothing they could say to the judge which would require a response by me other than "Extend the gov-team-loses-the-ballot disad". Either a) their advocacy would be disproven, and then the judge would come get me to... fill out the ballot for me, or b) their advocacy would be validated, and the judge would have no reason to disapprove of my actions.

This is fundamentally different from a team "grabbing the ballot and running" in the PMC. If someone pulled that on me, I wouldn't be offended in the slightest -- I'd simply explain the moral case for "theft is wrong" to the judge, crush them on the dropped argument, and have the judge go correct the results in the tabroom. You see, I'd have ground to stand on there, not having previously argued that theft is justified. The gov team in our hypothetical backed themselves into a corner in that regard.

Patrick McKenzie

welltemperedsubject

02-16-03, 09:39 PM

I guess I am not in agreement that your position is logically unassailable. I find most issues debateable. The only way to know for sure would be to listen to the gov teams counter arguments. I believe that participants in a public forum debate have certain basic speaker rights - one of those would be the right of rejoinder. Nothing the gov does limits or denies your right (and burden) of rejoinder.

The strategy you advocate seems to me to short circuit the possibility for the gov to meaningfully offer a rejoinder since you have stolen the ballot. Now, MAYBE the gov team called this situation upon themselves by advocating for real theft. But the warrants they will offer for fighting an oppressive system may justify their version of theft better than the warrants you offer for stealing the ballot. In any case, there is a metadebate about speaker rights that is independent of the advocacy of theft. Both sides can believe that theft is generally a good thing but still disagree about what speaker rights should be maintained in a public debate forum.

Lets talk about what happens when you steal the ballot. Can the judge still vote against you? Does the round continue with you absent? I get the impression that you see the round as having only two speeches - the PM and a very compact LO. Can the gov try to proove that your theft is qualitatively different than what they advocate or are the denied that opportunity? I would define exclusion as automatically losing the round without the possibility of rejoinder. The govs ability to participate through arguments in the decision making process is denied. They are silenced. What is perhaps just as problematic, the judgement of the critic is rendered irrelevent. That does not seem very fair. Why shouldn't the gov team be allowed to respond to your theft of ballot as D.A. position and why should the critic not decide the round based on the better argument?

If the scenario is presented as a hypothetical and the gov gets to answer and the critic still ultimately decides the round then the strategy could be described as inclusive. If the theft is real then you are excluding the other participants and the judge from the debate process. Your theft is problematic because it revokes basic speaker rights. It is different than the types of theft the other team advocates. While both types of theft involve theft of property - your ballot stealing would add a componant of theft of rights. I would view the theft of rights as exclusion. So while the part about stealing property does bite the gov team in the posterior - I think the theft of speaker rights is too detrimental to warrant the legitimacy of excluding their right to rejoin.

boredguy8

02-17-03, 01:00 AM

"Can the judge still vote against you?"

Why ought the judge be able to vote against me?

"Does the round continue with you absent?"

I don't see why it couldn't. Don't accept some static ill-concieved definition of 'round' to oppress the speakers.

"Can the gov try to proove that your theft is qualitatively different than what they advocate or are the denied that opportunity?"

They absolutely can try to do so. I don't see why it would really matter.

"I would define exclusion as automatically losing the round without the possibility of rejoinder."

That's a pretty crappy definition of exclusion. I would define it as "not being able to present your viewpoint in an open forum."

"The govs ability to participate through arguments in the decision making process is denied."

Turn, the govs participation through arguments directly led to the opposition action.

"They are silenced."

No one is silenced. You can talk whenever you want to for however long you wish.

"If the scenario is presented as a hypothetical..."

Physical action falls within the realm of a communicative action. Furthermore, the actual is a much more powerful argument than the potential.

"I think the theft of speaker rights is too detrimental to warrant the legitimacy of excluding their right to rejoin."

Why are 'speaker rights' somehow superior to 'ownership rights' that the government is fine with trampling?

--Joey

patio11

02-17-03, 02:48 AM

:here

I was going to say something, but the above post makes it absolutely redundant.

Well, one thing -- if both sides agree that theft is good (and by the way, the argument of steal-the-ballot is that theft is bad, but I get your point), then everything that could possibly be said is irrelevant, because eventually any argument you could make collapses down to "And thus I should be awarded material compensation for my advocacy, instead of the opp. But please don't steal that compensation despite the fact I told you to earlier".

Patrick McKenzie

welltemperedsubject

02-17-03, 09:10 AM

I think the MG could give a pretty solid story for why it is cool that both sides agree that theft is good. However, the MG could also contend that the opp should lose because their theft includes a further element of abrogating speech rights. The MG acknowledges that your theft is all about fighting the man and resisting property rights in the capitalist system (both sides agree). And if you stole their chairs, books, and coats that would be totally cool. However, the ballot is more than just property - it is the means upon which the judge reaches a decision.

Now you say that the gov still gets to talk and they are not silenced. To me this sounds kind of like how our gov't treated native americans for years. They are welcome to talk about injustice and abuse, but nothing they say will impact how we reach decisions. If thats inclusive then you win. To me, if the gov team is denied the ability to influence how the decision(the ballot)is reached that is exclusion. Their participation is a masquerade. Its like being able to talk in a democracy but being denied the right to vote. If their ability to speak is no more than a sham because there is no possibility for them influencing the decision then certainly a group has been excluded. How is it not exclusion to leave the room and fill in the ballot while the gov team is left to speak to a judge-turned-audience-member who is denied the right to decide whether the gov claims vindicate their points?

Also, why is a rejection of property rights the same as a rejection of all rights? Why can I not say that the notion of property is evil (capitalism bad) but still defend a radical democracy project that protects other rights like rights to participate and be listened to by an impartial judge who will vote on the force of the better argument? Plenty of contemporary philosophers defend projects that aim to break down capitalism while still maintaining a wide variety of other rights. If I oppose one set of rights am I necessarily opposed to all rights? I mean, isn't your point kind of like arguing in a gun control round that since a team opposes gun rights (wants to take your guns away from you) they are against all rights - so you can steal the ballot because they defend stealing your property (your gun)? I just do not get why advocating for theft to resist the man justifies denying a whole separate set of rights. Last thought on this point - all of your reasons may be great - doesn't the gov deserve to hear those reasons if those are the basis for a decision against them?

On the static notion of the round - First, nothing the gov has defended so far indicates they want to destroy the rules that govern how debates take place. The gov defends their case within the parameters of the existing rules (through presumably a 7 min PMC). So if the rules are going to be deconstructed it would be the opp initiating that break down. As I believe I mentioned before - way back in my first couple of posts - I think micropolitical approaches are about saving debate - not destroying it. So if the opp decides it is okay to break the rules they are engaged in an exclusion substantially different than the strategy employed by the gov. If you want to break rules to transform debate I could be totally down with that - debate may well have some exclusionary logics built in - but to deny participants the ability to rejoin meaningfully to me just is not the way to go. We should reward creativity and allow you to innovate- to argue any points you want - but not at the expense of trivializing anything the other team can say or excluding them from the final decision.

welltemperedsubject

02-17-03, 09:17 AM

sorry missed one of your points - probably an important one - if the point is that theft is bad and your real performance adds weight to that claim I still think you need to stay to debate. They can defend that theft is good in response - say that your intentions and actions would be great - you are just about in sync with their project - but your particular type of theft is bad. They can win that theft of property is good except when it includes other crimes that are bad. ie - you can steal but don't hurt someone in the process. you can steal but don't rape. you can steal, but do not take away the right to vote. you can steal, but do not take away the ability of a group to meaningfully present their claims in a public forum before an impartial judge. They can contest the logic of your theft by saying that your theft would actually be totally awesome as support for their project if it did not include another separate action that is bad and wrong.

thedancingbear

02-17-03, 09:26 AM

Why does the ballot engender advocacy? It seems like without the competitive pressure you would be more free in your advocacy. The LO is doing you a favor.

Cheers,
Ian

welltemperedsubject

02-17-03, 09:58 AM

Isam - But the point is the gov does not advocate destroying debate. They advocate resisting capitalism - now if you want to argue that debate and the ballot are just tools for a capitalist system thats excellent and you will probably have a great round. But the action of liberating them from the evil tool has an unintentional consequence - you foreclose spaces for them to argue meaningfully within.

I see it as parallel to the voting example - you could argue that voting is just a means of manufacturing consent for capitalism - voting is just part and parcel of the hegemonic apparatus of the state. So you can argue that anti-capitalism protesters should not be allowed to vote - but if you actually deny them the right to vote that is different than making the contestable claims that their logic is internally inconsistent.

The ballot obviously matters - the gov never says it does not - in fact they advocate using the ballot in an innovative way. Your liberation is not liberating - it precludes their advocacy from being meaningful. Also, I think the gov can advocate for theft and destruction of property while agreeing that competitive debate is useful. Those are not mutually exclusive. I suspect that the gov team is just fine with the competitive pressure you are so eager to remove for them.

as an aside - If you really think it would be liberating to remove the ballot from the round - shouldn't that be a subject of discussion for both teams? Shouldn't both teams get the double win or loss? Shouldn't both sides agree if the transformation is going to work - I mean I am all for transformation - but shouldn't it be negotiated first rather than one side deciding and imposing? Gov does not violate any rules - but the opp actually 'liberating' a ballot does violate rules - I think the gov might contest the instrumental logic of transformation through stealing a ballot to win.

Cheers - are you British?
WTS

thedancingbear

02-17-03, 10:22 AM

WTS:

Why does the ballot "obviously" matter? To me, it seems as though the gov is advocating real-world, "go out and do it" action. That is, it is more important to them that the "adherence" they gain from the decision-makers is in the form of advocacy, not ballot.

If that is NOT the case: it undermines their advocacy totally. If they don't want you to do it, and just want the ballot, then that disproves the 1ac.

If it is the case, the opp taking the ballot is the best idea for everyone. The opp gets what they want (the meaningless ballot); the gov gets what they want (a captive audience).

The gov advocates breaking laws. So I don't think the "it's against the rules!" argument gets you anywhere. :)

I say, live your advocacy.

Not British, but used to live there,
Ian

boredguy8

02-17-03, 10:38 AM

Lotsa stuff here. Over-view: you can't have your cake and eat it, too, exclusion doesn't happen, rah rah! Don't straw target issues at hand.

"However, the MG could also contend that the opp should lose because their theft includes a further element of abrogating speech rights."

Well, you're gonna have a lot of work to do. First, you have to prove that there is a speech right to be violated. Second, you have to prove that some how removing the ballot violates that right. I already mentioned no one's ability to speak is eliminated.

"And if you stole their chairs, books, and coats that would be totally cool. However, the ballot is more than just property - it is the means upon which the judge reaches a decision."

I'm not quite sure who the ballot 'belongs' to. If your destruction of capatalism case works, it either belongs to everyone or no one, it seems. So no one is stealing the ballot. Furthurmore, I think you're excluding the judge's capability to both reach a decision and express a decision outside of a tiny scrap of paper. It's not like they can't reach a decision without that little ballot in front of them.

"To me, if the gov team is denied the ability to influence how the decision is reached that is exclusion...[&c.]"

I already said that their advocacy is what led to the decision. I don't see how that's exclusive.

"How is it not exclusion to leave the room and fill in the ballot while the gov team is left to speak to a judge-turned-audience-member who is denied the right to decide whether the gov claims vindicate their points?"

Again, I already answered this, even though the burden is on your side here, and stop saying the judge is denied the right to decide whether the "gov claims vindicate their points".

"Why can I not say that..."

You totally can. I was hoping you would, instead of asking questions about whether or not you could. Furthermore, no one is abridging all rights, and no one advocated doing so. No need to straw target the arguments. My question was "Why are 'speaker rights' somehow superior to 'ownership rights' that the government is fine with trampling?"

"Last thought on this point - all of your reasons may be great - doesn't the gov deserve to hear those reasons if those are the basis for a decision against them?"

No.

"As I believe I mentioned before - way back in my first couple of posts - I think micropolitical approaches are about saving debate - not destroying it."

The road to hell...

"So if the opp decides it is okay to break the rules they are engaged in an exclusion..."

You still hvaen't shown exclusion.

"But the point is the gov does not advocate destroying debate."

Yeah, that doesn't matter. You advocate doing it through the method of stealing. I think the argument is that your method is bad.

"Your liberation is not liberating - it precludes their advocacy from being meaningful."

This is where the double-bind Patrick mentioned comes in. Either your advocacy is meaningful or meaningless. If it is meaningful, then it's an opp ballot because, well, they have the ballot, or it is meaningless, in which case it doesn't really matter, does it?

"Also, I think the gov can advocate for theft and destruction of property while agreeing that competitive debate is useful."

That just might be a useful spike to put in the PMC.

"I suspect that the gov team is just fine with the competitive pressure you are so eager to remove for them."

Cool. That should mean they are just fine with using that competitive pressure in an innovative way. In no way is the pressure removed, it is merely 'decided' sooner.

"Shouldn't both teams get the double win or loss?"

No.

welltemperedsubject

02-17-03, 11:13 AM

for Isam - The real world action includes the debate - the debate is action - They do not believe that debate is irrelevent - to the contrary - for them competitive debate is the perfect forum for speaking/acting against capitalism. They see the ballot as a means for accomplishing action.

As I said before:
Micropolitics is about investing debate with collective meaning - it is all about saying that debate matters. We must constantly make decisions about what is right and wrong, good and evil - and we do debate because we get the chance to try to persuade others of our convictions. We should not discourage ambitious and inventive apporaches to thinking and decision-making. Defending micropolitical action does not mean endorsing that debate is meaningless. It means the opposite. Debate can be full of meaning and importance, it shapes the ethics and understanding of hundreds of participants. Micropolitical approaches are all about saying how important and valuable our community is and can be. I think many of you have it backwards. Advocates of micropolitical approaches DEFEND debate and want it to be more meaningful than simulations that are divested of political subjectivity.

Advocacy for real change does not preclude advocacy for the ballot - the ballot is part of the real change. The gov wants both an ideological change from the critic and the ballot. No reason they can't argue for both. And I fully support your right to argue against both - but stealing the ballot denies their chance to respond with reasons for why the ballot matters to them and why that is consistent with their strategy.

Why is debating not living the advocacy? I agree - Live the advocacy - speak for it and defend it at every chance. Parli debate is a great forum with a great community that needs to hear, evaluate, and decide for themselves if they will support your advocacy. I know it is a polarized example, but no one told MLK to go out and change people instead of speaking - he used a combination of speaking to a community and acting. Are micro folks not afforded the same opportunity? Think of debate as a chance to share and test ideas - the ballot provides the critic assessment of the validity of the ideas presented and the competition encourages excellence and rigorously tests the ideas. I see anything that stops that process as exclusion and I feel strongly that advocacy against capitalism is not inconsistent with advocacy for radical democracy. Debate is a vehicle for social change - the micro gov does not think debate is evil - they just think that simulations of govt actions are less productive than debates about what individuals can and should do.

For Joecool -
1. there is a speech right - in parli rules the gov gets to give a MG speech and the judge is supposed to take that speech into account in making a decision that is recorded on the ballot. Gov accepts these rules - the burden is on the opp to justify breaking the rules/norms. Because they just grab the ballot and do not justify breaking the rules they should lose.

2. Who does the ballot belong to? Hopefully the winner of the round. You are imposing your belief that opposition to property rights implies opposition to the right to make a decision in a debate. I think those are separate and irreducible. I can say property is bad while still saying speech rights in parli are good and should be protected.

Also, the central question is whether the judge gets to decide the winner who advances to out rounds. The micro gov believes in debate - you are imposing the "go out" to change argument and perhaps not hearing their "here we are inside to change" argument. The change is not just about outside the round - it is about change in the round.

3. Does the judge still decide the round? You say to stop saying the judge does not decide - I admit I am confused - I agree that the ballot is just a scrap of paper - all that matters is the symbolic currency attached to it - same as voting - Does the judge listen to the MG? Do they then get to decide the round? I guess I understood you as suggesting the round ends with the LO.

4. the double bind - I am not getting your response to my explanations of how theft can be good but coupled with other crimes becomes bad. Cool that you stole the ballot - we all agree that theft is good - but shame on you for denying me the chance to give my MG in front of a judge who still gets to evaluate my arguments and fairly adjudicate a winner. You can steal all you want - I'll defend your rights consistent with my PMC ((even though advocacy changes all the time and the MG could hypothetically introduce new (counter?) warrants for the res in the MG.)) But you cannot steal and lie, or steal and rape, or steal and murder, or steal and break the rules of parli.

Pattybar

02-17-03, 08:44 PM

WTS says:

for Isam - The real world action includes the debate - the debate is action - They do not believe that debate is irrelevent - to the contrary - for them competitive debate is the perfect forum for speaking/acting against capitalism. They see the ballot as a means for accomplishing action

Perhaps I have missed a vital part of this conversation, but it sounds as if this repeats the basis for the 'we are having the debate, so we win the debate' kind of analysis. IF their purpose is to debate about the issue, then how can their case be anything but a tautology in the most specific sense?

Look at it this way, the implied crit = 'whichever side talks abou the issue we think is very important wins' case = talking about the issue, thus, gov ballot because it was gov's idea to bring it up in the first place... and if the judge buys it, the gov wins in the PMC ---

On the other hand, such cases could put the judge in a bind -- because if they are going to reward, via the ballot, the act of having the discussion -- they must also reward the opp because the gov, and especially the MG would have little to say without the opp team... so, how does one judge such a round??

Patty

patio11

02-17-03, 11:48 PM

Guys, I'd just like to say a) I'm loving this discussion and b) some themes of this and the relativism thread just made it into the paper that my polisci prof is absolutely loving, so mad props to you all. Add this to the I LOVE PARLI list.

1. there is a speech right - in parli rules the gov gets to give a MG speech and the judge is supposed to take that speech into account in making a decision that is recorded on the ballot. Gov accepts these rules - the burden is on the opp to justify breaking the rules/norms. Because they just grab the ballot and do not justify breaking the rules they should lose.

Gov advocates real action for change by breaking rules throughout the 1AC. Again, you're biting the double-bind hook, line, and sinker.

2. Who does the ballot belong to? Hopefully the winner of the round.

Or at least it did, before I STOLE it. Bwahaha, fight the power. Seriously, you do get why you're wholy and utterly biting your advocacy, correct? You can win the debate if I steal the ballot, no problem. The judge can even "vote" for you... but if he does, he will have no reason to bring any sort of disciplinary action against me, which means the vote the tab room hears will be mine. On the other hand, he can vote against you, in which case he'd most likely chase me down and file a real ballot. This poses an interesting question -- assuming you win, and thus my ballot is the valid one, what should I put on it? I think my RFD would be "Case destroyed upon internal contradiction", and I know my LOC deserves a 30, but I'm uncertain that the PM deserves to be penalized for being dumb, and there is nothing to grade either the MO or MG on. Hmm, a good question to ponder.

You are imposing your belief that opposition to property rights implies opposition to the right to make a decision in a debate. I think those are separate and irreducible. I can say property is bad while still saying speech rights in parli are good and should be protected.

But you can't defend the use of property as protection, because property doesn't exist. Again, double-bind.

Also, the central question is whether the judge gets to decide the winner who advances to out rounds.

He could always go to the tabroom and change the result -- but if he decides the gov won, he won't, and if he decides I won, then it won't matter.

The micro gov believes in debate - you are imposing the "go out" to change argument and perhaps not hearing their "here we are inside to change" argument. The change is not just about outside the round - it is about change in the round.

Now you're just being nonsensical. The entire reason we're discussing this micropolitical thread at all is because they use the fact that their advocacy is "real" to get out of all the theoretical sorts of objections the opp could make. That forecloses the possibility of them retreating to "the game" when "real" ceases to be to their liking. Again, the essence of the "lets break down capitalism" case is "YOU and I should STEAL to destroy capitalism. Vote, judge, for a concrete stand against the Man" This is why I prefer steal-the-ballot to going through five speeches about "theft is wrong, property rights are crucial to enjoyment of other rights, etc" -- because it just completely and utterly eviscerates the gov's framework.

3. Does the judge still decide the round? You say to stop saying the judge does not decide - I admit I am confused - I agree that the ballot is just a scrap of paper - all that matters is the symbolic currency attached to it - same as voting - Does the judge listen to the MG? Do they then get to decide the round? I guess I understood you as suggesting the round ends with the LO.

I don't know if Joey would exactly agree with me here, so I can't speak for him, but my conception is : the part of the round that is relevant to me personally ends with the door closing, because I've won the logic game. The gov can continue talking until they run out of speech time (and the opp will make no more speeches), and maybe the judge will even vote for the gov -- but this vote will be utterly meaningless since the judge would have no reason to come enforce the gov's property right to the ballot they have earned. Yep, what can I say, the gov is screwed ;)

4. the double bind - I am not getting your response to my explanations of how theft can be good but coupled with other crimes becomes bad. Cool that you stole the ballot - we all agree that theft is good - but shame on you for denying me the chance to give my MG in front of a judge who still gets to evaluate my arguments and fairly adjudicate a winner.

An interesting theoretical proposition but all I need is this next sentence and...

You can steal all you want

... and then nothing else matters to the question of who gets the ballot ;)

But you cannot steal and lie, or steal and rape, or steal and murder, or steal and break the rules of parli.

Ah, but, you see, I just did ;) This points out another glaring contradiction -- property rights are often key to the enjoyment of other rights (my, that extremely compact argument had a lot of meaning packed into it, now didn't it?). You're right, its logically consistent that you could bring me before the Inquisition for Crimes Against Parli... except that Inquisition is the judge, and his only remedy is... oh yeah, I stole it.

I'm sorry if I sound a little arrogant but, the more and more I think of it, the more and more I love this idea. Its probably the best of my entire debating career.

Patrick McKenzie

[edited : switched in "Joey" for "joecool", thanks for the heads up.]

boredguy8

02-18-03, 12:37 AM

"Joey" is fine. "joecool" is a middle-school leftover kept for necessity. Just building on something to which both Patrick and Ian alluded.

"3. Does the judge still decide the round? You say to stop saying the judge does not decide - I admit I am confused - I agree that the ballot is just a scrap of paper - all that matters is the symbolic currency attached to it - same as voting - Does the judge listen to the MG? Do they then get to decide the round? I guess I understood you as suggesting the round ends with the LO."

Here's where Ian's idea of 'conflation' comes in. In MPA, I thought the goal was to work in the 'real world'. Patrick just steals the 'real world' slip of paper that really doesn't matter to you. He uses the 'game world' connotations to his advantage, because he likes playing the game. That is why I don't think you understand my 'decision' talk. If the judge agrees with the government advocacy, she is going to start stealing things as well, and applaud the opposition for taking action so quickly. In fact, given her delay in the face of supremely convincing argumentation from the government, she'll probably be kicking herself for not acting sooner.

Now, another issue that doesn't seem like as big a deal, but what they hey, there are no time limits here. The ballot is in no way like the vote, and I can't believe you would conflate the two. The great pitch and moment of the vote is in no way comparable to decidign the fate of one debate round. But that's beside the point. Another issue at hand is that the voting ballot is a means to express an idea. However, in MPA the 'currency' can be attached to any object. I would think the judge comnig up to you after a round, patting you on the shoulder, and saying "well played" would be even more rewarding than the impersonal scrap of paper. The judge gets to listen to whatever she wishes. She also gets to decide the round. She just doesn't get to keep the scrap of paper that used to belong to her.

--Joey

welltemperedsubject

02-18-03, 09:44 AM

Patrick -

First, not sure what rules the gov broke in the 1ac. They defend that capitalism is bad, that theft of property is good because it fights the system, and that their real stance as individuals should be the subject of discussion by the Opp and the critic because simulating top down govt action is problematic and because individuals can make a difference by speaking out to their communities against injustice. No rules broken - they might skew your link ground but any of a number of cases do that and none of the other examples ever justify breaking rules without the consent of the gov team or the judge.

In MPA the debate is the real world - the community that MPA wants to convince to join them are other debaters and critics. I think you want the debate to be nothing more than a game - and since they advocate for real action they must be willing to leave the game board or they are locked in a performative contradiction. But for MPA - the debate is real - NOT A GAME - and the decisions that emerge from a debate having withstood critical scrutiny are what matters. They are at the debate because they believe in the power of our community to matter. Why should you get to make a meaningful real world community be just gamesplayers? If they follow the rules and expect more from our community than just hyper-real simulations and want to use the forum for real debates in front of real publics don't they have the right to have their MG and PMR count? Why do you get to say the debate is meaningless and is just a game - that is never what MPA defenders say. They will consistently say that the debate matters, our community matters, and that we can make a real difference by shouting our voices at injustice.

I am still not getting why property rights are tied to all rights. Lets try another example - lets say an individual in society steals some election votes by grabbing them out of the box. That individual could be charged with two crimes - misdemeanor theft of almost worthless paper - and felony charges of tampering with an election. I see some cool parallels in this example. No one will care about the theft. In fact, if the person whose vote was stolen said to the thief - I think in general that stealing is cool - that would be entirely consistent with them also saying that you still committed a felony by tampering with an election. I think your argument is kind of like saying since a person endorses one criminal action they are against all laws and rules and in effect support all crimes. That is just patently false. The property crime could be a great idea but the attached offense of denying the ability of the gov to speak meaningfully in the MG and PMR in effect says that the gov can ride on the bus but they can't sit in the front and advance to out rounds.

I could get really outlandish and offer the body examples in more detail - after all a woman's body is her property - so if she says that theft is cool because it combats capitalism then does she grant you the right to steal her organs? To use her body as you will since it is just property? Propoerty rights are not all rights and calling for the elimination of property rights does not mean you forgo every other right you have including the right to be allowed to meaningfully participate.

Last thought/hypothetical - you are judging a high school round where the 1ac and 1nc go down as described. The neg takes the ballot and runs. The 2ac gets up and offers numerous new warrants for the resolution, runs some reverse 2ac procedurals, and dumps a heap of ivis and rvis out there. The neg never responds because they made off with the ballot. Would you intervene to write in the neg answers for them and make their arguments have extra weight above the procedurals and other args offered by the aff that are in effect conceded? I mean as the judge how do you justify voting neg without intervening massively? You have to create a whole set of args for the neg to show why their points count more than all of the 2ac procedurals and rvis- that creation is pretty fundamentally unfair right?

Joey - first - see my comments above about why mpa feels debate is real. in addition, the judge after the pmc is not expected to immediately act - the process of deliberating is micropolitical action - its not a game - it is real people discussing what actions should be taken in the face of real problems. If all sides come to agreement that actions of theft need to be taken that does not mean that all parties should leave the room and go forth to steal. It just means the first round of discussions are done and the gov moves on to convince the next group.

In the mlk example - if he speaks at a church and everyone agrees to march for civil rights his job of speaking is not done - he moves to the next church and so on and so on. Unless the whole community comes to consensus that stealing is cool the reasons for debate persist. Mpa wants to convince the whole community and just getting one judge and two members of the opp is no where near enough. MLK was not a solitary protester - He did not speak to three people and then go out to act - he tied his speaking with his protesting and continually sought to bring all people into the movement. I like to think that mpa has similar goals.

Now you say the judge still decides the round - just not on the original scrap of paper - does the tab room use the judges decision? And does the mpa get to ride in the front of the bus to out rounds - or does the stolen piece of paper count as the real ballot in the tab? If the judge still decides the outcome and the gov gets to give an MG and PMR that count then I am totally down with the strat - but if the judge's decision does not count and the MG and PMR are rendered irrelelevent in how the decision is reached then I think it is exclusionary and unjustified.

Pattybar

02-18-03, 12:55 PM

OK,

Stolen ballots aside, presuming the tab room will give me another and/or I convert a sheet of flow paper into a mechanism by which to communicate, record and verify my decision ('cuz they can't steal my mind, which I really should be using to do the deciding...)-- and presuming both sides want to win the round -- HOW do I decide this kind of a case?

I am left with a fundamental problem: IF I buy Gov's analysis that having the conversation is worthwhile, that we are not all just playing some sort of game (UNO is often more fun -- besides, the stolen ballot idea turns it into a game of cops and robbers :D ), the problem I am having is that if the opp had not participated, the basic dialectic would be lesser -- so I can't punish opp -- but, I buy gov case --- so it would be a lie to vote opp... unless, I decided that the paradox cannot be solved, and as such I must vote opp on presumption as if the debate had not happened.... which negates all the time and energy spent on such a case --- aargh...

My best coaching advise says, "don't confuse the judge by placing them into paradoxes --- " and this case seems to do so.

Patty

welltemperedsubject

02-18-03, 01:50 PM

Patty - The dialectics point is interesting - but many teams advance the idea that discussion produces better decisions. A decision can still be reached. I think the decision is stronger because all sides were considered. I can defend that debate is a good thing and also defend that you should vote for the the force of the better arguments offered. Why does participation in the process somehow make the opps arguments equal to the govs? If the opp loses the substance then their mere participation is not reason to say they won. Conversely, govs dropped/conceded/uncontested MG and PMR reasons are certainly reason enough to reward them.

I am not sure what the paradox is. The gov team believes in debate as a vehicle and catalyst for real change in our community. They do not see the round as a game. Their subject positions in the debate are as real advocates for change. I think a judge ultimately if confronted with MG and PMR explanations would want to vote gov. The reasons would be that the gov has demonstrated that the ballot matters to them as a means to reveal their arguments withstood scrutiny and because it matters to them to have the opportunity to ride the front of the bus to out rounds.

As I see it there are two substantive issues for the judge to decide. First, resolve the meta issue of whether the opposition tactics are legitimate or illigitimate. At the end of the round you have only the govs arguments on this question to guide you. If somehow the first issue is a wash (which I think requires quite a bit of judge intervention), then second decide if the govs advocacy for capitalism bad has withstood the opps points. Again, the MG and PMR arguments are conceded here as well.

As a judge, you either have to give it to the gov because the opp violated community rules or vote gov because the opp did not stick around to respond to the MGs points rebuilding case. The only other option is to engage in the most massive intervention of all time by writing in Opp responces for them.

last thought - why punish the gov because the opp choose to break the rules. The cops and robbers game is not a game to the gov. It would be real. And they would feel hurt and stigmatized for presenting their authentic beliefs. The last sentence in your post seems to suggest that the gov not run a strategy that could put the judge in an unresolvable space. I think this should be aimed at the opp - they choose the tactic of sabotage. They have plenty of ground to take issue with the ideas and beliefs forwarded by the gov - especially on a topic as broad as using theft to break down capitalism. Instead of taking up reasonable ground they elected to break the rules and then be non-responsive to the govs points in the MG and PMR. In all fairness - would you write an MO and LOR for the opp so they can win or draw? Would you give the MG and PMR arguments less weight because there might be good answers out there?