The Politics DA

[TH is Thor]

So I've been grappling with some of the problems I have with Politics DAs over the summer. Last year I felt I was often mislead, and in some of those cases purposely so, about 1) what a bill did, 2) the likelihood of it passing, or 3) it's existence. This is frankly unfair, because no one outside of Josh Lyman can possibly follow every bills purpose and likelihood of being enacted. As such, I voted for many teams on an argument I later found to lack truthiness. This led to me being very reactionary to the tix DA in the 2nd half of the season, which is also unfair. Thus, I am considering adding a right to lookup policy in my judging philosophy next year. This policy would only apply to Politics DAs and only to a select number of issues, primarily the concerns I listed above. I would truly appreciate any constructive feedback on this idea. Thanks

[CCoker]

My immediate response is to feel skeptical about looking things up in round. There are a few reasons for this.

1. 2 of the 3 prongs of use for the above policy appear fine (function and existence) but likelihood of passage strikes me as problematic. There are a multitude of factors in the real world which affect a bill's chances, and I think a simple google check would be insufficient to determine that. There are instances where this would not be the case; for instance, a committee vote or low level budget bill may be simple to determine, but a higher level congressional action (one that actually will come to a vote) cannot be determined so easily.

2. Seems like a slippery slope. Teams lie, teams misconstrue, teams misrepresent, and teams misunderstand. The frequency can be debated where ever, but this much is true: it is not unique to politics DAs. It may be perceptually more prevalent on Ptx because of the nature of the argument, but that seems to be insufficient to prevent googling of affirmatives and DAs and CPs in the future. This is not to say that you, yourself, Colin, would do so, but to envision this as a policy makes me think about future implications.

3. I would hope that investigating after round would be sufficient to encourage DAs grounded in facts. It would suck to vote on an argument that is found later to be inaccurate. That feels bad for everyone. But it is impossible to fact check everything in Parli. We can only try to check against egregious examples of deception. Talk around about arguments. If a team is reading a DA that is questionable, or said an argument that appears problematic, go to the source. Ask teams what the hell they said. If they are not willing to disclose, there may be a problem. I am not saying that every team should disclose whole shells after every round (not a can of worms I am willing to open up at this point) but discussions should be both harmless and productive.

Also, what happens if you learn in round that a tix DA is "less likely?" What happens if a team is reading a committee vote Ptx DA that is not, in fact, relevant to the aff? Do you grant no links to the affirmative? Do you stop the neg and tell them their DA is wrong/bad/cheatery?

Just initial thoughts.

[Corax]

Originally Posted by CCoker

3. I would hope that investigating after round would be sufficient to encourage DAs grounded in facts. It would suck to vote on an argument that is found later to be inaccurate. That feels bad for everyone.

Just initial thoughts.

But how do we do that with general arguments? I have had, on more than one occasion, people lie with an on-case argument that we lost the round on. Do you go up to the team after and say "hey, you lied"? What is the proper procedure for little lies, not entire DA's founded on lies"

[TH is Thor]

1) Perhaps I was too vague. When dealing with likelihood, I would determine at what stage the bill is at. For example, last year I voted for a poltx DA I later found out hadn't even been scheduled for a committee vote yet. This is quite frankly bullshit, because it was presented as the bill was heading for passage, i.e scheduled/headed for floor vote, but debate hadn't even begun in earnest over the legislation. I feel that because of this I voted against a team because the other team basically lied. I realize this isn't technically lying, but its pretty damn close. I agree that fact-checking statements and quote is too far, but I feel that there has to be some check against this type of abuse. You would say that out of round discussion solves this, and I will address that in a bit.

2) You already hit the nail on the head. The black and white nature of Poltx DAs leaves almost no room for the interpretation of a bill's status or function. This is much different than most DAs when it comes to the uniqueness level of the debate. For example, in a relations DA, the AFF has access to, at the very least, generic reasons why a position is non-unique. However, on a Ptix DA, those type of generics become applicable to only link level, putting the AFF kinda behind the 8-ball. As for expanding beyond the poltx DA, I personally haven't seen the abuses of Ptix DAs when it comes to other positions. Furthermore, I really can't control what other judges do, nor should I try. All I can say is that for me, the policy would, if I choose to do it, only apply to a few specific instances of particular poltx DAs. A man has to have code right?

3) I really don't think out of round discussion does much to prevent these positions. For example, when cybersecurity was making the rounds last year, I had to think it was well-known that the bill did almost nothing what people said it did, yet it was still run in a multitude of rounds. Why? Because its strategic. This leads to a race to the bottom, where teams run the position because it wins rounds. Thus there is little to no incentive to move away from the position until it gets passed or in the case of CISPA, the season ends.

4) I wouldn't look it up until after all of the speeches. As per what I would do the information, it would have to be decided on probably a case by case basis. For example, in the scenario I discuss in point 1 I would most likely throw the position out, because they lied. I understand that the team would probably make different strategic decisions if they knew I was going to do that. But frankly, fuck em', they're basically cheating. Furthermore, my conception of this policy would really only have me checking questions of uniqueness, i.e. existence/status and function, which is probably a question of top-level internal link analysis.

Finally, I appreciate the criticism. I can understand how this would concern people, and if I do choose to do something like this it would be very clear what I would and would not look up in order to decrease as much interpretation of opinion as possible. Again, this would be reserved only for fact-checking critical yes/no questions that often arise in the poltx DA.

[KCalderwood]

Originally Posted by TH is Thor

1) Perhaps I was too vague. When dealing with likelihood, I would determine at what stage the bill is at. For example, last year I voted for a poltx DA I later found out hadn't even been scheduled for a committee vote yet. This is quite frankly bullshit, because it was presented as the bill was heading for passage, i.e scheduled/headed for floor vote, but debate hadn't even begun in earnest over the legislation. I feel that because of this I voted against a team because the other team basically lied. I realize this isn't technically lying, but its pretty damn close. I agree that fact-checking statements and quote is too far, but I feel that there has to be some check against this type of abuse. You would say that out of round discussion solves this, and I will address that in a bit.

2) You already hit the nail on the head. The black and white nature of Poltx DAs leaves almost no room for the interpretation of a bill's status or function. This is much different than most DAs when it comes to the uniqueness level of the debate. For example, in a relations DA, the AFF has access to, at the very least, generic reasons why a position is non-unique. However, on a Ptix DA, those type of generics become applicable to only link level, putting the AFF kinda behind the 8-ball. As for expanding beyond the poltx DA, I personally haven't seen the abuses of Ptix DAs when it comes to other positions. Furthermore, I really can't control what other judges do, nor should I try. All I can say is that for me, the policy would, if I choose to do it, only apply to a few specific instances of particular poltx DAs. A man has to have code right?

3) I really don't think out of round discussion does much to prevent these positions. For example, when cybersecurity was making the rounds last year, I had to think it was well-known that the bill did almost nothing what people said it did, yet it was still run in a multitude of rounds. Why? Because its strategic. This leads to a race to the bottom, where teams run the position because it wins rounds. Thus there is little to no incentive to move away from the position until it gets passed or in the case of CISPA, the season ends.

4) I wouldn't look it up until after all of the speeches. As per what I would do the information, it would have to be decided on probably a case by case basis. For example, in the scenario I discuss in point 1 I would most likely throw the position out, because they lied. I understand that the team would probably make different strategic decisions if they knew I was going to do that. But frankly, fuck em', they're basically cheating. Furthermore, my conception of this policy would really only have me checking questions of uniqueness, i.e. existence/status and function, which is probably a question of top-level internal link analysis.

Finally, I appreciate the criticism. I can understand how this would concern people, and if I do choose to do something like this it would be very clear what I would and would not look up in order to decrease as much interpretation of opinion as possible. Again, this would be reserved only for fact-checking critical yes/no questions that often arise in the poltx DA.

I will have to think more about this, but I have thought of asking that teams that read politics disadvantages specify what stage the legislation is at in the process for the other team. This would accomplish either:

a) Affirmatives gets to make the sensible arguments that Colin is describing (not even set for committee, etc., which gives a lot of credence to questions of link uniqueness)

b) Limit down the acceptable number of politics disadvantages to the legislation that is currently being debated or scheduled for debate before the Congress. I enjoyed debating health care politics. It probably was not the most strategic because everyone knew something about it, but it means to win on it you probably have to know more than the other team. There were several times where I have lost to politics disads that were stuck in committee for almost a year. It places a very high burden on the affirmative to win when you can read almost anything as a politics disad.

I think this is really important, especially given the cult of uniqueness/offense that is prevalent in debate (I know I debated this way, and continue to coach this way for teams on the negative). "Issue specific uniqueness" seems to win many rounds. The problem, of course, arises in parliamentary debate because no one gets to read evidence. The affirmative can make their general uniqueness answers (political capital high/low, other issues on the way/more important, etc.), but when you compare this to "X bill going to pass soon", it's tough for the affirmative to be ahead on the UQ debate (although I am very prone to vote against politics disads on link defense, I'm not sure how everyone else is).

I also agree with Calvin to some extent that the community checks this by verifying information after the debate, and hopefully, shaming those that lie in debates (there is a huge difference between lying and providing misinformation, which I think is an important distinction that must be made).

I don't think I would ever fact check things after the round, but I would at least appreciate people start specifying the status of legislation on politics. I might have to revisit my judge philosophy on this issue.

[swanson]

Originally Posted by KCalderwood

I also agree with Calvin to some extent that the community checks this by verifying information after the debate, and hopefully, shaming those that lie in debates (there is a huge difference between lying and providing misinformation, which I think is an important distinction that must be made).

Just a personal narrative to get everyone ready for my performance debate lecture.

I lost to a tix scenario my senior year at Mile high part one (went 2/3) where the judge called out the coach of the other team for their team basically lying on tix - the coach shrugged and made a joke, the judge thought it was funny, both people left with a smile on their faces as some grand joke called "gaming debate" had been well played.

Did they continue to run that specific scenario? Maybe, maybe not. However, the damage was done. A system of checks of some sort would be nice. Is this it? I am not sure, but I appreciate this constructive discussion.

[Alan]

You know what, fuck it. I think all judges should have the right to fact check all information at any point during a round. On the K debate, we always talk about how our advocacy matters. That's especially true in an activity where we depend on the debaters to give us the facts, because we don't have cards to back us up.

People should be held responsible for their advocacy - if you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't be saying it. Or you should get a job on Fox News.

[Corax]

A man has to have code right?

Or woman. 10 characters.

[Rybold]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/th...court-decision

[Rybold]

Seems to me the way that Congress passed the transportation bill (and its many add-ons including students loans), polictics DAs are incongruous with reality.

[TH is Thor]

Originally Posted by KCalderwood

I will have to think more about this, but I have thought of asking that teams that read politics disadvantages specify what stage the legislation is at in the process for the other team.

I actually think that this would solve the majority of abuses that happen on the uniqueness level. As such, in the future, I will be expecting a politics DA to include what stage it is in Congress. If a team says X Bill will pass now, but fails to specify where its at on the legislative path, I can almost guarantee that I will not be voting for that position. Expect this to be in my philosophy in the future.

[awarren]

Originally Posted by TH is Thor

I actually think that this would solve the majority of abuses that happen on the uniqueness level. As such, in the future, I will be expecting a politics DA to include what stage it is in Congress. If a team says X Bill will pass now, but fails to specify where its at on the legislative path, I can almost guarantee that I will not be voting for that position. Expect this to be in my philosophy in the future.

I feel like this is just gov teams being lazy. You can't ask how far the bill is in the legislative process? I feel like that's rather vital. If they don't inquire, sucks to be them. If they do and the opp teams lies, then I'm more sympathetic.

[TH is Thor]

Originally Posted by awarren

I feel like this is just gov teams being lazy. You can't ask how far the bill is in the legislative process? I feel like that's rather vital. If they don't inquire, sucks to be them. If they do and the opp teams lies, then I'm more sympathetic.

Yeah probably, but I don't know why I should allow the OPP team to get away with being just as lazy by not specifying. Seems to me that specifying from jump street will make the debate clearer and not force the AFF to waste one, and with some teams their only, question.

[RLayne]

At Willamette, we started hearing a similar problem...people would assert a "jobs bill" and then we would read our impact turns...then they would say...not that one.

We started reading bill specification out of the MG and warned folks we would read it if they couldn't name the bill and what it did.

As for Colin's problem, I'm not so sure that a look up is appropriate...unless, of course, you are now not just an arbiter of argument...but also of truth. Find me a card on the likelihood of a bill passing and I will find you a card saying the opposite. I just don't know if moving the debate out of the debaters' hands is the best solution.

I think these are exactly the reasons why I give aff's a large amount of leeway on politics to argue probability. Perhaps there are other solutions that aren't quite as calculated toward intervention.

[SoCalian]

So, it seems to me that a credible tix DA needs (in addition to what a normal DA needs) at least: the name of the legislation, what it does, and where it is in the political process, a specific link scenario about how the passage of the aff plan intervenes in the political process of the tix legislation.

[zachf]

Originally Posted by SoCalian

So, it seems to me that a credible tix DA needs (in addition to what a normal DA needs) at least: the name of the legislation, what it does, and where it is in the political process, a specific link scenario about how the passage of the aff plan intervenes in the political process of the tix legislation.

Unless otherwise an already existing bill in the legislative process is the textual advocacy of an aff team, there is no aff policy that can create the conditions for a politics DA that meets these standards because you know...fiat is a tool of the imagination :P

In other words, fiat means the plan passes instantly or by the 2011 congressional average, about one passed per day, which means that a) the brink will likely over or underwhelm the link or b) there is no scenario under which your plan will be any more integral to the passage of any another policy than the remaining hundreds of bills that will be passed during the year or c) another bill prevents your impact or d) the public forgets because of the 24 hours news cycle etc

The list goes on...

I'm also certain that Citizens United probably destroyed any sense that politics disads make in the first place. I mean people ought to be focusing on fundraising pressure and the only hard and fast rule of political science is that the candidate that raises the most amount of money (the exception being self-funded candidates like Meg Whitman) are most likely to win their elections. Hence forth, how the bill affects key industries and their employees is probably more relevant than any of the aforementioned critical points necessary to the cohesion of a politics disad.

[KCalderwood]

Originally Posted by awarren

I feel like this is just gov teams being lazy. You can't ask how far the bill is in the legislative process? I feel like that's rather vital. If they don't inquire, sucks to be them. If they do and the opp teams lies, then I'm more sympathetic.

Sure, you can ask, but it's unlikely you will get them to stop and take the question. And if you do ask a question about the status of the legislation, you won't get to ask questions about their advocacy (or, as the current trend continues, advocacies). Of course, I would much rather have teams make this argument (that you have to specify the status of the bill), just like I would prefer teams specify the status of the counterplan. This is probably where Colin and I differ- I won't vote down a team that doesn't specify this on face, but just like with "take a question" procedurals, I am probably more biased towards one side than the other.

Edited to clarify: when I say I would "ask" the teams to specify, I mean I would request they do so through my judge philosophy (like I do with status, etc.). I would not stop the debate and ask myself.

[John Henry]

Miranda and I stopped reading politics at some point this past year, but when we did we started including a section called background or something like that, where we laid out the key info, as a section prior the uniqueness. this might be a good cultural norm to start engendering

I think politics is a very valid argument to make, in the real world, the reason a lot of good ideas don't come to fruition is not because they aren't actually good ideas, but because of trade offs with other good ideas.

but I also think its typically a fairly boring debate, and that its ironic how much politics reliant debaters tend to bitch about the k, when strategically the two are pretty similar.

[nostradamus]

My name is John Henry, and, campaign managers tend, in my experience, to put, lots of commas in sentences, even while they are making good points, which makes their sentences appear amusing, or, at least, British.

[grizzlybur]

Originally Posted by John Henry

its ironic how much politics reliant debaters tend to bitch about the k, when strategically the two are pretty similar.

LOL I asked this question a lot last year.

[The Puge]

Originally Posted by John Henry

but I also think its typically a fairly boring debate, and that its ironic how much politics reliant debaters tend to bitch about the k, when strategically the two are pretty similar.

yet educationally one involves reading the news and the other involves asinine buzzwords

Edit:

[zachf]

Originally Posted by The Puge

yet educationally one involves reading the news and the other involves asinine buzzwords

Should say: Educationally one involves reading the talking points printed by the news and the other involves reading difficult concepts that use a vocabulary level one needs to be successful on the GRE.

K's based on buzzword tags and cut cards in parli make about as much sense as politics disads cut with talking points digested by the main street media.

Or the politics disad could morph into a structural argument about aggregate trends among voting and party behavior and impact out to human development indicators all of which can be found in academic journals :P

[nrobinson]

We should share more information. BS politics disads (and K's) was one of the primary motivations for the parliwiki, a great idea that unfortunately did not catch on. Absent an online system, people should be willing to share scouting info prodigiously in person at tournaments. It's not perfect, but it should prevent teams from winning on nonsense more than once.

I also think we should all work to foster a culture that strongly discourages that sort of thing. It should be very, very embarrassing to get found out reading a nonsense politics position. I would even endorse posting on net-bens about it in some situations, particularly if somebody straight up lies.

Also, JH's suggestion is important--including the status of a bill in the shell should be de rigueur.

But most important--MG's need to get better at handling this stuff. Most of these shady politics disads can't stand up to the four second argument "no vote scheduled means no risk." And holy shit, read a decent thumper!

[BReid]

Status of Zach's jimmies:
[ ] unrustled
[x] rustled

[schneidmaster]

[kdennis]

Originally Posted by nrobinson

We should share more information. BS politics disads (and K's) was one of the primary motivations for the parliwiki, a great idea that unfortunately did not catch on. Absent an online system, people should be willing to share scouting info prodigiously in person at tournaments. It's not perfect, but it should prevent teams from winning on nonsense more than once.

I also think we should all work to foster a culture that strongly discourages that sort of thing. It should be very, very embarrassing to get found out reading a nonsense politics position. I would even endorse posting on net-bens about it in some situations, particularly if somebody straight up lies.

Also, JH's suggestion is important--including the status of a bill in the shell should be de rigueur.

But most important--MG's need to get better at handling this stuff. Most of these shady politics disads can't stand up to the four second argument "no vote scheduled means no risk." And holy shit, read a decent thumper!

We had a bit of a discussion about this at the Midwest Co-Op. I would encourage the folks that are going to be in BHam do the same. Let's start thinking about how to share arguments (Generic K's and Politics DA's) that are read in debates.


Bottom line: It's time, folks. We need to figure out a way to share. If everyone is actually serious about this idea of "community", let's start sharing.

[BReid]

Good news though--at least as recently as Feb. 2011, the ParliWiki was still working.