I was first introduced to this hypothetical scenario at NFL Nationals by Will Thibeau of Glenbrook South. Originally proposed by Layne Kirshon of the Kinkaid School (although probably not for the first time), it provides an interesting litmus test for an individual’s judging philosophy.
The Hypothetical:
The affirmative reads a topical plan and argues that its adoption will trigger nuclear conflict. The 1AC isolates several internal links but does not articulate a terminal impact — their only contention is that the plan will trigger nuclear conflict. The 1NC “link turns” the case for eight minutes, answering the affirmative’s internal links and advancing several internal links of their own contending that the adoption of the plan will prevent nuclear conflict. The rest of the debate is narrowly focused on this nexus question: does the plan cause or prevent nuclear conflict? At the conclusion of the debate, the judge determines (based on the arguments advanced by both teams) that the plan’s adoption will in fact cause nuclear conflict (and thereby sides with the affirmative). Should s/he vote affirmative or negative?
Post your answer in the comments along with the reasoning that brought you to it. Many people have already spent hours discussing and debating this hypothetical, so it seems like a perfect way to kick-off the return of The 3NR after a much-needed vacation. Ready set go.
I vote aff. The negative’s decision to link turn the 1AC and concede its “impact” implies agreement with its impact claim and means the debate comes down to who wins the best internal link to causing a nuclear conflict. Regardless of whether or not nuclear war is good/bad, it’s the negative’s job to disprove the 1AC, and the aff does the better job debating the only issue in the round and justifies their plan accordingly.
I would vote aff. In order to explain why, here are three additional hypotheticals:
1. This year’s topic. 1AC says primacy is the best grand strategy for the United States. 1NC says offshore balancing is the best grand strategy for the United States. Rest of the debate is a back-and-forth about which grand strategy–primacy or offshore balancing–is best. At the end of the debate, the judge concludes that primacy is the best grand strategy for the United States based on the arguments made in the round. Does s/he vote aff? Or does s/he vote negative because the affirmative did not affirm the resolution? I say s/he should vote aff because both teams tacitly (if not explicitly) agreed upon the subject matter for the debate: U.S. grand strategy.
2. This year’s topic. 1AC says the USFG should extend Medicaid benefits to immigrants. 1NC says extending Medicaid benefits to immigrants would cost Obama enough precious political capital to undermine his women’s rights agenda; the impact is that Obama’s women’s rights agenda is a vital step in the battle against patriarchy. The 2AC says “non-unique” and “link-turn”, and the affirmative ends up going exclusively for the (straight) link turn in the 2AR (not “case outweighs” or impact defense). The judge decides that the negative won the link vs. link turn debate. However, the judge feels strongly that patriarchy is good — s/he agrees with Phillip Longman (http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2006/the_return_of_patriarchy) that it is necessary to sustain civilization — so s/he votes affirmative. Neither the affirmative nor the negative discussed the relative desirability or undesirability of patriarchy in their speeches. Was the judge’s decision legitimate? I say no. Although the negative did not make explicit the “patriarchy bad” claim, “patriarchy bad” is clearly an assumption of their impact scenario (both in terms of how it functioned in the debate and in terms of the context of the evidence that was read). Since the affirmative did not contest this assumption (“patriarchy bad”), the judge should accept the initial characterization.
3. This year’s topic. 1AC says the USFG should increase social services for rape victims — they argue that this is vital to alleviate suffering. The 1NC says the states should increase social services for rape victims instead of the USFG in order to alleviate suffering while maintaining a healthy balance of federalism. They further argue that federalism is important because it sends a signal that alleviates suffering worldwide by preventing ethnic conflicts. At the end of the debate, the judge concludes that the counterplan alleviates more suffering than the plan. However, s/he believes that suffering is good. Neither the affirmative nor the negative addressed the question of suffering’s desirability: they both took for granted that it was bad (or at least that reducing it was good). Is the judge justified in voting affirmative to maximize suffering (or minimize the reduction in suffering)? I say no — again, because both teams tacitly (if not explicitly) accepted the initial characterization of suffering as undesirable.
(This was originally an email to Will Thibeau; you have him to thank for this thread — thanks, Will!).
It’s simpler than if a counter-intuitive impact is conceded.
The negative has failed to satisfy their Burden of Rejoinder.
I posted this scenario on Layne’s Facebook wall a couple weeks ago.
Just saying.
Anyway, here’s what Layne had to say:
“neg. I can logically describe more reasons why nuclear war is bad than good. if no side discusses it, im not gunna killz people.
or i would vote neg on presumption b/c the 1AC hasn’t presented a reason why the plan is better than the SQ. default.
either way i vote neg.”
And my response:
“I’d vote aff. Regardless of who’s right, I think the aff did the better debating because they won a bigger internal link to the impact that both teams were trying to win an internal link to. I also think the negative has a burden to prove the 1AC false on either an empirical (i.e. the plan leads to X) or a normative (i.e. X is good/bad) level. Neither side did work on the normative level but the aff won the empirical level, so I vote aff.”
I don’t really think it’s possible to justify voting negative, but I’m interested to see how many people disagree.
a similar questionable scenario:
the neg reads a K with a CP as the alternative. The CP solves 100% of the aff case, but avoids the K. The 2NR doesn’t go for any external impact to the K, but is clearly winning the K turns case. The 2nr is still defending the CP as the alternative and is winning it solves 100% of case. The 2AR says nothing. They extend nothing on case (it’s dropped in the 1AR and 2AR and the negative never mentions it either).
i would vote aff in this scenario. Effectively, neither team solves for anything. turning case only matters if there’s an impact to case. because the negative is defending a counter-advocacy (the cp), presumption shifts aff.
I would vote negative because I always vote negative.
Actually, I would vote aff for once, I agree with what everyone else said for the most part.
I don’t think Layne’s justifications makes any sense.
The point of judging is to minimize intervention, but Layne’s first argument boils down to we should maximize intervention. The negative implicitly agrees with the aff, after not contesting the impact, that nuclear war is desirable. Any judge changing that paradigm would have to be introducing args that were not in the round.
I hope Elrich or someone from the Church of Euthanasia judges and votes against Layne because they can think of “more reasons why nuke war is good than bad” and he didn’t discuss it. He couldn’t get mad.
It logically follows that if a team read a hegemony advantage, didn’t read an impact, neg reads a CP that solves worse, but Layne (like Christopher Layne, lol) personally thinks hegemony is bad he would vote neg. Which seems slightly unfair.
His second claim has a similar problem, his presumption that they haven’t fulfilled the burden of proof of a “better” worldview begs the question of better. That, once again, maximizes judge intervention.
When I first read the post asking the question, I “voted” neg, because I think death is bad. Then after reading the comments, at first I was completely convinced by Mr. Batterman’s (and other’s) argument that it’s interventionist for the judge to pick the direction of the impact, etc.
But then, after some more thought, I think your filter (“both teams tacitly (if not explicitly) accepted the initial characterization of suffering as undesirable.”) is pretty arbitrary. For instance, imagine the 1ac was a *mixture* of advantages claiming to solve for AND cause nuclear war. Then the Neg came back and read some disads that the plan causes and prevents nuke war. It’s pretty silly to assert that the aff makes the assumption that their aff is “true” just because they read it in the 1ac – proven by the contradictory args made by both teams.
In this case, I’d say fuck it, and vote for who ever I thought *caused* extinction, and accept judge intervention as an inevitable (and probably desirabable) part of debate. There’s isn’t really any excuse to complain if neither team bothers to impact their claims.
I disagree w/ this one only b/c in this instance the case turn becomes an external impact. I’m assuming the case turn is like whatever flaw the 1AC uses causes the 1AC impact. even if they concede the case doesn’t do anything functionally they still link to the K which means they still cause something bad and the CP avoids that. Easy neg ballot