Consultation Throwdown

First I want to say that most of these debates revolve around absurd hyperbole. Consulting NATO over whether or not we should give the homeless mailboxes is clearly not what was intended when the NATO charter was drafted. However, that this was not intended does not deny the fact that NATO and other international actors do in certain circumstances expect (and have a legal basis for doing so) consultation. Similarly, conditioning homeless mailboxes on democracy reform in Tanzania is similarly ludicrous, whereas conditioning public health assistance on that assistance being implemented in transparent and democratically accountable ways is definately something real world policy makers consider. I bring this up becasue I do not think you can draw a brightline theoretically and say “consultation is acceptable in this instance, but not in this other instance” in terms of “is it fair to debate”. If the nature of a certain type of CP, say it includes the whole plan, is illegitimate then it should not matter in what instance on what topic or supported by what evidence.

Lets start off with the Kerpen article

1. The lumping together of all these CP’s as “plan contingent” is flawed for a number of reasons-most notably a delay CP fiats the implementation of the plan as a guarantee. Consultation and condition counterplans do not- the affirmative can make solvency arguments about whether or not the plan would be implemented.

2. This distinction is meaningful- the states CP can claim to result in the plan through federal modeling- that is not a fiated outcome, it is a possible outcome.

3. Kills topic education- umm, turn? This topic is the worst- if you told me I could go to two different tournaments

A. Debate about the poverty topic

B. Consult counterplans and impact turns to their net benefits

I would chose B every time.

And now to deal with the rest of the posts, Cyrus Ghavi:

The problem with the way consultation is debated today is that everybody just writes them off as “stupid counterplans” without having a discussion about why that is true.  The result is that there are multiple generations of debaters that have irrational knee-jerk reactions to the counterplan, saying it is illegitimate when they can either give no reason why or can only make arguments about why it is at a very basic, shallow level.  If this is not true and if consultation counterplans are really that bad, then there is literally no reason why the affirmative would not be winning every single consultation debate on either theory or substance.

“It’s Make Believe”
Both the US-Japan Alliance and NATO have codified prior and binding consultation mechanisms. While it’s true that these mechanisms are limited to security issues, it does prove that the concept of consultation is not a “fantasy of the debate world.” The mere mention of consultation in these institutions means that it is less “fantasy” than most common counterplans (e.g. Lopez/States) or disads (e.g. relations/politics/economy).

While your argument is largely made moot by official international documents regarding consultation, there are also definitely cards written about it. Mochizuki, for example, specifically discusses prior consultation in which Japan “gains the right to say no.” Also, if you’re right about this, then the aff would win all of these debates because there would be no evidence that binding consultation is key, so the permutation would solve the net benefit.

If your argument is that “it would never happen,” then you are both overlimiting and wrong. Most plans and counterplans would never happen in the real world, that’s why we’re able to debate about them. Your standard is not pretty arbitrary given that the entire point of debate is to discuss what we “should” do about a problem as opposed to what we “would” do. The Bush v. Kerry presidential debates in which the “global test” issue was prominently featured also shows that this issue can actually be at the forefront of American foreign policy decisions. In a rapidly changing world in which the U.S. has substantially less soft power, policy-makers consider consultation as an option to bolster goodwill abroad.

Finally, I’ll just appeal to rationality:  why do you think the people that write disads to consultation,
namely hegemony, make those arguments? To answer non-existent consultation advocates? I don’t think so.

As an aside, you didn’t even impact this argument anyways. Discussing only policy mechanisms that are common or traditional encourages intellectual stagnation and provides a disincentive for debaters, and even policymakers, to explore new possibilities or at least understand why certain alternatives are a bad idea.

“Impossible burden”
First of all, it’s important to understand that the burden is squarely on the negative when it comes to “say yes” vs. “say no” debates. If there’s a decent shot that Japan/NATO will say “no,” then the aff will win because they solve the entire case and outweigh the net benefit by itself.  The affirmative is not “expected” to have case-specific evidence, but if they have it they are probably going to win.

Cutting “say no” cards is not an impossible burden given that there are only a couple consultation counterplans with the binding consultation evidence required to win.  Also, it’s their plan – the affirmative is in a much better position to have evidence specific to the case.  More importantly, your argument about “say yes” evidence that is tangentially related to the resolution cuts both ways. If the neg is relying on generic “say yes” evidence then the affirmative can use equally generic, tangentially related evidence in the debate.

Your “Japan cares about food” example, you should have pointed outthat the card only proves Japan cares, not that they would say yes. If you made arguments why they wouldn’t like the plan, you probably would have won. You don’t need absolute defense. If you win they’ll say no, you will win the debate.
This argument is also infinitely regressive because politics disads and other generics all use tangential links to the plan, and just like in consultation debates, the negative is more likely to win when they have specific links and the affirmative is more likely to win when their link takeouts/turns are more specific (analogous to “say no” cards in this instance).

Even if you are right about the “say yes” vs. “say no” debates, the affirmative can still beat consultation without ever making a “say no” argument. There are several generic consultation disads that can be read, go for perms, impact turn the net benefit, or use a short-term advantage to outweigh the net-benefit.

“Anti-educational”
Not surprisingly, I’m offended by your argument that the neg will “leave debate only knowing how to cheat and not how to research or strategize.” That could only be true for bad consultation debaters. In order to win these debates consistently at the highest level debaters have to do a lot of research and be learn to execute the argument near-flawlessly. This is particularly true if a team gets a reputation for reading a consultation counterplan (as I did) because the affirmatives will start to do a substantial amount of research in preparation for these debates. In order to win in these circumstances, good debaters need to do the same things necessary in any big debate: prepare new responses to the litany of attacks the circuit comes up with and keep a constantly updated file — from CP
uniqueness and disad answers to say yes evidence and add-onb advantages.

Your cheapshot aside, the education argument has other problems. First, it begs the question of what the plan’s mandate is. Consultation doesn’t require passage of the plan, so it’s not the same as the plan. It’s also not immediate, as the plan mandates. If you don’t that a plan mandate then you are also eliminating all agent counterplans, which is another debate altogether.

Second, many accepted debate arguments are similar in terms of education.  I’ll go with the politics example again.  It’s a stock negative strategy that is often a crutch for 2N’s that requires non-topic related research.  You’ll say that at least they have to do research before the tournament, but good consultation debaters will do the same (uniqueness updates, say yes updates) and I don’t think that research for the sake of research is a good standard by which we exclude or include arguments in the community. Politics disads are only specific to the aff via their link argument, just like consult counterplans are specific to affs with their say yes evidence.

It is also short-sighted to argue that these debaters will ignore the topic completely.  No one reads one-off consultation counterplans.  You have to have a strategy outside of the 90 seconds it takes to read you Mochizuki cards.

Granted it’s not the same, but there is also much to learn from reading consultation counterplans, and indeed I feel that I have. In my research I have become educated on Japan’s population, political structure, extended deterrence, military alliances, etc. Also a benefit that people might not realize is that when looking for say yes evidence it requires you to delve into the policy specifics of affirmatives, giving you a detailed look at what the affs are all about.

Also, consultation forces better education. The secret to beating consult is combining a decent “say no” argument with an affirmative with a short-term advantage. The delay in the counterplan becomes its worst enemy — that means that consultation encourages affirmatives with timely advantages/impacts so that we actually debate the IMPORTANT issues in the topic, not just the random squirrly cases.

And let’s get rid of the blinders and make one thing perfectly clear about debate: people are there to win.  How many times to you remember walking into a round, seeing your opponent and thinking “gee, I really I hope I get to learn something new in this debate!” Highly unlikely, I think most debaters are busy thinking about how they are going to beat their opponent into submission.
“Aff Ground”
Give me a break. Side bias is a dumb argument generally, but when you make these generic whiney claims it actually makes sense. YOU’RE THE AFF. You get to pick your plan, which means you can take a little bit of time to research some say no cards OR a short-term impact to your plan OR some consultation disads OR some uniqueness cards against the counterplan.

Your neg bias argument is another example of bad consultation debate. No good neg is going to win with Consult Costa Rica. There are not infinite consultation actors, you need real, legit evidence if you are going to win — and that basically limits it down to Japan and NATO. I could also say counter-interpretation, only consult coutnries in which there is a treaty-based mechanism to do so (Japan and NATO) – much less arbitrary than your interp.

I’m not sure what you mean by the argument that the aff will be rejected if you make a “say no” argument. That would only be true if you had a Japan advantage to your aff — in which case, I think you
should probably be ready for the CP since it’s pretty relevant.”

29 thoughts on “Consultation Throwdown

  1. Grigg

    I think “consultation with treaty-based mechanism good” can probably win a net benefit coming from the education impacts and from solving pretty much all the fairness concerns. This is an excellent defense of consultation. I give my sincerest applause. You changed my mind on this issue.

  2. David Marks

    The plan is a course of action, and the judge should decide its desirability. Fiat says in deciding desirability, we should ignore whether certain actors would agree to the plan. Specifically, we ignore those who otherwise have capability to veto the plan. When the aff “fiats Congress,” it ignores whether Congress would agree to the plan. That allows the debate to assess whether the course of action is desirable.

    A CP that changes who can veto the plan does not necessarily offer a different course of action. For instance, a CP that says “the plan should be done only if a super-majority of Congress agrees” changes the legal obstacles for the course of action. But, it doesn’t actually change the plan. A CP that says “the plan should be done only if the following 51 Senators say yes…” is similar. It includes a condition that we decided, as a matter of fiat, should not be relevant. “Perm: Do the CP” does not sever the course of action even if the neg claimed it would result in the plan not being done. There’s at least a decent argument to be had that the aff can say, “Perm: Do the CP” and “Fiat means we can ignore whether the Senators approve the plan.”

    If the neg adds veto powers that don’t previously exist, the aff should be able to perm unless the resolution required the course of action to include something it now severs. A CP that changes the makeup of the USFG can be permed. A CP that conditions how the USFG makes policy can be permed. What matters is that at the end of the day, the CP can be logically broken up into: (1) Change the way the plan would be done, and (2) Do the plan if it is done properly under the new way. This is not exclusive with the aff, which only has to initially defend that the plan should be done and is allowed to evaluate that without defending a particular way in which it is done.

    The point of this is not to dispute the relevance of consultation. Instead, it’s to say the plan text, as a proposed course of action, does not have to take a stance on these questions. Therefore a perm does not sever a pre-existing stance.

    Durable fiat doesn’t mean the aff has to defend that the plan is durable. Again, fiat is different from the course of action. It only provides the aff the right to argue that rollback and similar issues aren’t relevant to the plan’s desirability. We provide the aff that right because otherwise it’s too hard to be aff. It’s an aff right against neg argument, not an aff obligation.

    Consult CP’s don’t test the desirability of the aff’s course of action. At best, they test the desirability of permanent fiat. If the plan’s course of action were “the USFG should unilaterally do X without consultation,” then it would be competitive. But that’s not what these plans say, and it’s not required to say that by the resolution. The resolution similarly does not say “the Obama administration should…” and that’s why the aff can perm a CP that bans Obama.

    So all these questions as to the desirability of consultation are kind of irrelevant. Consult CP’s should be beaten on perms. Not because they are “bad for debate,” but because they don’t ask questions competitive with what the aff was obligated to defend in the plan.

    I didn’t obsessively think about this… and I agree that the knee-jerk “consult CP’s are bad” impulse is rarely thought through. But, I do think the most important question as to whether consult cp’s are good or bad for debate should be framed around the perm mechanics, not their abstract value.

  3. Ryan

    I might as well chime in with a clarificaiton/response. My argument wasn’t “it’ll never happen,” so I’m going to ignore that paragraph.

    My argument could be better put “your authors who advocate it don’t say what you say they say.” You nearly admit my argument when you say that US/Japan and NATO have consultation measures “limited to security issues” (I’d maybe extrapolate that they are limited to a very specific sub-set of security issues, most likely by statute, but here I’ll admit I am reaching the limits of my knowledge). Doesn’t it follow that when Mochizuki or whoever advocates consultation, that he means consultation on said security issues? Isn’t it the neg burden to prove that aff’s plan is such an issue?

    True, stretching the intent of authors is part of the game, but those usually go generic -> specific, logically speaking. Linking plan to politics with a card that says “Alternative Energy” and applying it to Solar is not the same as taking a card that says “Consult on Security Issues” and applying it to all foreign policy. The specific -> generic stretch is a much more egregious logical leap.

    Also, there is still the question of whether there is a mechanism to consult Japan on non-security issues at all. If I counterplan with “Consult Prussia,” it doesn’t matter if I have “Genuine Consult with Prussia Key” cards. You can’t consult Prussia because there is no mechanism by which to do so.

    Re “why do you think the people that write disads to consultation,”? I think that people write disads to consultation on specific security issues.

    Re “As an aside, you didn’t even impact this argument anyways.” If you don’t have a card that honestly says that genuine consultation on plan matters, there’s no link to the net benefit and/or no answer to “perm ask and do plan anyway.” Reject the CP.

  4. Rajesh Inder Jegadeesh

    For starters, you can’t really just defend NATO and Japan because that interpretation is arbitrary. Saying “we already have a framework for consultation, so it’s legit” is no different from saying “we don’t have one, so we should start it up” or “only ones that start with the letter N” etc. It’s arbitrary and self serving to say that this interpretation of fiat that aff’s have to defend 100% immediacy, and 100% certainty of the plan, can only be legitimately used in two ways. Essentially, if you are saying your CP is competitive, you are brining with it the baggage of several other consult CP’s (Australila, ASEAN, Natives, China, EU, to mention a few) and I won’t even mention process CP’s.

    Taking that, the Say Yes/No debate will always benefits the negative. Not only do they have the block to lock down on their numerous random cards about generic topic links, they also have the benefit of picking where the debate starts and researching for it—the agent of consultation. You moot literally 8 minutes of 1AC offense and restart the debate in the 2AC, Negative teams will have 13 minutes of the block, so reading impact turns or perms are also no-gos, and a result, 99% of consult debates are won on “small risk of say no, outweighs large risk of relations net benefit.”

    I think your analogy is flawed about why if the CP was bad people were still winning on it, but I’ll use it here—how often do you see teams go for substance versus consult or conditions nowadays? If it were really that easy to go for substance don’t you think people would do it more?

    They are also anti-educational—consult incentivizes teams to do NOTHING on the topic; I’ll pepsi challenge here and ask if NATO really has any relevance to our policy toward the homeless. Your first paragraph boils down to “but it’s tough to read them.” You know what else is tough to research? Timecube, that doesn’t make it a good argument.

    The question at hand isn’t “is Cyrus learning from debate” but rather “what and how is Cyrus learning from debate.” Research will inevitably give you information at whatever topic at hand, but using it abusively (i.e. a CP that solves literally 100% of the aff) instead of constructively (a DA) means that you have a disincentive to learn about the topic and actually discuss these issues indepth. Instead, the majority of debates are skirted to the margin and are discussions about inane relationships between our foreign policy and food stamps or arcane competition theory about colons. There are more constructive ways to get the same education.

    ”Your cheapshot aside, the education argument has other problems. First, it begs the question of what the plan’s mandate is. Consultation doesn’t require passage of the plan, so it’s not the same as the plan. It’s also not immediate, as the plan mandates. If you don’t that a plan mandate then you are also eliminating all agent counterplans, which is another debate altogether.”

    Replace “consultation” with veto-cheato, delay CP’s, line item veto etc. The plans mandate is what the aff, not the neg, says it is otherwise you can use the same logic to justify literally any CP.

    Consult is different and subsequently worse than politics. First, it’s an advocacy that moots a majority of the 1AC. It’s a hell of a lot easier to answer with case outweighs if you have a case. Second, Politics doesn’t completely distract from the question of the desirability of the plan, because it calls into question the reaction to affirmative. Consult on the other hand agrees that the plan passage is desirable, just other action is desirable as well, meaning politics is actually educational. Third, it’s not contrived as hell—Obama couldn’t bring, say immigration issues, up before big debates like the Stimulus or Healthcare because of the partisan bickering that would occur. Similarly, Pelosi’s partisanship in the first stimulus caused it not to get passed. Consult on the other hand has rarely, if ever occurred, never has been discussed as a reason not to do a policy in Congress, and surely has NOTHING to do with why we aren’t increasing funding for social services.

    ”Its not the entire debate, there are other args in the round as well” You’re right, I guess actually debating would be kinda hard for consult debaters so you need to distract from the CP.

    ”you learn a lot.” This does not answer why you need a CP that does the plan’s mandate and not just a DA. You know what’s interesting in the education list you provided it didn’t include a thing about our policy to China/Energy etc.

    ”It encourages timely advantages”—I think timely advantages are for the most part the most contrived. I don’t think I’ve heard a single decent advantage that is like, “next week extinction will result unless we give Natives Healthcare.” Furthermore, if you think it’s at all strategic to use a systemic impact with a 1 month time differential to outweigh US-Russia nuclear war, then that makes one of us. Finally, if you really think debating timely issues is best solved by reading a CP that has never been discussed in any public policy journal, let alone by the Government, then I think your argument is backwards.

    ”People are here to win,” I think this hurts you because consult is a lot more educational than it is fair.

    Also, Cyrus is BA.

  5. Scott Phillips

    Rajesh,

    I’m not going to refute all of your post, but your first point that “only nato and japan” is “arbitrary” is absurd. There are laws that say we should consult these 2, there are no other laws for any other actor.

    Arbitrary means
    “subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one’s discretion: an arbitrary decision.
    2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.”

    There is no concievable way this is arbitrary. You may not like, and there may be other reasons it is bad- but it is inconcievable to say its arbitrary.

  6. Michael Hester

    I’m happy to see a vigorous debate about Consultation CPs, but feel the focus on international actors (NATO, Japan) much more relevant to foreign than domestic policy topics is causing the discussion to be unnecessarily distracted by questions of relevance and whether the authors would ‘advocate the cp.’

    There is actually another group for which the consultation literature is very specific to “increase social services for persons living in poverty.” And that group is the recipient of the social services themselves: persons living in poverty.

    The 1962 amendments to the Social Security Act included provisions for community advisory boards, whereby welfare recipients would take part in the formulation and implementation of social service programs at the local (county) level. There’s a rich literature discussing why welfare recipients MUST be part of the policy-making process in order for ANY attempt to address poverty to be successful. And it’s not just that one period of time. The debate continues today across a broad spectrum of authors, programs, and even countries.

    Poetically, I found this thread while doing research on the “Consult the Recipients” CP. I’m working at the Gonzaga Debate Institute, and will be producing a file (40+ pp and counting) which has nothing but topic specific evidence on the issue – no generic consultation cards gerrymandered from old Consult NATO/Japan backfiles.

    Being able to advocate a Consult CP that is specific to the topic and the AFF case directly refutes many of the objections against consults CPs as well as implicitly answer most of the terminal warrants made against consult CPs.

  7. David Marks

    Scott — out of curiosity, what are these “laws” you speak of? As in, do you have an actual statutory reference?

    I did about 5-10 minutes of research on this and what I’ve found is:

    1. 96 Stat. 756 (1982). Congress said “It is the sense of the Congress that the President should propose to the heads of government of the NATO member countries that the NATO allies of the United States join the United States in agreeing — […] (4) to intensify consultations promptly […]”

    There’s no definition of what “consultation” means, and I seriously doubt it means binding consultation. Even if it did, the statute specifies that the consultation should be used for enumerated objects: defense coordination, defense-industrial cooperation, and financial cost of NATO. Perhaps most important: this has no teeth. It’s just a Congressional resolution and doesn’t actually mean or do anything.

    2. “LTC MCALEA: The opportunity to consult doesn’t represent a commitment in law or policy”

    Cite: 42 A.F. L. Rev. 201; it’s “based upon live interviews with high-level military officials at NATO’s Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE)”

    3. NATO’s consultation mechanism seems explicitly designed not to be binding; what it means by “consultation” is not what the CP means.

    http://www.nato.int/docu/comm/49-95/c671213b.htm
    “As sovereign states the Allies are not obliged to subordinate their policies to collective decision. The Alliance affords an effective forum and clearing house for the exchange of information and views; thus, each of the Allies can decide its policy in the light of close knowledge of the problems and objectives of the others. To this end the practice of frank and timely consultations needs to be deepened and improved. Each Ally should play its full part in promoting an improvement in relations with the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe, bearing in mind that the pursuit of détente must not be allowed to split the Alliance. The chances of success will clearly be greatest if the Allies remain on parallel courses, especially in matters of close concern to them all; their actions will thus be all the more effective.”

  8. Scott Phillips

    Marks,

    I don’t know what “5-10” “minutes” of “research” you did, but since you seem “genuinely” “interested” in learning more about legitimate consultation counterplans, I would be happy to help you out. For NATO you should email Klinger as I am sure he can recite it by heart, for japan it is actually called the “prior consultation clause” in the security act of 1960. Here is an article that explains it is actually a “veto” -http://se1.isn.ch/serviceengine/FileContent?serviceID=47&fileid=2C47DDF5-ED15-2AB3-34F4-DAC77EAA27E3&lng=en

    Good luck with future research!

  9. David Marks

    Scott,

    That clause applies only to US military deployments in Japan. The Treaty also doesn’t make unilateral US action illegal: it doesn’t say “the Treaty is null” or “US will be punished” if the US violates it. There is no legal mechanism for undoing a US law. Also, Congress can’t declare a future act of Congress to be illegal. So the idea that a Treaty Clause — or ANY federal law short of Constitutional Amendment — can control a future law is itself without basis in a valid legal mechanism.

    Since arbitrary means “contingent solely upon one’s discretion…rather than by law or statute,” Rajesh is right. There’s no statute that permits Consult Japan for social services, or frankly 99.999% of affs against which it is run.

    Good job showing proof of a legal mechanism for NATO, or Brazil, or EU, or any of the other many Consult CP’s that get run on the basis of similarly inapplicable cards.

  10. Scott Phillips

    Marks,

    Please show where I said a US law would be nullified due to the treaty, or any of the other nonsense you claim I failed to show. Cyrus said “we have treaties requiring consultation”, rajesh said limiting consultation to that was arbitrary. I said it wasn’t. I have no idea what you are talking about.

  11. Aaron Hardy

    For the record, Marks is making me more and more convinced that I’ve been wrong about consult for years.

  12. David Heidt

    Marks’ point is still correct: limiting consultation to a treaty relationship is obviously arbitrary, if you are consulting about something that isn’t specified in that treaty. There AREN’T laws saying we should consult those 2 over the subject of the vast majority of affs, or that the act of consultation should occur the way the neg says it does.

    Even if there were, it would still be an arbitrary limit. The definition of “arbitrary” you’ve cited doesn’t apply: the relevant decisionmaker is the judge, who isn’t bound by a law. The question is what interpretation of consult the judge should accept: this is always an act of discretion, there’s no law that constrains the judge from accepting one type of consult vs. another. Hence, the decision to accept one form of consult, NATO and Japan, is based on the arbitrary decision that judges might like to see debates over 2 current legal consultation mechanisms, albeit mechanisms that have nothing to do with the plan. But, a judge could instead decide NATO and Japan are stale mechanisms that don’t apply to the poverty topic, so they might decide in a different debate that the only legitimate consult is “consult people in poverty”. And then in a third debate, a prodemocracy judge might say all prior forms of consult are undemocratic and the only legitimate form of consult is referendums. Or a judge might say the only legit consult is “consult Brazil” because of sweet ev that says they’re the next rising superpower and therefore the world’s most important actor. Etc.

  13. Scott Phillips

    David,

    At no point was any of this a defense of consulting X over poverty, only a generic explanation of consultation. Your claim that “consulting people we have an established mechanism FOR consultation is arbitrary” is insane. We (me cyrus) obviously never said the judge is bound by law to consult japan. The aff said “its unpredictable to consult people”, we said “its predictable to consult people who we have legal mechanisms established to consult” An arbitrary interpretation would be “brazil cause we want brazil this round”-there is no logical basis for it. Established mechanism is a logical basis. Your point is so far off base I am having trouble believing your account was not hacked. That a judge could decide in 2 different debates that dispositionality is and then is not superior to conditionality does not make “counter interpretation dispositional counterplans legit” arbitrary. There is no mechanism to consult brazil, there is for japan. At no point in your post did you prove it was arbitrary, only that judges can chose to do different things and that you don’t like it. There are many problems with consult, and with this interpretation of what is legitimate, “arbitrary” is just not a conceivable argument.

  14. David Heidt

    It’s definitely arbitrary, 2 ways, which I’ve already stated:
    1. even if it’s a mechanism that exists now, the neg uses it in an arbitrary fashion, in a way the mechanism isn’t designed for, so it’s not different from establishing a new mechanism.

    2. it’s not “we consult brazil b/c we want to consult brazil” it’s “we consult brazil b/c we have x ev in policy literature that recommends it and proves that this is a legitimate policy option in the literature”, or “we have x ev saying consult people in poverty is vital on this topic” or “we have x ev about democracy being a side constraint on decisionmakers to prove the referendums cp is necessary” or “we have x ev that says a framework for consulting the WTO exists”. The defense that it exists in law isn’t different from another normative defense: both are arbitrary limits, ways for the neg to say something is predictable and limited that have an arbitrary basis where what the limit is changes based on the cp being run and the self interest of the neg. Saying “only NATO and Japan because of existing mechanisms” isn’t different from saying “only consult Brazil because old alliance relationships are outdated and Brazil is the newest emerging superpower and will shape all US foreign policy for decades to come” assuming you read the appropriate ev. The definition of arbitrariness you read about laws constraining arbitrariness doesn’t apply to the context of a judge making a decision, choosing between which interpretation is better.

  15. Scott Phillips

    Dave,

    “1. even if it’s a mechanism that exists now, the neg uses it in an arbitrary fashion”

    As stated extensively, we are not discussing “is it legitimate to consult japan over poverty”, we are discussing are consultation counterplans legitimate in the abstract. A limits argument has been advanced, you could consult anyone, this interpretation checks that limits argument. That the plan itself is not specified as a valid ground for consultation in the treaty does not make it arbitrary. If you say “lets go to mcdonalds” and I say “lets call someone first” and you say “that is limitless” and i say “no we can only call someone who has a phone”- that the phone contract does not discuss calls to mcdonalds does not logically disprove that only calling people with phones is a non arbitrary limit on who we can call.

    ““we consult brazil b/c we want to consult brazil” it’s “we consult brazil b/c we have x ev in policy literature ”

    This is not allowed and is in fact solved by the interpretation cyrus and I are defending- sweet ev can never be used as a justification. In fact YOUR standard that you need a card about the plan is what creates this kind of abuse.

    “he defense that it exists in law isn’t different from another normative defense: both are arbitrary limits, ways for the neg to say something is predictable and limited that have an arbitrary basis where what the limit is changes based on the cp being run and the self interest of the neg.”

    This is false for about 100 reasons, just a few
    1. If the neg consults non japan/nato the aff can use this interp on theory as well
    2. The neg didn’t make it up- its law. This is different from teh neg reading consult brazil and saying “CI only latin american countries” which has no real world basis. The fact that it “helps the neg” does not make it arbitrary
    3. The limit is never changed- its always the same

    “Saying “only NATO and Japan because of existing mechanisms” isn’t different from saying “only consult Brazil because old alliance relationships are outdated and Brazil is the newest emerging superpower and will shape all US foreign policy for decades to come” assuming you read the appropriate ev. ”

    This is nuts, it is definitely different.

    “The definition of arbitrariness you read about laws constraining arbitrariness doesn’t apply to the context of a judge making a decision, choosing between which interpretation is better.”

    It applies to the resolutional actor, who we are debating whether or not they should consult.

  16. David Heidt

    “Only NATO and Japan” has exactly the same predictive and limiting function as “CI only our case is topical.”

    Regarding my first original point: NATO and Japan are used by the neg in such an arbitrary fashion that they have fundamentally altered the nature of those mechanisms: such that there is no longer any real world basis.

    Your interpretation is in theory a better limit. The question is: does that limit have sufficient grounding in the literature to function as an adequate limit in other debates? Decisively: no. You’ve advanced an argument that it is nonarbitrary because a real world mechanism for consult exists in 2 instances. But if the neg’s cp doesn’t adhere to the rules of that mechanism, by injecting a veto over policy matters that are well beyond the scope of it, then you’ve altered that mechanism: it is different from the status quo, and not at all different from creating a new mechanism with a 3rd party. In essence, consult Japan over poverty IS a new mechanism: the status quo is a very specific legal mechanism confined to the security alliance. Second, your phone call example obviously isn’t analogous because it omits the veto: consult is more than a phone call, it’s a process over specific content relevant to an alliance: what they get a veto over is CENTRAL to whether consultation is necessary or even used at all in the real world. Notification isn’t the mechanism, the veto is, and the veto depends on the content of the treaty that created the mechanism in the first place.

    Regarding my second point: my argument is that the process used to create your interpretation of “only NATO and Japan” is as arbitrary as any other process to create an interpretation of “only consult x”, and that the very same process can even be used to exclude NATO and Japan.

    First, examine the process used to create the “only NATO and Japan” interpretation. Jumping from “current law says there are 2 current mechanisms” to “therefore consult should be limited to those mechanisms” is a NORMATIVE conclusion: you’ve essentially just said “debates would be better if it were just these two”. There’s no law that say the government can’t consult Brazil, or have a referendum, or consult the Congress, or Natives, etc. The exclusion of the rest of consult possibilities isn’t grounded in anything other than your own self interest to make consult appear to be limited. Your argument that consult Brazil based on good evidence is “not allowed” because “sweet ev can never be used as a justification” is only not allowed because you arbitrarily created that rule in the first place. The government can consult Brazil if it chooses to do so.

    Second, it is fairly simple to construct an interpretation that is more limited, more predictable, and more grounded in the literature than “only NATO and Japan”, given the basis for excluding the others is ALWAYS normative. For example: if I want to justify my consult the public counterplan:
    1. unlike NATO and Japan and all other consult, our authors actually recommend a genuine, binding veto over all areas of US policy. Limiting consult to just this mechanism is more predictable because it accurately reflects the literature, unlike NATO and Japan, which always involve expanding the security alliance in a highly unpredictable and non real world fashion.
    2. Our interpretation excludes all international consult: focusing on the nation state is bad for policymaking, the state is not a relevant actor in IR so consulting them makes no logical sense, insert random IR K author or Kuswa quote here.
    3. Limiting consult to just referendums more accurately reflects public debates and reinforces our agency, also policymakers have a moral imperative to be accountable to their citizenry, consultation is only justified in this instance because the role of the ballot is to reflect democratic consensus, insert card you got from Branson.

    The above arguments are admittedly atrocious, but they’re substantially better than any arguments the neg has ever made for consult NATO or Japan.

    Third, the arbitrary process to justify x consult cp and exclude all the other bad forms of consult can be applied to every other form of consult, not just referendums: it just depends on how creative you are. I described some dumb arguments in my original post regarding Brazil: the neg will use evidence to exclude other forms of consult to make their version appear nonarbitrary and reflect actual real world debates. My “only Brazil” example isn’t different than “only NATO or Japan”: both require normative statements to justify excluding each other.

    Fourth, “you can’t read evidence on this” defeats NATO and Japan. It requires evidence to say that it’s a law and reflects a real world process, and it requires evidence to say NATO/Japan consult should be expanded to create the appearance that the cp doesn’t pervert that process. Also, I don’t really think any judge is going to say one side doesn’t get to read evidence.

    As far as your first 3 reasons out of 100:
    “1. If the neg consults non japan/nato the aff can use this interp on theory as well”

    True. But the aff can also say “only referendums” vs. NATO/Japan too, or the neg can say “only Brazil” vs. the “NATO/Japan” CI, and likewise the aff can say CI “only our aff is topical”. The nature of the arbitrariness is that it doesn’t create an actual usable limit for anyone.

    “2. The neg didn’t make it up- its law. This is different from the neg reading consult brazil and saying “CI only latin american countries” which has no real world basis. The fact that it “helps the neg” does not make it arbitrary”

    Actually it’s not law: the law doesn’t require consultation, expanding consultation to the plan is well beyond the scope of the law, and the law doesn’t preclude consulting anyone else or creating new mechanisms. The reason to confine the interpretation to current mechanisms is normative: there’s no legal basis for the exclusion.

    Your argument to reject “CI only latin american countries” is that it’s not real world is damning. Your entire argument for excluding other forms of consult fails on this single point: fundamentally the question of what is real world is an EVIDENTIARY determination. It may be that consulting Brazil has a more real world basis than consulting NATO: there are certainly plenty of cards supporting the relevance of the former and the utter irrelevance of the latter.

    “3. The limit is never changed- its always the same”.

    See #1.

    Regarding the definition of arbitrariness: this doesn’t help you at all. The judge chooses between interpretations, not the resolutional actor, the judge’s decision is never decided by law. And, it doesn’t even apply to the resolutional actor: there isn’t a law requiring consult, a law precluding consult, and fundamentally the act of fiat is a recognition that the judge envisions a change in the law. Not to mention that the context of that definition is obviously defining arbitrary as determined by an arbitration proceeding, which isn’t even remotely analogous.

  17. Scott Phillips

    “Only NATO and Japan” has exactly the same predictive and limiting function as “CI only our case is topical.”

    This is false in numerous ways.
    1. It is not pulled out of thin air- we have formal consultative mechanisms established with NATO and Japan. This makes it eminently more predictable than only the aff
    2. Literature discusses consultation with these 2 actors- no evidence ever supports “only the aff”
    3. its reciprocal- as an interpretation it can be proposed by both the aff and the neg in different contexts- CI “only the aff” will never be used by the neg- it is entirely self serving

    “Regarding my first original point: NATO and Japan are used by the neg in such an arbitrary fashion that they have fundamentally altered the nature of those mechanisms: such that there is no longer any real world basis.”
    REPEAT FOR THE CHEAP SEATS- no one is talking about consultation on poverty. NOT POVERTY NOT POVERTY NOT POVERTY NOT POVERTY NOT POVERTY

    “Your interpretation is in theory a better limit. The question is: does that limit have sufficient grounding in the literature to function as an adequate limit in other debates? Decisively: no. ”

    At no point did we make a literature based argument. You and marks are responding to NO ONE on this-see above point about NOT POVERTY.

    As an aside, theory arguments should never EVER be grounded in what there is and is not literature on-
    1. It presupposes some sort of omniscient mastery of the topic literature that no one possesses- you and marks are talking out of your asses on this one because neither of you has done ANY searches on this
    2. Literature for a CP does not make it fair- there are plenty of cards on the world government and anarchy CP’s in the context of poverty- that does not make them fair to debate. At no point anywhere have you made a logical argument for connecting “literature” to “fairness”. And if you did that would be asinine because it would mean if someone wrote a card “we should have binding consultation with japan about social services” that you would have to pack up and go home on consult theory. Consult CP’s are OBSCENELY abusive- but that has ZERO, repeat NOTHING to do with lack of a solvency advocate who says consult on the plan, and if there was such an advocate they would be no less RIDICULOUS.

    “You’ve advanced an argument that it is nonarbitrary because a real world mechanism for consult exists in 2 instances. ”
    No, we said “its predictable because of these 2”. You /others said “limiting to those 2 is arbitrary”. We said “not according to the definition of the word arbitrary”. Then you said “well the statute doesn’t discuss the plan”. The legitimacy of consultation CP’s does not hinge on whether or not the plan is “build ramps” or “deploy 7th fleet”.

    “But if the neg’s cp doesn’t adhere to the rules of that mechanism,”
    You have no proof of this- either that there are rules or that the neg is not adhering to them. You have totally asserted this.

    “ by injecting a veto over policy matters that are well beyond the scope of it”
    Obviously this is subjective- the major dispute of the alliance is over what the scope of this is.

    “then you’ve altered that mechanism:”
    No you haven’t- you’ve expanded the issues it is being used for. A cell phone is a mechanism to make a phone call, calling a doctor to ask about economics doesn’t change the mechanism. The affirmative can make the argument that the link evidence does not apply because the plan is not what its talking about. You have essentially said “the cp is bad because the link cards don’t assume the plan”. That makes no logical sense. The entire impact of your argument if you won it is “not predictable for X topic” . This presupposes that affirmatives prepare for the topic by reading through all the literature about their specific plan and only preparing for negative arguments that arise in those searches which
    1. is dumb- no aff reads all lit on their case nor prepares only for those issues
    2. similarly excludes basically every other negative argument

    “ it is different from the status quo, and not at all different from creating a new mechanism with a 3rd party.”
    This is entirely false as explained above. The fact that consultation hasn’t occurred with japan over X does not mean you create a new mechanism to consult over x. The topic of consultation is entirely separate from the mechanism.

    “In essence, consult Japan over poverty IS a new mechanism: the status quo is a very specific legal mechanism confined to the security alliance. “
    Above

    “Second, your phone call example obviously isn’t analogous because it omits the veto: consult is more than a phone call, it’s a process over specific content relevant to an alliance: what they get a veto over is CENTRAL to whether consultation is necessary or even used at all in the real world. ”
    No it isn’t. In the real world they have gotten a veto over exactly nothing. That is the whole point of the CP- that is why the 1 act cards are so good. And furthermore, it in no way relates to whether or not the CP is a fair option in debate.

    “Notification isn’t the mechanism, the veto is, and the veto depends on the content of the treaty that created the mechanism in the first place.”
    No it doesn’t. The list isn’t exhaustive- its inclusive not exclusive. Nowhere does the treaty say “only these issues”. And even if it did that would not prove the CP is illegitimate- it would be a solvency argument against the net benefit.

    “Regarding my second point: my argument is that the process used to create your interpretation of “only NATO and Japan” is as arbitrary as any other process to create an interpretation of “only consult x”, and that the very same process can even be used to exclude NATO and Japan.”
    No it cant and it isn’t. The process is “who do we have a formal consultative mechanism with”- that will never exclude nato or japan, and it isn’t arbitrary in anyway.

    “First, examine the process used to create the “only NATO and Japan” interpretation. Jumping from “current law says there are 2 current mechanisms” to “therefore consult should be limited to those mechanisms” is a NORMATIVE conclusion: you’ve essentially just said “debates would be better if it were just these two”. ”
    No. We have said “its predictable to allow the negative to consult people we consult”. The neg didn’t just pull this argument out of nowhere- the aff made a limits argument along the lines of “you could consult anyone” – the neg responded with an argument about why consultation with those 2 agents is predictable- which is a response to limits. The neg is not saying “debate would be the sweetest if it was only these 2” the neg is saying “there is a categorical difference between these 2 and all other consultation counterplans, therefore when answering theory we should not have to defend consult Micronesia”.

    “There’s no law that say the government can’t consult Brazil, or have a referendum, or consult the Congress, or Natives, etc. The exclusion of the rest of consult possibilities isn’t grounded in anything other than your own self interest to make consult appear to be limited. ”
    It’s not an exclusion- see above.

    “Your argument that consult Brazil based on good evidence is “not allowed” because “sweet ev can never be used as a justification” is only not allowed because you arbitrarily created that rule in the first place. ”
    You fundamentally do not understand what the word arbitrary means. It means you don’t have a logical basis- it is impossible for you to say “consult people we have a mechanism to consult” is arbitrary. IMPOSSIBLE. Nowhere do you explain this ever, you just say “the mechanism doesn’t talk about poverty” which as I’ve said ad nauseum is not responsive in the least.

    “The government can consult Brazil if it chooses to do so.”
    Interesting but irrelevant.

    “Second, it is fairly simple to construct an interpretation that is more limited, more predictable, and more grounded in the literature than “only NATO and Japan”, given the basis for excluding the others is ALWAYS normative.”
    Again, interesting but irrelevant. The existence of other interpretations does not logically prove that one is arbitrary. Seriously this is totally irrelevant. “The neg could make other counter interpretations” GREAT- and the aff could respond with a different one and they could, oh I don’t know, HAVE A DEBATE ABOUT IT??? This proves literally nothing.

    “For example: if I want to justify my consult the public counterplan:
    1. unlike NATO and Japan and all other consult, our authors actually recommend a genuine, binding veto over all areas of US policy. Limiting consult to just this mechanism is more predictable because it accurately reflects the literature, unlike NATO and Japan, which always involve expanding the security alliance in a highly unpredictable and non real world fashion.”

    I don’t know what you are trying to prove with this. There could be an argument for X consult cp on Y topic that would prove it was more predictable than japan… Ok? So what?

    “2. Our interpretation excludes all international consult: focusing on the nation state is bad for policymaking, the state is not a relevant actor in IR so consulting them makes no logical sense, insert random IR K author or Kuswa quote here.”

    Great… so what? What does this have to do with anything?

    “3. Limiting consult to just referendums more accurately reflects public debates and reinforces our agency, also policymakers have a moral imperative to be accountable to their citizenry, consultation is only justified in this instance because the role of the ballot is to reflect democratic consensus, insert card you got from Branson.”
    Again, what is the point of this?

    “The above arguments are admittedly atrocious, but they’re substantially better than any arguments the neg has ever made for consult NATO or Japan.”

    Dave, you have gone totally off the deep end here. I get it that you don’t like consult, but you still need a rational argument against it. The idea that “the state is bad, so we should consult people” is somehow more predictable than “we should consult people we have a formal mechanism to consult” is a better argument is just totally insane.

    “Third, the arbitrary process to justify x consult cp and exclude all the other bad forms of consult can be applied to every other form of consult, not just referendums: it just depends on how creative you are. I described some dumb arguments in my original post regarding Brazil: the neg will use evidence to exclude other forms of consult to make their version appear nonarbitrary and reflect actual real world debates. My “only Brazil” example isn’t different than “only NATO or Japan”: both require normative statements to justify excluding each other.”

    It is different- literature is a limitless and unpredictable standard for justification. Formal established mechanisms are finite and easily researched. They don’t change every 2 seconds with a new article, and they can’t be changed by a random idiot posting on a blog. If you can’t see these differences I don’t know what to say to you.

    “Fourth, “you can’t read evidence on this” defeats NATO and Japan. It requires evidence to say that it’s a law and reflects a real world process, and it requires evidence to say NATO/Japan consult should be expanded to create the appearance that the cp doesn’t pervert that process. Also, I don’t really think any judge is going to say one side doesn’t get to read evidence.”

    You are far too smart to read my post and say “scott is saying reading cards is illegal”. What I said is that if statutes are the basis of whether or not something is arbitrary then “sweet ev” cannot be used as a justification.

    “As far as your first 3 reasons out of 100:
    “1. If the neg consults non japan/nato the aff can use this interp on theory as well”
    True. But the aff can also say “only referendums” vs. NATO/Japan too, or the neg can say “only Brazil” vs. the “NATO/Japan” CI, and likewise the aff can say CI “only our aff is topical”. The nature of the arbitrariness is that it doesn’t create an actual usable limit for anyone.”

    None of your examples meet the standard of non arbitrary- they are not based in established formal mechanisms.

    “2. The neg didn’t make it up- its law. This is different from the neg reading consult brazil and saying “CI only latin american countries” which has no real world basis. The fact that it “helps the neg” does not make it arbitrary”
    Actually it’s not law: the law doesn’t require consultation, expanding consultation to the plan is well beyond the scope of the law, and the law doesn’t preclude consulting anyone else or creating new mechanisms. The reason to confine the interpretation to current mechanisms is normative: there’s no legal basis for the exclusion.”
    Above

    “Your argument to reject “CI only latin american countries” is that it’s not real world is damning. Your entire argument for excluding other forms of consult fails on this single point: fundamentally the question of what is real world is an EVIDENTIARY determination. It may be that consulting Brazil has a more real world basis than consulting NATO: there are certainly plenty of cards supporting the relevance of the former and the utter irrelevance of the latter.”

    The real world is not determined by evidence, which can come from any source of any level of qualifications. Laws/treaties that establish formal mechanisms on the other hand….

    “Regarding the definition of arbitrariness: this doesn’t help you at all. The judge chooses between interpretations, not the resolutional actor, the judge’s decision is never decided by law. ”
    The judge is chosing an interpretation of what is fair ground for the negative vs a plan that uses the resolutional actor. You are beaing purposefully obtuse here. 2 examples

    1. Plan- USFG do X
    CP – consult Jenny over X
    Aff- that’s not predictable- the USFG doesn’t consult jenny
    Neg- But dave does, and he is the judge

    2. Plan- USFG do X
    CP- Consult japan
    Aff- that’s not predictable
    Neg- it is- the USFG consults japan

    The fact that in example 2 the predictability claim stems from the resolutional actor is obviously more relevant than in example 1

    “And, it doesn’t even apply to the resolutional actor: there isn’t a law requiring consult, a law precluding consult, and fundamentally the act of fiat is a recognition that the judge envisions a change in the law.”

    There is a law establishing the mechanism. There is no law that says “the courts can strike down the exclusion of non citizens in medicaid”- but the fact that an established mechanism exists for that makes it more predictable than a CP to have another agent do it.

    “Not to mention that the context of that definition is obviously defining arbitrary as determined by an arbitration proceeding, which isn’t even remotely analogous.”

    The context is the dictionary- its not a cherry picked legal definition THAT’S WHAT THE WORD MEANS. Consutlation counterpalns are easily proven abusive for 10k reasons- I just do not see why you all insist on arguing the one point you cannot possibly be correct on –that this random argument is “arbitrary” which even if you won it is not very important in the grand scheme of things. Please find a different definition from the list that supports your claim

    ar⋅bi⋅trar⋅y  [ahr-bi-trer-ee] Show IPA adjective, noun, plural -trar⋅ies.
    Use arbitrary in a Sentence
    –adjective
    1. subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one’s discretion: an arbitrary decision.
    2. decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a law or statute.
    3. having unlimited power; uncontrolled or unrestricted by law; despotic; tyrannical: an arbitrary government.
    4. capricious; unreasonable; unsupported: an arbitrary demand for payment.
    5. Mathematics. undetermined; not assigned a specific value: an arbitrary constant.

  18. David Marks

    Wrong mechanism. It doesn’t apply to poverty, that does matter and we disagree, I’ll let DHeidt continue on that one.

    But you’re also reading the “veto” mechanism incorrectly. The Japan mechanism legally completely different when applied to poverty. The “veto” over US policy isn’t so simple: the US can’t put troops initially into Japan UNTIL they get permission from Japan. The Treaty says, “we’ll give you permission, but only after consultation.” It does not provide a veto over otherwise legal US action. It only provides a limit on a grant of legal authority.

    That is a different legal mechanism from social services legislation. With the latter, the CP imposes a veto over action that Congress already had the legal authority to take.

    Here is some proof — it’d be an unconstitutional delegation of veto power:

    501 U.S. 252
    “OVERVIEW: Pursuant to the Metropolitan Washington Airports Act of 1986, 49 U.S.C.S. §§ 2451-2461, Congress authorized the transfer of two major airports from the federal government to petitioner airport authority but conditioned the transfer on the creation of petitioner board composed of nine members of Congress. It vested petitioner board with veto power over decisions made by petitioner airport authority. Respondent citizens filed an action seeking declaration that the conditional transfer violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers under U.S. Const., art. I. The trial court granted summary judgment to petitioners holding that the veto provisions did not violate the separation of powers doctrine. The appellate court reversed finding that the provisions were unconstitutional. The United States Supreme Court affirmed holding that the provisions were an impermissible encroachment on executive power and thus violated the separation of powers requirement of U.S. Const., art. I.”

    “In Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, Inc., 106 the Court struck down a Massachusetts statute that granted religious groups veto power over certain liquor license applications, finding that this act unconstitutionally delegated “discretionary governmental powers” to religious institutions.”

    “n30 Some of these functions, such as the veto power, cannot even be delegated to a fully removable presidential agent. See infra notes 138-42 (presidential powers).”

    There’s a gulf of difference between a request for legal authority from Japan – something they are always entitled to veto – and a veto over pre-existing Congressional authority. Even if you think the Consult CP can be fashioned creatively to make it legal, it’d have to be a different kind of mechanism. Different not just in subject matter, but also in actual legal mechanics. It’d have to be something like “Barack will give Japan a phone call and decide himself whether to veto the bill or not based on what they say.” That’s not the legal mechanism contemplated by the treaty, which is “Barack will give Japan a phone call and decide whether to send troops based on what they say.” The latter doesn’t require vetoing Congressional legislation (because troop movements are plenary power of the Executive), so it is not an improper delegation of power. The CP does have to do that, though, for the context of social services.

  19. Scott Phillips

    Marks,

    SWEET JESUS. For the last time, and I actually mean last time here- This post was not about is consult japan legit on poverty. It is about are consultations theoretically legitimate IN THE ABSTRACT. OMG. I am not saying “i don’t care about poverty” or that the topic doesn’t make a difference in how predictable a particular actor is. FOR THE LOVE OF GOD- I am saying that defending a particular agent on a particular topic is BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS POST BECAUSE ITS NOT ABOUT CONSULTING JAPAN ON POVERTY.

    Your distinction about the prior consultation clause is false- it is not only about putting more troops in Japan, reread. It also limits how/where the US can deploy troops based in Japan, along with many other things.

    Your evidence about constitutionality will be specifically refuted below, however it is important to note that the 2 consultative mechanisms discussed here are established by treaty at which point your “constitution” objection rests on a shaky foundation at best (see http://law.onecle.com/constitution/article-2/19-constitutional-limitations-on-treaty-power.html)

    Your cards are not in any way relevant to what we are discussing, other than it looks like you have a sweet SOP disad to consulting religious groups. Larkin V Grendel is about the separation of church and state not consultation and vetoes. The airport case dealt with whether or not 9 members of congress could be given authority to challenge presidential decisions(in this case made by the sec. of transportation)- again not in any way applicable. You are very clearly just googling veto and constitution and pasting what you find, if your serious contention is that the negatives “genuine consultation” evidence does not describe what the CP does, but these cards you just posted do then I am afraid your disgust with consultation has warped your ability to make rational decisions.

  20. David Marks

    OK, last time for me too.

    In all those cases, neither Congress nor the executive can give a veto power to a non-USFG actor or even a weird subset of USFG actors. Yes, some involved other issues as well. But what mattered in each case is that you can’t shift the veto power to someone other than the President. Not to a Congressional agent, an Executive agent, or a non-governmental agent.

    Treaties don’t trump the constitution. They’re equivalent to statutes. The ones you cited weren’t a delegation of veto power, which is why they’d be different from any CP on recent topics or the current topic. With those treaties, there wasn’t pre-existing authority that was delegated to Japan. Instead, we have to ask Japan in the first instance for permission to send troops there. That’s an important difference for delegation purposes, and I already explained why above. Yes, it’s not just about troops in Japan, but it IS just about things where the US doesn’t start out with legal authority: putting troops there, moving them, adding equipment on sovereign Japanese soil. All those actions require Japanese approval before Congress can do them in the first instance. Poverty —- AND EVERY SINGLE RESOLUTION —- has been different. It’s not about SOP disad, it’s that your “oh it’s predictable because there’s a legal mechanism” is about as persuasive as “there’s a legal mechanism for passing statutes, so obviously that means anything Congress does is predictable even if it is patently unconstitutional.” I don’t necessarily think “legal mechanism” is the best limiting interpretation, but you suggested it, and you don’t meet it.

    As for this “it’s only in the abstract! it’s only in the abstract!” rant – fine. You’re talking about consultation in an abstract world that only applies to plans within the treaty. Except that’s not abstraction, that’s irrelevance. You have not actually proven a legal mechanism that makes the CP predictable in any world where Congress has pre-existing legal authority to do the plan.

    Oh and by the way, the first post on the topic actually did say a good reason to allow consult CP’s is because it’s better than debating poverty.

  21. David Heidt

    Scott,

    1. It’s not different from “only our aff”. You have no basis for “only” those mechanisms. Evidence that says that they’re the only mechanisms we currently have doesn’t preclude informal consult or creating new mechanisms: after all, treaty making and negotiations are also current mechanisms in US foreign policy and also reflect the literature and the real world. It’s like an aff reading a nonexclusive definition that lists their aff as an example, then saying “only”. You’ve inserted the word “only” before Japan/NATO with zero foundation. Hence, it’s arbitrary. My earlier example of a literature based defense of “only referendums” answers your literature argument. And it’s not reciprocal, the neg can do the same thing with T: read a card saying health care is a social service, and assert “only health care”.

    2. I don’t think you understand the argument about “consult on poverty”. I know that you don’t want to defend the “consult Japan on poverty” argument. But “poverty” is only an example; the argument applies whether it’s poverty, energy incentives, public health assistance to Africa, or any other topic. Your argument amounts to “OMG I’m defending consult in the abstract, not consult the way it has always been run, ever.” Poverty is an example of how the neg distorts the mechanism to NOT reflect real world processes and become unpredictable, but so is every other issue the neg deploys consult over.

    The point is, there’s no such thing as consult “in the abstract”. The existence of a formal mechanism for binding consultation over ANY area of US policy doesn’t exist, the veto is determined by context. Expanding the scope of consult to issues not relevant to the process is arbitrary, it is the same as creating a new process. At best, you’ve proven that it’s not arbitrary in the .001% cases where the neg has run consult where the aff actually falls within the scope of the treaty. Your response to David Marks above about poverty not being relevant to your argument is clearly false if the scope of the veto is currently limited. If the counterplan expands the scope of the veto, to areas that would never be considered by that mechanism under any participant’s dreams, it’s not very different from consulting Brazil, because it establishes a new process and might even require a new treaty. And, even if your “inclusive not exclusive” argument is correct, which I don’t believe is true, for all practical purposes it is STILL a new form of consult given that no actual policymaker would ever consider it.

    An example: I remember there being evidence for the BWC aff that said the US, as a signatory to the BWC had to consult with other signatories over the BWC enforcement protocol; a team I coached lost a debate to this evidence. Consulting through the BWC over poverty clearly changes that mechanism, even though there’s no evidence that says the BWC CAN’T talk about poverty: it’s just assumed that the BWC consultations are limited to the enforcement protocol. No one would ever think to explicitly exclude things not related to the protocol because that would be stupid and unnecessary.

    The accusation we’re “talking out of your asses on this one because neither of you has done ANY searches on this” is odd given that one defining factor that marks all consult debates is the neg never has evidence relevant to the aff that defends the VETO outside of the scope of the security alliance or in relation to the plan. Which means we’re not the ones talking out of our asses here.

    Your phone call analogy still has zero relevance; you need an analogy that accounts for the veto.

    3. Your args about literature aren’t very relevant to my arguments. I did not say that literature was the sole determinate of theoretical legitimacy. I did not say that the existence of a card saying we should consult Japan over the aff would make the cp legitimate. In fact, I haven’t even made an argument regarding the theoretical legitimacy of consult at all: my argument so far only has been that limiting consult to Japan or NATO is arbitrary.

    You say your interpretation is more finite, it’s limited to 2 mechanisms, and a literature based interpretation is unpredictable. I’ve conceded yours is more limited: I just don’t think you have any way of excluding a literature based interpretation, other than your own arbitrary self interest of making consult appear limited than it ever will be in debates. For example, it’s illogical to accept one form of consult, even if it has nothing to do with the aff and is from an unqualified blogger, and exclude another form of consult, even if specific to the aff from their own solvency author, just because the former is based on an existing mechanism and the latter isn’t.

    Your response it to say I “fundamentally do not understand what the word arbitrary means. It means you don’t have a logical basis.” But, oddly, the definition you provided says it means “subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one’s discretion.” Which does, in fact, make your attempt to limit NATO and Japan from other forms of consult completely and entirely arbitrary.

    Then you advance the mystifying claim that you aren’t trying to exclude other forms of consult, you’re just saying NATO and Japan are predictable, “which is a response to limits.” I don’t know how you can say it’s a limit but not an exclusion, this makes about as much sense as everything Cyrus posted above, which is to say: none. This entire exchange has been about whether “only” NATO or Japan is arbitrary; your response to Rajesh indicates that you’re defending the exclusion, as has everything else you’ve said up until the point you realized you were defending something that has no actual defense.

    Your choice to say “only those two” isn’t grounded in anything other than your own preference. You think it’s predictable for the aff to research two arcane mechanisms in US law that aren’t used in domestic policy and have no relevance to the aff; someone else might think it’s more predictable to say “only consult people in poverty” because the aff might expect in from topic research and other stuff isn’t plan specific, a third person might say “only consult the public” or “only Brazil” is predictable because of the arguments I advanced earlier. And yes, we can have debates about which interpretation is better, but it doesn’t make yours any less arbitrary. The fundamental point is that 2 mechanisms exist in law, but the law isn’t limited to those 2 mechanisms, so any attempt to establish a limit on your own is based on self interest alone.

    Literature being unlimited / unpredictable is an unrelated point, since you can’t exclude literature in a nonarbitrary manner. But you’re wrong about this too. Yes, you can’t omnisciently know all topic literature. But you can research a topic to the point where you are familiar with the core of the literature about your aff: someone who has done a lot of research will be able to predict literature based arguments far better than someone who has only done a little. It’s not perfect, but you’re speaking in absolutes when degree matters. Given this, literature is MORE predictable than the existence of 2 facets of US law that are never related to the aff: the aff can more reasonably expect to find and prepare for “consult x” if they find it in the literature about their aff than they can be expected to prepare for consult NATO or Japan.

    4. Regarding the definition, my claim about context of arbitration did only apply to #2, “decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a statute”, which is the only one that made makes sense for the argument you were making. The broader definition doesn’t help you even remotely. There’s no statute that prohibits consultation, or limits it to those two instances, or limits it to formal instead of informal, etc. For this to help you at all, the law would have to PROHIBIT consult outside of NATO and Japan. Then, maybe, you could say other forms of consult were “restricted by law”, and violating the law would be arbitrary. Even then, though, it makes little sense in the context of a judge choosing between theory interpretations about whether one has a more predictable basis than the other, given that fiat allows you to envision a change in the law, and that qualified policy experts advocate changing the law all the time.

  22. Scott Phillips

    Dave,

    The theoretical legitimacy of an argument is totally independent of the topic. If its not legit to include the whole plan on topic A, its not legit on topic B. No where in any of your posts have you established a logical connection between evidence that would meet your absurd standard (which almost no negative strategy ever would meet) and a theory argument. Every single point you have made is either an argument about solvency (japan wouldn’t care) or a no link argument. Why is poor negative evidence a reason to exclude an argument on theoretical grounds instead of the aff just winning on “your ev sucks”?

    “1. It’s not different from “only our aff”. You have no basis for “only” those mechanisms. “

    The basis is logic- it is logical to assume only people with cars will drive. If someone acquires a car, that expands the scope of potential drivers. “only our aff” ha zero basis in reality. Even if you think the basis is shaky, you cannot argue there is no difference. There is, that’s a fact. Your standard that the only way something can be non arbitrary is if the exact CP (consultation over poverty) has occurred before is in and of itself arbitrary. The states have never acted uniformally to do the plan- so is the states CP arbitrary? The courts have never done the exact plan, is that arbitrary? Does having the court do something they have not done exactly before make them arbitrary? No. You will no doubt respond “your analogies are not perfectly representative of the point I am making here”. They are. And more importantly you cannot craft a nuanced distinction that would exclude consultation and allow for these other arguments.

    Evidence that says that they’re the only mechanisms we currently have doesn’t preclude informal consult or creating new mechanisms:
    Which are different counterplans. Informal consultation is not close to competitive. Establishing a new mechanism Cp’s will not have genuine/binding key cards most likely. But this is a moot point

    “after all, treaty making and negotiations are also current mechanisms in US foreign policy and also reflect the literature and the real world. It’s like an aff reading a nonexclusive definition that lists their aff as an example, then saying “only”.”
    Its not at all like that. If established mechanisms are a pre-requisite to consultation (which you cannot logically refute- and if you think you can feel free to post a card and I will concede) then it is not in any way analogous.

    You’ve inserted the word “only” before Japan/NATO with zero foundation. Hence, it’s arbitrary.
    No, we have said the negative should be limited to formal established mechanisms. It so happens that those are the only 2 in existence. If tomorrow we created a FEM with Madagascar then consult Madagascar would then be allowed.
    My earlier example of a literature based defense of “only referendums” answers your literature argument. And it’s not reciprocal, the neg can do the same thing with T: read a card saying health care is a social service, and assert “only health care”.
    This is not analogous at all. The analogy would be if the neg said “social service is face to face” and then it turned out there were only 2 types of face to face services available. That would not be arbitrary since there is a logical argument for limiting it to those 2. This is different from “interpretation- random 2”.

    2. I don’t think you understand the argument about “consult on poverty”. I know that you don’t want to defend the “consult Japan on poverty” argument. But “poverty” is only an example; the argument applies whether it’s poverty, energy incentives, public health assistance to Africa, or any other topic. Your argument amounts to “OMG I’m defending consult in the abstract, not consult the way it has always been run, ever.” Poverty is an example of how the neg distorts the mechanism to NOT reflect real world processes and become unpredictable, but so is every other issue the neg deploys consult over.
    As explained several times, the topic does not determine the theoretical legitimacy of an argument. Your only point here is “the link is weak on poverty” this is not a theory argument. It is a solvency/link argument. That consult Japan had specific evidence vs many of the china topic cases or the ICC because they got at the heart of the security alliance does not, in my opinion, make it more legitimate there because its illegitimacy does not stem from the quality of its evidence- it stems from including the entire plan. See above and please explain why quality of evidence determines legitimacy.

    The point is, there’s no such thing as consult “in the abstract”.
    Yes there is- is it legitimate for the negative to run a counterplan that does the whole plan and competes off implied immediate and unconditional fiat.
    The existence of a formal mechanism for binding consultation over ANY area of US policy doesn’t exist, the veto is determined by context.
    Another great SOLVENCY argument.
    Expanding the scope of consult to issues not relevant to the process is arbitrary, it is the same as creating a new process.
    Repeating this over and over again does not make it true. Most, if not all, negative counterplans rely on doing something on a topic or in a way that has not been done before, that is not the same as the anarchy cp which creates a new mechanism.
    At best, you’ve proven that it’s not arbitrary in the .001% cases where the neg has run consult where the aff actually falls within the scope of the treaty. Your response to David Marks above about poverty not being relevant to your argument is clearly false if the scope of the veto is currently limited. If the counterplan expands the scope of the veto, to areas that would never be considered by that mechanism under any participant’s dreams, it’s not very different from consulting Brazil, because it establishes a new process and might even require a new treaty. And, even if your “inclusive not exclusive” argument is correct, which I don’t believe is true, for all practical purposes it is STILL a new form of consult given that no actual policymaker would ever consider it.
    No policymakers would consider it? Have you been talking to Branson again? This argument is not tenable to me because it is not fixed- new publications can change this. For example if cyrus read this card
    Vogel, Associate Poli Sci Prof @ Berkley, 2002
    4. The U.S. Japan agenda will expand.
    Throughout most of the postwar period, the United States and Japan focused almost exclusively on a core agenda centered on security and trade. This volume has noted how some issue areas, such as technology and finance, have increased in importance in recent years. The volume has paid little attention to other areas, such as energy, the environment, human rights, and immigration. This selection of topics is justified because these other issues have not been central to the relationship in the postwar period. In the future, however, the agenda will continue to expand, with these non-core issues increasing in importance. On balance, this is likely to improve relations between the two countries because it deflects attention from areas of conflict and increases opportunities for cooperation. In fact the United States and Japan initiated a Common Agenda program in the 1990s to work on such global problems. Their mutual preoccupation with trade and security issues limited their ability to push forward the agenda, but the two countries will have opportunities to move further in this direction in the years to come. At the same time, however, the expansion of the agenda can also generate new possibilities for conflict. The United States and Japan may have a common interest in the protection of whales and the reduction of greenhouse gases, for example, but they have very different positions on how to achieve these goals.

    Some judges might say- ok that’s enough. You would no doubt say “that does not saying binding consultation with a veto over the plan specifically”. Why does the fact that Vogel says “we need binding consultation to save the alliance” on p. 221, explain why there needs to be a veto on a different page, and then says we should work in non security aspects on p. 264 mean that this doesn’t pass the test?

    An example: I remember there being evidence for the BWC aff that said the US, as a signatory to the BWC had to consult with other signatories over the BWC enforcement protocol; a team I coached lost a debate to this evidence.
    Whether or not consulting was legitimate should not of been determined by this card, but instead by an examination of the theoretical issues involved.
    Consulting through the BWC over poverty clearly changes that mechanism, even though there’s no evidence that says the BWC CAN’T talk about poverty: it’s just assumed that the BWC consultations are limited to the enforcement protocol. No one would ever think to explicitly exclude things not related to the protocol because that would be stupid and unnecessary.
    See japan example above
    The accusation we’re “talking out of your asses on this one because neither of you has done ANY searches on this” is odd given that one defining factor that marks all consult debates is the neg never has evidence relevant to the aff that defends the VETO outside of the scope of the security alliance or in relation to the plan. Which means we’re not the ones talking out of our asses here.
    Yes this is true- no author ever says “binding consult on the plan”- but why is “binding consult key” and “plan a key issue” insufficient? This 1 magic card standard is wholly arbitrary- see cyrus politics example above. I cannot think of a negative strategy you produced in my time at emory that would meet this 1 magic card standard- dealtert/tridents certainly doesn’t, none of the courts topic quirin strategies etc.

    Your phone call analogy still has zero relevance; you need an analogy that accounts for the veto.
    I don’t know how to better explain this one so I’ll concede.
    3. Your args about literature aren’t very relevant to my arguments. I did not say that literature was the sole determinate of theoretical legitimacy. I did not say that the existence of a card saying we should consult Japan over the aff would make the cp legitimate. In fact, I haven’t even made an argument regarding the theoretical legitimacy of consult at all: my argument so far only has been that limiting consult to Japan or NATO is arbitrary.
    You have certainly made a broader claim then this- otherwise how did consult on the plan even come up?
    You say your interpretation is more finite, it’s limited to 2 mechanisms, and a literature based interpretation is unpredictable. I’ve conceded yours is more limited: I just don’t think you have any way of excluding a literature based interpretation, other than your own arbitrary self interest of making consult appear limited than it ever will be in debates.
    As explained before, its not my self interest- the aff could deploy this argument against any non nato/japan cp. Your response to this was to say “here are a bunch of arguments I know are terrible the neg could say in response”. I don’t see why I should spend time responding to arguments you yourself know and admit are terrible.

    For example, it’s illogical to accept one form of consult, even if it has nothing to do with the aff and is from an unqualified blogger, and exclude another form of consult, even if specific to the aff from their own solvency author, just because the former is based on an existing mechanism and the latter isn’t.
    That one is based on a formal, established mechanism certainly makes it more predictable than the other.

    Your response it to say I “fundamentally do not understand what the word arbitrary means. It means you don’t have a logical basis.” But, oddly, the definition you provided says it means “subject to individual will or judgment without restriction; contingent solely upon one’s discretion.” Which does, in fact, make your attempt to limit NATO and Japan from other forms of consult completely and entirely arbitrary.
    This would be true if I said “only nato and japan” but explained above- that’s not what we are saying, we are saying “only FEM” which has a logical basis.
    Then you advance the mystifying claim that you aren’t trying to exclude other forms of consult, you’re just saying NATO and Japan are predictable, “which is a response to limits.”
    This isn’t mystifying- if you can prove another consult has an FEM its in. If not- out. I guess perhaps I was unclear- what I meant was, we did not sit down and say “how can we limit this to only nato and japan” and brain storm reasons. I don’t even like NATO, if I could I would of said only japan. But argument that only FEM results in NATO and Japan.
    I don’t know how you can say it’s a limit but not an exclusion, this makes about as much sense as everything Cyrus posted above, which is to say: none.
    Dave you are really reaching here. The difference is between exclusive and inclusive. It includes Japan and NATO, it is not exclusive in that it doesn’t say ONLY those 2- if another FEM existed it would be included. It does not arbitrarily exclude like “only our case” – it logically includes- there is a standard that must be met for inclusion- and that standard has a real world basis.
    This entire exchange has been about whether “only” NATO or Japan is arbitrary; your response to Rajesh indicates that you’re defending the exclusion, as has everything else you’ve said up until the point you realized you were defending something that has no actual defense.
    Have you been stealing josh hoe’s crazy pills? Seriously, explain an interpretation that according to you would not be arbitrary and how this is different from it.
    Your choice to say “only those two” isn’t grounded in anything other than your own preference.
    Sweet holy moses. Those 2 have an established mechanism. Others don’t. That is not my preference- it is a fact in REALITY.

    You think it’s predictable for the aff to research two arcane mechanisms in US law that aren’t used in domestic policy and have no relevance to the aff;
    Again, presupposes poverty topic. I think given that they have been run on every topic in the last decade its probably predictable for the aff. But I don’t think predictability is a factor in whether or not they are legitimate. Seriously I suggest you read my why stupid arguments win post because you have become caught up in the web of stupid here- you have dedicated like 10 pages of text to beating 1 defensive argument for why consult is legit- this is not the lynchpin of our case- nor is it even really that relevant. But you have narrowed in on one argument and continue to beat a dead horse on a factually false objection-that it is arbitrary.
    “ someone else might think it’s more predictable to say “only consult people in poverty” because the aff might expect in from topic research and other stuff isn’t plan specific, a third person might say “only consult the public” or “only Brazil” is predictable because of the arguments I advanced earlier”
    One….last….time…. What is the logical basis for those interpretations? How is it comparable to FEM?

    And yes, we can have debates about which interpretation is better, but it doesn’t make yours any less arbitrary.
    This is a non argument. In the debate about which is better the non arbitrary one will have a huge edge- if you would like to debate only FEM vs any of the interps you have advanced above you will lose every time.

    The fundamental point is that 2 mechanisms exist in law, but the law isn’t limited to those 2 mechanisms, so any attempt to establish a limit on your own is based on self interest alone.
    Yes, the law isn’t- but REALITY is. For any other agent you would have to first establish an FEM which probably requires a treaty- how can you say that is not categorically different?

    Literature being unlimited / unpredictable is an unrelated point, since you can’t exclude literature in a nonarbitrary manner.
    I agree its unrelated- you are the one who keeps bringing it up as a relevant factor- no literature on the aff. And you can exclude literature based interpretations in a “non arbitrary manner”- you can say they are arbitrary!
    But you’re wrong about this too. Yes, you can’t omnisciently know all topic literature. But you can research a topic to the point where you are familiar with the core of the literature about your aff: someone who has done a lot of research will be able to predict literature based arguments far better than someone who has only done a little.
    Obviously. But this is a distinction without a difference- a little bit better is still far off from omniscient mastery which is what your argument requires- if there is the possibility of any hole than your entire argument collapses.

    It’s not perfect, but you’re speaking in absolutes when degree matters. Given this, literature is MORE predictable than the existence of 2 facets of US law that are never related to the aff: the aff can more reasonably expect to find and prepare for “consult x” if they find it in the literature about their aff than they can be expected to prepare for consult NATO or Japan.
    How prepared were you for consult BWC? Apparently not very even though you knew about it? Look here is the difference
    “consult about plan”
    -allegedly the aff will discover this in research
    -since it’s a random obscure mechanism there is not much literature
    “consult japan”
    -everyone already knows about it
    -there are tons of aff answers/disads because it is a real world mechanism that people write about

    4. Regarding the definition, my claim about context of arbitration did only apply to #2, “decided by a judge or arbiter rather than by a statute”, which is the only one that made makes sense for the argument you were making. The broader definition doesn’t help you even remotely. There’s no statute that prohibits consultation, or limits it to those two instances, or limits it to formal instead of informal, etc.
    Why does their have to be? As long as they are explicitly allowed by law, and others aren’t, its not arbitrary. Marks post if anything proves that consultation without explicit treaty authorization would be struck down.

  23. David Heidt

    I’ve made no arguments for or against the theoretical legitimacy of consult. I think it’s illegitimate in all instances, but I have not yet made any arguments to that effect. I don’t understand this part of your response. Nor have I said a consult solvency author should exist in one card, or that poor evidence should be the grounds for exclusion. I haven’t even said that the arbitrariness of your limit by itself is a reason to reject consult: I think it helps the aff set up other arguments but by itself it’s not sufficient.

    My argument has been solely that limiting it to the FEM is arbitrary: you have no basis for excluding other forms of consult. You can replace “only NATO and Japan” with “only FEM” everywhere in my post and the same arguments are true, I don’t think your distinction is meaningful.

    “Only FEM” has no logical basis. Zero. Why only FEM and not informal consult? Why only current FEM and not negotiate a new FEM? Why only FEM and not use the BWC consult mechanism, or the WTO, or referendums? Informal consult, negotiating treaties, the BWC, WTO and referendums are existing mechanisms and there’s literature on them. You are correct that your states and courts analogies aren’t “perfectly representative.” Like your other analogies, they’re not even close. The fact that the states or courts haven’t done the plan before isn’t relevant to my argument, I’m not saying you should accept one form of states or courts and exclude the rest. My argument is actually the opposite: it would be arbitrary to LIMIT the states to just an interstate compact mechanism, and not allow a new form of cooperation that is both legally available to them and literature supports, such as informal cooperation.

    It’s not “the link is weak on poverty”. It’s “you’ve expanded the FEM in a way the FEM doesn’t allow” which means you’ve effectively created a new legal mechanism. Your Vogel ev, assuming it was about expanding the scope of the veto, which doesn’t appear to be a safe assumption to make, at best has created a normative reason to change the mechanism. The cp doesn’t reflect an actual existing mechanism because it changes it, in such a way that it doesn’t resemble the original mechanism. It’s not different from the BWC example: no one says consult over the BWC enforcement protocol is limited to the BWC enforcement protocol because it’s unnecessary, it’s obviously outside the scope. Expanding the mechanism would fundamentally alter it. David Marks’ post also demonstrates it changes the legal basis behind the mechanism. Yes, this is also a solvency argument, but it also demonstrates the cp is not using a current mechanism.

    “Only FEM” is based on self interest, not logic. You want consult Japan, if you can convince people that consult appears to be limited to just Japan and NATO, it helps you defend consult is predictable. It’s exactly the same as “only our case”: you have no basis for excluding changes to FEM, or the use of non FEM mechanisms. Even establishing a new treaty is not at all different: the mechanism for establishing a treaty exists in US law. That the aff can also say “only FEM” vs. consult Brazil doesn’t make it less an act of self interest given that it won’t actually help them; I’ve demonstrated other ways the neg can craft an interpretation of consult to say “only their cp”. Those other ways are equally arbitrary. While I did say those examples were also bad, they are substantially more persuasive than anything you’ve written so far.

    Your argument is basically neg cp ground should be limited to existing mechanisms in US law, but for some illogical reason you are limiting the neg to the FEM mechanism. If you don’t think that’s arbitrary, then you haven’t actually read your own definition of the word. If there’s no preclusion of the use of some mechanism in the law, or preclusion against expanding the FEM, then any cp that isn’t illegal is justified for the same reason you’ve justified FEM.

    Your other arguments that consult Japan is different from my examples revolve around ‘it has been run before’, and ‘there’s literature on the mechanism’. I don’t know why you’d say that, that is true of a long list of consult cps, and it grounds your defense of a real world mechanism in the same literature argument that you are attacking.

    The last thing I’ll say is to answer your question: “explain an interpretation that according to you would not be arbitrary and how this is different from it.” My entire point has you CAN’T exclude other forms of consult, and limit it to FEM, it’s illogical and not a real limit. There IS NO interpretation that would not be arbitrary, anyone who accepts consult NATO and Japan, is logically also accepting the rest of consult. A literature standard is less arbitrary than yours, in that there’s an argument that the aff may be able to reasonably anticipate arguments related to their aff, but it is still arbitrary.

    I don’t think the rest of your arguments are relevant. If you’re concerned about me spending time on an argument that you consider marginal, then why are you also doing it?

  24. Scott Phillips

    I’ve made no arguments for or against the theoretical legitimacy of consult. I think it’s illegitimate in all instances, but I have not yet made any arguments to that effect. I don’t understand this part of your response. Nor have I said a consult solvency author should exist in one card, or that poor evidence should be the grounds for exclusion. I haven’t even said that the arbitrariness of your limit by itself is a reason to reject consult: I think it helps the aff set up other arguments but by itself it’s not sufficient.
    This is exactly my point, I have no idea what you are arguing. You keep insisting one random argument is arbitrary, but can provide no warrant other than you think it is. This will be my last response to you dave- you have repeatedly brought up arguments, ignored the responses to them, and are now claiming you didn’t make them. This is just getting annoying.

    My argument has been solely that limiting it to the FEM is arbitrary: you have no basis for excluding other forms of consult.
    The basis is that there is no established mechanism to do so. The fact that you don’t find this satisfactory does not make it arbitrary. I asked you to give an example of an interpretation of ANYTHING, not just consult and would love to hear you give one that you think is not arbitrary.
    You chose to ignore the fact that no negative argument would be legitimate if held to the standard you try and hold consult to. You also ignored 99% of the other things I said and are just repeating things over and over again.

    You can replace “only NATO and Japan” with “only FEM” everywhere in my post and the same arguments are true, I don’t think your distinction is meaningful.
    Your opinion is not the definition of arbitrary unfortunately. You cannot explain a definition of the term arbitrary that this meets. You keep moving the goal post by saying “no evidence assumes X” or “the treaty doesn’t discuss the plan” then when the nonsense of these statements is refuted you just keep repeating “its self serving”.

    “Only FEM” has no logical basis. Zero. Why only FEM and not informal consult?
    I answered this above and you ignored it. Informal consult isn’t competitive. Marks evidence proves a formal mechanism is required for it to be constitutional. Without something set up for the consultation to happen, it can’t happen. Please post evidence that you think refutes this.

    Why only current FEM and not negotiate a new FEM?
    There is clearly a logical difference between these two- one requires an extra step. That is not “arbitrary” which means without reason- THERE IS A REASON.
    Why only FEM and not use the BWC consult mechanism, or the WTO, or referendums?
    You are just repeating the same nonsense here- if there is no established mechanism, the neg would have to create it. Limiting consultation to established mechanisms makes things more predictable for both sides.
    Informal consult, negotiating treaties, the BWC, WTO and referendums are existing mechanisms and there’s literature on them.
    No they are not existing.
    You are correct that your states and courts analogies aren’t “perfectly representative.” Like your other analogies, they’re not even close. The fact that the states or courts haven’t done the plan isn’t relevant to my argument, I’m not saying you should exclude the states or the courts.
    This is ridiculous. You said “never consulted on plan makes it arbitrary”. How is this different from saying “courts never done the plan”. I know you are not saying it, but your same argument would exclude it. This was very clear in my original post- you are again being purposefully obtuse.
    My argument is actually the opposite: it would be arbitrary to LIMIT the states to just an interstate compact mechanism, and not allow a new form of cooperation that is both legally available to them and literature supports, such as informal cooperation.
    This has nothing to do with anything.

    It’s not “the link is weak on poverty”. It’s “you’ve expanded the FEM in a way the FEM doesn’t allow” which means you’ve effectively created a new legal mechanism.
    As stated previously, you have no evidence to support its not allowed. ZERO.
    Your Vogel ev, assuming it was about expanding the scope of the veto, which doesn’t appear to be a safe assumption to make, at best has created a normative reason to change the mechanism. The cp doesn’t reflect an actual existing mechanism because it changes it, in such a way that it doesn’t resemble the original mechanism.
    Using the mechanism on a new topic does not change the mechanism. You have no support for this other than your opinion. Please post a card or single other source that agrees with you and I will concede. You just totally made this up.
    It’s not different from the BWC example: no one says consult over the BWC enforcement protocol is limited to the BWC enforcement protocol because it’s unnecessary, it’s obviously outside the scope. Expanding the mechanism would fundamentally alter it.
    Above

    “Only FEM” is based on self interest, not logic.
    You can use mechanisms that exist, how is that not logical. Give a warrant instead of just repeating it over and over again.
    You want consult Japan, if you can convince people that consult appears to be limited to just Japan and NATO, it helps you defend consult is predictable.

    It’s exactly the same as “only our case”: you have no basis for excluding changes to FEM, or the use of non FEM mechanisms. Even establishing a new treaty is not at all different: the mechanism for establishing a treaty exists in US law.
    This has been refuted 20x by now- you have not responded to a single argument presented against this analogy.

    Your argument is basically neg cp ground should be limited to existing mechanisms in US law, but for some illogical reason you are limiting the neg to the FEM mechanism.
    I made a nuanced argument about consultation specifically. You responded with a unwarranted grandiose statement that excludes every negative counterplan.
    If you don’t think that’s arbitrary, you haven’t actually read your definition of it. If there’s no preclusion of the use of some mechanism in the law, or preclusion against expanding the FEM, then any cp has a legal basis and isn’t arbitrary.
    Preclusion is not in the definition, you made this up.

    The last thing I’ll say is to answer your question: “explain an interpretation that according to you would not be arbitrary and how this is different from it.” My entire point has you CAN’T exclude other forms of consult, and limit it to FEM, it’s illogical and not a real limit. There IS NO interpretation that would not be arbitrary. So to accept consult, you’re accepting all of it, not just FEM. I don’t think the rest of your arguments are relevant.
    This is above

  25. David Heidt

    Scott,

    If you think this has gotten annoying, consider your approach: refute every sentence outside of the context of the argument, mischaracterize the argument, respond to the mischaracterization, provide irrelevant analogy, insert adhom. If I responded to you in the same fashion you responded to me, this exchange would be impossible for anyone to follow.

    My argument the whole time has been very simple: limiting consult to Japan/NATO, or the FEM, is arbitrary, and you have no actual logical way to limit it that. I provided two defenses of this, one that said your deployment of consult created a new mechanism, and a second that said all forms of consult could be justified in a way that was equally arbitrary as your limit, such that your limit wasn’t an actual limit and was in fact similar to “only our aff is topical”. I also pointed out your definition doesn’t support your claim. I don’t think I’ve really said more than this.

    I don’t know why this is confusing to you, but apparently it must be, given that you wrote “You responded with a unwarranted grandiose statement that excludes every negative counterplan” when in fact my argument has been is you CAN’T exclude the other forms of consult if you accept NATO and Japan. There are existing, legal mechanisms in US law to negotiate a new treaty or do informal consultations, and your “existing mechanisms” argument is arbitrarily limited to one existing mechanism and excludes the rest with no logical basis.

    In the interest of avoiding repetition, I’ll concede the first claim I made, and agree that expanding the scope of the veto is not the same as creating a new mechanism. For the limited purposes of this exchange, I am agreeing with you that applying the veto power over troop deployments in a security treaty to US poverty policy, or really any other US policy, is perfectly legal, predictable and nonarbitrary. Since I’ve provided no evidence to say that expanding this veto well beyond the scope of the treaty doesn’t create a new legal mechanism, I’m willing to accept that the Vogel evidence (that wasn’t about the veto) actually is about the veto, and I’m willing to ignore the evidence from David Marks about the legality of this move since it wasn’t about Japan, even though it is the only evidence that has been provided about the process. And even though there’s not even one magic card defending the expansion of the veto in a context not related to the security treaty, I should just assume that you’re correct, given that logic has been so instrumental to your defense.

    Given this concession, I think it’s perfectly predictable and nonarbitrary to expand other existing legal mechanisms, such as the WTO or the BWC, to US poverty policy as well. Clearly that doesn’t create a new mechanism either, it’s really just expanding the scope of the existing consultation mechanism in the WTO.

    Regarding my second point, though, you’re just wrong:

    Informal consult exists now, and the Marks constitution argument only refers to a framework for consult. Delegating the veto is about creating a framework for future uses of the veto over policies that have already been passed, it doesn’t refer to a singular act of consult prior to the passage of a policy. The Marks argument demonstrates that expanding the formal framework to give content over vetoes for future policy is requires new authority, but it doesn’t preclude an act of informal, prior consultation, especially when the neg gets to fiat the entire USFG to avoid circumvention arguments. I don’t know why you don’t think it’s competitive: it rests on the same competition arguments as consult, I agree it’s not competitive but only because consult Japan isn’t either.

    Your “no new FEM” argument boils down to consult should be limited to the FEM because that’s one step, whereas anything beyond that would be two steps. That is obviously arbitrary, you have no logical basis for confining it to that other than self interest. There is a distinction between current FEM and new FEM, obviously, but there’s no basis for you to exclude new FEM other than you want consult to appear limited. The law allows new FEM, there’s a mechanism for it, which means your interpretation of “only the law” doesn’t exclude it. It’s convenient for you to say that I guess but your defense appears to rest on the normative conclusion “multiple plank plans and counterplans bad,” which isn’t based in law, or logic.

    And there are other existing mechanisms like the WTO, or consult the Congress, or reg neg, or consult poverty according to Hester’s post, that aren’t the FEM but are actual mechanisms, you have no ability to exclude them.

    Regarding your definition, your defense rests on “Preclusion is not in the definition, you made this up.” I’ve interpreted the definition that is actually consistent with it, unlike you. The definition in fact shows that your limit IS arbitrary: there is no legal restriction on other forms of consult, and you are essentially making one up for the purposes of crafting an apparently limited but in reality worthless interpretation. You are making up a restriction that isn’t based in law, it’s your own discretion: you’ve provided the best proof that your interpretation is nothing other than your own self interest.

  26. Scott Phillips

    Dave,

    At no point have you made an argument that refutes that there is a difference between existence and non-existence. Lack of a formal mechanism makes other counterplans categorically different than Japan/Nato counterplans. That there is a difference, much like sneeches, means that you can logically differentiate between them. Since the differentiation is based on logic it is not arbitrary. Blue cars are not red cars. That other red cars are similar to the blue ones, or could be painted, does not change this fact. To make a blue car read you must undergo a specific, observable process-painting it. Similarly, to consult a new actor you must establish a formal mechanism. If it’s true that WTO or people in poverty can be consulted because they have a mechanism, then they meet the interpretation. That the interpretation gives you a guide and a rubric to see what is and is not legitimate proves it is not arbitrary like “just XYZ country” is.

    Lastly, you can’t repeatedly call Cyrus’s post nonsense and expect me to be nice to you.

    http://www.greenwaterimages.com/bahamas2005/images/sharkwithremora.jpg

  27. andrew

    “Here is an article that explains it is actually a “veto” -http://se1.isn.ch/serviceengine/FileContent?serviceID=47&fileid=2C47DDF5-ED15-2AB3-34F4-DAC77EAA27E3&lng=en”

    this link isn’t working for me. does it work for anyone else?

Comments are closed.