Throwdown- Pics Bad

As per request, the next throwdown will be on pics bad. There can be a lot more nuance to this than consult I think- whether agent CP’s are pics, pics that compete off the text (word pics) vs the implementation (exclude native americans) etc. I will try and keep this as broad as reasonably possible.

So here is a quick pics bad 2AC, post comments defending pics or attacking these args for the throwdown

PICS are illegitimate
A, They artificially inflate the worth of bad disads by creating any risk of a link analysis
B, They steal aff ground – they change the way we debate every argument by effecting which parts of the plan we can leverage as offense
C, Not predictable- they create an infinite regress to a penny saved is a penny earned style of arguments
D, alternatives solves- they can run the net benefit as a disad or use a different mechanism

This is a voting issue- the damage to 2AC strategy is done, rejecting the argument creates a perverse incentive for them to abuse us

4 thoughts on “Throwdown- Pics Bad

  1. JC

    1. Your first two arguments are basically the same whine. Just fix your plan. If you had a justification for everything you put in your plan, then you could leverage actual solvency deficits against these PICS to outweigh the “bad” DAs.
    2. The infinite regression argument is the worst. I mean the worst. You were just defending consult (a WHOLE PLAN pic). Who runs these 1 penny counterplans? Who wins on them? Who has solvency advocates for them? If solvency advocates exist and net benefits exist, then maybe it’s a real question in the literature.
    3. What do you mean, alternatives solve? The counterplan tests whether the Aff would be a better idea if done slightly differently. The only way to test that is to do most of the Aff…but not the part that we think is bad. Running a DA alone could never test that.
    4. Think about this in real life. Suppose a friend wants to watch Lucky Number Sleven and then the International. Obviously, the International is trash, but Lucky Number Sleven is good. Would you have to counterplan to watch two totally different movies? Or why not say…just not see the International?
    In every form of politics, in every type of discussion…there’s PICs. It’s just an unrealistic vision of argument to think that one can’t win by including part of your opponent’s advocacy and showing how it can be improved by excluding something else.
    5. The damage to the 2AC strategy is done? What strategy are you talking about? If you think you can beat the CP on PICs bad, then just rely on that and debate the squo elsewhere. Or read addons that the PIC doesn’t solve. Whoops, I forgot, you’d have to have a good plan to do that trick. Never mind.

    And I haven’t even gotten into the debate reasons why pics are good…

    1. Roy Levkovitz

      I’ll make my Ali like re-entrance to ring here. I’d say I was busy or doing other important things that prevented me from posting…. but I’d be lying.

      I’m excited for you to get to your reason for why PICs are good, cause your first post won’t cut it.

      To keep it consistent lets keep your movie analogy.

      A.) Its horrible. Almost no aff ever has 2 giant planks like lets go see 2 movies tonight. Yes if your PIC is to do half the aff, then aff will likely not whine and complain but go for reasons half their aff is good. The problem lies in how minor/irrelevant the PIC almost always is. Analogy fail..

      B.) This is how using your movie analogy the PIC plays out. Roy: LNS is on TNT tonight we should watch it. JC: Hmm I do love LNS but TNT has commercials, hmm I’m impatient Roy, why don’t you record it instead and I’ll come watch it later so I can skip the commercials…. Are commercials a pain? sure, are commercials alone a reason not to watch LNS? No. If TIVO didn’t exist you’d be watching the movie. You still want to watch LNS you’d just rather not watch the commercials. With the PIC to you’ve artificially made the commercial da a viable argument where previously it had little impact.

      C.) You say penny saved penny earned cps don’t exist- the pic to do the plan in caps or not caps, to call a court case by its number not by the case name, any discourse pic, pic out of the word “the”, and the policy impacted PIC to do call it clean energy not alternative energy are a quick list off the top of my head of some PICS read. So it might not be penny saved but its just as bad.

      D.) “Just beat them on pics bad”- lols will do.

  2. Jason W

    A- Reciprocal – they inflate the solvency deficit to the same degree. If you can’t win that this outweighs the disad it means either the CP isn’t competitive or you deserve to lose.

    B- A strong 1NC barrage of defensive case arguments and DAs that turn the case accomplishes the same effect. This argument also justifies banning all CPs because they force you to make certain solvency deficit arguments and not others. This neg ability to focus on a specific part of the plan is justified by the aff ability to set the focus of the entire debate

    C- See above – aff gets to choose their side in almost every PIC debate. “penny saved” counterplans aren’t viable because the neg can’t win that the DA outweighs the solvency deficit – it’s like throwing out a court case because of insufficient evidence. Roy’s counterplans are stupid for reasons other than that they’re PICs, they’re either only textually or not competitive. This logic is the equivalent of banning DAs because you think politics is stupid

    D- “Using a different mechanism” is the same as a PIC+an additional plank – you’ve pic’d out of one mechanism and substituted another. it still gives the neg the ability to “artifically inflate bad disads” based on the difference between the two mechanisms. the alternative energy PIC is an example of a “different mechanism” CP.

    Running the net-benefit without the CP is overly constraining – proving that the plan is sub-optimal and that a viable, competitive alternative exists negates the aff. To answer this statement you’d have to argue neg fiat bad, and that (or even just no PICs) would regress us to 1960s, Greg Varley era debate where the aff always wins.

    (to use a real world analogy, the argument that the fact that the plan is an improvement over the SQ is a sufficient reason to merit adoption would hold no water. see the health care debate – rational policymakers don’t adopt policies if better alternatives that are smaller than the plan exist. If the public option PIC succeeds, Obama loses.)

  3. JC

    Roy-so PICS that take out half the aff plan are cool, but not “minor/irrelevant” ones? I guess your position isn’t really “pics bad” then but rather some PICs are bad. That seems a lot more reasonable (even if your distinction as to what counts as a minor pic is somewhat arbitrary)
    The movie analogy I admit is a little silly, but it still seems preferable to watch LNS without commercials-ie Tivo makes the no commercial CP a better course of action. It seems like policy debate is (should be?) all about finding what a reasonable policymaker in the aff’s position would do, and PICs can help answer that question. Yeah, the commercial DA might not outweigh LNS by itself-but if there’s an easy way to avoid the commercial DA, why not do it? If there’s a disadvantage to a course of action, and an easy way to avoid that disadvantage, any policymaker would avoid the DA. I’m gonna go with logic as the primary reason to favor pics.
    I agree that textual competition is a terrible standard. I’m really just defending substantive pics. (see how I just agreed with you on something and disagreed on something else? crazy! abuse!)
    The last point was really a reason why running a PIC should not be a reason to vote against the team but rather reject the argument.

Comments are closed.