19 thoughts on “New Podcast

  1. Casey Harrigan

    Two points:

    1. You all need practice reading – no part of my post was a *theoretical* indict of the consult CP.

    I said two things: that debaters perceive judges to be neg biased, so they don't go for theory, and that substantively answering the CP is hard because its a made-up process.

    You almost entirely "dropped" the second half – the fake nature of "veto-power" consultation CPs. The Jamie Carroll card has value only insofar as it is the FIRST card that actually describes what debaters say the CP does.

    2. I agree with most of what SP and RL said – nearly all evidence written by debaters is either a) unqualified, b) poor quality, or c) biased by their experience in debate that causes them to write outlandish things for the purpose of use in competition.

    JC is the exception to the rule. It *had* to be a debater to write the card – because no one else would bother to write about something to absurd. Consultation is a false construct of the debate community. Only debaters can respond.

    He isn't qualified (in the sense that he has no degree in the subject area of IR or foreign policy).

    BUT, it is evidence from a peer-reviewed source (yes, all parts reviewed, Scott), where there is some intellectual standard, from an individual who has some academic credentials (JD Honors, Emory Law), and footnotes the most applicable cites (Allies and Arms Control – which has the best Aff cards on consult that exist, barring some magic Lexis card that only Roy has). Plus, its stupid to set the standard that only someone with a Ph.D. in IR can write about a made-up process. Based on the history of the world, no one with that degree has written about veto-power consultation. Why? Because it is stupid (not from a theoretical debate stand-point, but from an IR/foreign policy making one) and would have undermined their academic credibility to devote time in a publication to it.

    Here's a test: if consult is real and the JC card is schenanigans, provide a Neg card from a qualified source that answers the logical argument he makes. It *does make sense* that giving another country a binding veto over U.S. policy unrelated to their national survival would be stupid and "make a mockery of U.S. foreign policy". Someone should have responded. Where's your card?

  2. Scott Phillips

    I don't remember attributing a theory argument to you specifically- I did reference your claim that " no cards assume it" specifically and relate that to other strategies that fall victim to the same indict. I then agreed that no card assumed it- maybe we can get a discount at sylvan if we go together? Insert deafness joke here.

  3. Casey Harrigan

    Not trying to be annoying.

    If the issue is "Are consult CPs contrived?", then the answer is "yes" because veto-power is something the U.S. would likely never allow.

    This *matters* because it means every "Neg" card really supports the perm – do the plan + consult Japan (in a non-binding fashion). The impact is that it makes the CP almost unwinnable.

    If the issue is "Are Incentives CPs on a pressure topic contrived?", the answer is unclear. I think a LOT of good evidence existed for the "Trade Missile Defense" CP – especially in areas like Taiwan or North Korea.

    BUT, even bracketing off the question of the "link" — and assuming you're right that Incentives is equally fake, what is the impact?

  4. Scott Phillips

    I don’t think you ar annoying but the “101” joke should prob. Be put to bed. I didn’t reallyhavea point other than critics of consult are so rabid about it and then inconsistent which annoys me to no end. I don’t think the presence of good consult ev on the college topic this year makes it any less ridiculous. Also- LOPEZ!!!!

  5. Brad Hall

    I disagree w/ the claim that actual China policy experts would not consider the incentives/engagement CP as a relevant alternative to a policy pressure. I didn’t find a card for this, but I think it’s obvious.

    It’s also a little unfair just to attack Jamie and Speice without mentioning the prevalence of the Kouros cards used as an alternative for the Spanos K — an undergrad thesis (no peer review) by a debater that was only available in the Emory library is substantially different from law review articles.

    One other quick point: I’ve been out of debate for a couple years and involved in the political/environmental world, where I’ve found that the oft maligned staff writer is actually usually a very good source and one of the most informed people writing on a particular topic.

    Finally, here’s a good article from Louden about choosing a college program: http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/Recruiting/SelectingCollegeProgram.htm

  6. Brad Hall

    Also, the Lopez CP is lame. It is logically inconsistent to argue that the “one sheet” Consult CP is cheating, while the Lopez/States CP should be a stock negative strategy. They both disincentive case specific research (and in fact, the evidentiary burdens for Lopez are lower than Consult — at least w/ consult, you need a “say yes” card better than the aff’s ev).

  7. Casey Harrigan

    <blockquote cite="#commentbody-1139">
    Brad Hall :
    It is logically inconsistent to argue that the “one sheet” Consult CP is cheating, while the Lopez/States CP should be a stock negative strategy.

    Agreed

  8. Roy Levkovitz

    For those of you who care, and based on the questions I've had since I've been here at St. Marks (this is alot of you) when Scott referenced me being a law school student one day he did not mean next year. I'm sure you all were asking cause you care about me and want me in the community, but I have not filled out any law school applications.

    Roy

  9. Scott Phillips

    Footnotes Bad:
    http://www.law.com/jsp/nylj/PubArticleNY.jsp?id=1….
    But there has been a backlash on the bench. In 1985, Abner Mikva (then-chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit) declared war on footnotes in his own law review piece entitled – in homage to Rodell – "Goodbye to Footnotes." Mikva persuasively argued that "if footnotes were a rational form of communication, Darwinian selection would have resulted in the eyes being set vertically rather than on an inefficient horizontal plane."

  10. Ellis

    Unrelated to this whole consult/ev/Roy discussion–backflowing is definitely easier paperless. I'm not trying to defend the Synergy software or flowing on a computer, but merely assembling speeches on the laptop makes it a billion times easier to backflow because the entire speech is right there when you or your partner need it. This is also sweet in the later rebuttals when most teams waste 2 minutes of prep time looking for that one card but you have everything in speech order to read and analyze.

  11. gulakov

    <blockquote cite="#commentbody-1173">
    Ellis :
    Unrelated to this whole consult/ev/Roy discussion–backflowing is definitely easier paperless. I’m not trying to defend the Synergy software or flowing on a computer, but merely assembling speeches on the laptop makes it a billion times easier to backflow because the entire speech is right there when you or your partner need it. This is also sweet in the later rebuttals when most teams waste 2 minutes of prep time looking for that one card but you have everything in speech order to read and analyze.

    One of the things I am looking into for Debate Synergy 2.0 for MS Office 2010 is having a single shared flow per team, allowing synchronization of speeches and flows.

    Also, thanks to everyone that came to the talk. I made a 15-minute audio recording of it — unfortunately it's probably not that great of a demo without the video — but still you can email me if you want it.

Comments are closed.