Intervention is bad, non intervention is good. Let’s get to it
“What is intervention?”
Intervention is when a judge inserts themselves into a debate either to ignore an argument, make a cross application of an argument that was not made in the debate, or to add an explanation/warrant to an argument that was not in the debate. Classic examples of intervention I see now with some frequency
-I didn’t vote on XYZ theory argument- I just rejected the argument even though the other team did not say that
-Even though the aff did not explain how their “social services increasing now” evidence applied to every disad, they did read it in the 1AC so I applied it to your disad for them
-Neither team clearly won the k framework debate, so I decided to make up my own BS interpretation of who gets what arguments and decide the debate that way
-X team read a piece of evidence earlier in the debate, and even though they never reference or explain Y warrant in the piece of evidence it’s a card, so I voted for them instead of for your well reasoned analytic
Etc etc.
“Isn’t judge intervention inevitable?”
No, actually it isn’t. Judges can actually choose to resolve the debate based on the arguments presented there within. Usually when people say this what they are saying is “sometimes debates are bad and hard to resolve” which is true. However, usually the level of intervention is not equal to the requirement. Take an example outlined above- aff drops sever perm is a VI. No intervention is required here- you can just vote neg. Now some think “but the neg didn’t really explain why it was a reason to reject the team”- which is a fine point, and one that should have been raised by the affirmative. In the absence of such an argument you can 100% make a decision with zero intervention, the problem is some people don’t like this. So they justify it in their minds by saying “well they didn’t’ give a warrant, so to vote for them I would have to intervene on their behalf and insert a warrant for why I should reject the team”. This is prima facia false- you do not have to insert for them a warrant to answer an argument the affirmative did not make. You have now intervened twice- once to make an answer for the aff, and second to create an answer to the answer for the neg.
Another instance where people say intervention is inevitable is when no impact analysis is given. It is true that absent impact analysis sometimes decisions are hard but there is a difference between interpretation and intervention. Interpretation is when you look at the totality of arguments presented by both sides and try and figure out which side has won based on a calculation of risks. So in a debate where the economy is not compared vs terrorism and both sides have read “x –> extinction” you would decide like this: neither side made an impact argument that was different from the other- both are extinction, so we move on to a different criteria- probability. Now the critics of intervention will says “you just intervened to say probability is important so ha!”. That is stupid. Both teams in a substance debate know that you as a judge are going to decide which team has won a more likely impact- this is interpretation. Sure if you said “well I decided economic decline was more probable because of XYZ that wasn’t in the debate” that is intervention. If you say econ decline is more probable because the team arguing that side won more of the arguments than that is interpretation.
I could go on and on about this and will be happy to if people have questions in the comments, but right now I have more rant to get to so we will stop there. Let’s move on to some of the offensive justifications for intervention
“intervention is more educational”
This belief is usually tied to “XYZ argument is stupid, so I intervene against it”. I am tempted to just say “ if its dumb, the other team should be able to refute it”. The obvious logical weight of this argument seems undeniable, and yet here we are, so I guess I will have to say more. Debate is a unique activity in a few regards, but for my purposes the part that is unique is that the coaches are also the judges. No other activity is like that- sports have 3rd party referees for obvious reasons, but in debate that is not how things are done. If football coach A acting as a referee in a game between two other schools called more penalties on the team running the west coast offense because they didn’t agree with that strategy would probably cause an uproar. In debate when coaches impose their views onto other coaches students its apparently ok. For shame. I have basically 3 points about this
1. No matter how smart you think you are, I guarantee you are actually substantially less smart than that. To assume that you know a better way of debate than the debaters and should therefore decide the debate for yourself is a pernicious form of academic colonialism. What you are doing when you decide to intervene is a calculated political act- you are choosing to set aside the arguments made within the debate and instead decide based upon a criteria decided by you before the debate takes place. It is my contention that no goal- whether it be the promotion of education, diversity, or tolerance- can justify such a move. This move in and of itself compromises the competitive integrity of the game. Which brings me to point 2
2. You are more than welcome to consider yourself as primarily an “educator”. Many coaches are also teachers and so that role fits. However when you get to a tournament you are no longer an educator, you are an adjudicator. A tournament by definition is a competitive realm. The students you are judging came there under the impression that they would be able to compete, not be preached at. Judge intervention violates this fundamental social contract of debate as an activity. You have no contract or obligation to “educate” the students of another school, and furthermore, have no right to attempt to instill your beliefs on them.
3. Intervention is both an unnecessary and insufficient method for achieving your goal- whether it be education or something else. Let’s look at the sever perm example again-the purpose of intervention here is to discourage an argument the judge considers silly and uneducational. What are the effects of intervention here- they are to signal to the team that this argument will not serve a competitive purpose. This is an ineffective signal however since it does not show that the argument has no utility, but only that it did not work in this instance for this judge. Furthermore, the signal sent to the opposing team is that they can avoid clash and refutation and rely on the judge to sort things out and they are therefore told that strategically they can ignore their opponents arguments to gain time answering other arguments. A vastly superior alternative would be to explain in the post round why this is a bad argument and how to defeat it.
so if the neg read an arg on case for 7 seconds – aff kills the econ -> ext! with no cards and the aff dropped it, you would vote neg?
I appreciate the effort, but this post will not get Repko to vote for me.
Miles,
If the neg extended it in the 2NR and the aff never responded to it obvi. 7seconds is more than enough
lol @ David’s comment
Scott – If the neg said “aff perm is severance – v/i” in the 2NC and nothing more, aff drops it in the 1AR, 2NR is like “haha! we win! severance is a v/i” is there a winnable 2AR in front of you (let’s assume the neg didn’t say reject arg not team on any other flows)?
Correct me if I’m wrong – I interpreted your sever perms example to mean that even if you have to supply a warrant to the negative for sever perms being a v/i, that’s one intervention, but if you then supply an aff arg there’s no warrant, that’s two interventions, so it makes sense to presume negative because it’s less intervention. Why does this avoid your disads to judge intervention? I mean, it links less, but isn’t it inserting yourself into the debate somewhat to say sever perms are voting issue?
I think perhaps a judging paradigm that requires arguments to have both a claim and a warrant, but within that scope has no intervention, would solve the reasons intervention is bad. Perhaps the exact merits of “claim and warrant” are somewhat subjective, but that it is generally obvious enough when a team has a reason for something being true, no matter how dumb the reason is. There is no reason for severance being a voting issue in the 5-word blip, and would avoid incentivizing cheap shots like throwing independent voting issue across the flow or making those 7-word analytical econ disads in the fervent hope that they are dropped.
As a completely separate and unrelated note, can you do a podcast or a post on resolving framework debates/persuasive ways to articulate framework from the 2ac on. My partner and I have had difficulty throughout the course of the year in making compelling framework arguments, and I’m completely with you in that the way judges will often decide to evaluate the debate through arbitrarily combining bits and pieces of both framework arguments and evaluating the arguments they feel like is pretty ridiculous.
Perhaps I missed it as I skimmed the post, but where does that leave judges who have witnessed obvious or non-obvious in-round abuse? Two cases spring to mind, both from last year:
Case 1: Final round of a regional tournament, three judge panel (two of which were lay): In the 1NC, the negative reads a basic T shell. In the 2NC, that T argument is explicitly dropped and replaced with a different T argument defining the same word differently. (Note: Not an extra-T argument, nor an Effects-T argument, a straight up change to what the word is defined as). If the 2nd Affirmative doesn't read theory (or, perhaps, delivers the entire 2AC in stunned silence) is there really a reason not to intervene? Would it make a difference if this were the first round of the tournament and you could correct the 2nd Negative's terribly abusive behavior before they hurt someone else in the next round?
Case 2: Final round, novice state championship: Negatives use a "multiple world" theory of negation, but run an "intrinsicness perms bad" argument (in this case, IPs are just "do both") saying that it justifies conditionality. If the negatives clearly didn't know what they're doing, and the affirmatives clearly didn't know what the negatives were doing, is there a reason not to ball up the theory flow as soon as conditionality is mentioned? In other words, should we really accept BS in theory debates?
I guess the larger question is: How do you address in-round abuse when the other team doesn't speak up? Does it justify intervention, a drop in speaks, or a note on the ballot?
Kevin —
Having a claim and a warrant is inherently subjective (the phrase "our relationship to life is the only way to escape ressentiment, kills value to life" is meaningless to me, but to other judges would be sufficient level of explanation), which means the most objective way of voting for an argument is by on face accepting the claim made in the round. A sufficient response would be "this is a warrantless assertion, hold them these statements to a high level of scrutiny because it's counter-intuitive to say people would willingly continue living with no value to their life."
Following that a step further, it would be easy to group all these stupid VI's and say "they are warrantless and we should have some leeway in debating them if one falls through the cracks, theres an incentive for them to throw out a bunch of stupid theoretical issues crowding out substance education." If they drop that, they are screwed. If they debate you on that, it's an uphill battle.
Externally, there is a disincentive for people to act really scrappy like this because it reduces their credibility. If the judge were very flow-oriented, and has two competing, opposite claims presented to them, they will err on the side with more credibility/ethos. So against a somewhat decent team, it's probably not a good idea to be really sketchy.
that being said, scotty p's a good judge for severance perms bad.
Kevin,
Unless the 2NR pre-empted the possibility of new 2AR arguments with a well explained rational for rejection, a winning 2AR is possible.
LA Coach,
I think we have different interpretations of what constitutes abuse. Changing your definition seems stupid, but I would not say it is "abusive". It seems an inferior line of argumentation that could easily be rebutted by the affirmative in the 1AR. Educating the negative as to the undesirable nature of that strategy does not seem to require intervention in the decision about the debate- you could talk to them after the round.
The general problem of BS or shady arguments I think is addressed quite well by Rajesh in the comment above- A simple 2 sentence argument of "this is bs- omg" is usually sufficient. If one side is incapable of mustering that line of defense, in my opinion they have not done the better debating. Rajesh is also right- I am a great judge for bad arguments. There are two competing educational goals when faced with a bad argument- teaching the neg it is bad, and teaching the affirmative how to defeat it. Since the ballot can't go to both teams you have to chose. It is my contention that intervention teaches the wrong message- that arguments are not evaluated on face, that you need not always respond to your opponent because sometimes a judge will save you, and that judges have the right to make subjective value judgments about the quality of arguments. This will obviously leave some decisions that are uncomfortable- as perhaps in the examples you give.
word to this post.
also, one addition – may have been said but i haven't read the comments.
obvi some form of intervention is inevitable but the purpose of this is to minimize intervention at all costs. judges clearly have a choice over how much they chose to "intervene" b/c most judges consciously say X is stupid
how does this strict non intervention standard deal with instances of counterfactual claims that are conceded? this is not hypothetical; i judged a round this weekend where the assertion that "congress cannot amend legislation" was conceded multiple times. am i supposed to just accept this clearly false assertion? if that really beneficial to anyone's education?
<blockquote cite="#commentbody-2016">
dylan :
<div class="edit-comment" id="edit-comment2016" style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;">how does this strict non intervention standard deal with instances of counterfactual claims that are conceded? this is not hypothetical; i judged a round this weekend where the assertion that “congress cannot amend legislation” was conceded multiple times. am i supposed to just accept this clearly false assertion? if that really beneficial to anyone’s education?
</div><div id="comment-undo-2016" class="aec-undo" style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous;"></div><div class="edit-comment-admin-links " id="edit-comment-admin-links2016" style="background: transparent none repeat scroll 0% 0%; -moz-background-clip: border; -moz-background-origin: padding; -moz-background-inline-policy: continuous; display: block;"><a title="Ajax Edit Comments" class="edit-comment" href="https://www.the3nr.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-ajax-edit-comments/php/comment-editor.php?action=editcomment&p=942&c=2016&_wpnonce=3b22b0d7ed&height=560&width=620" onclick="return jQuery.ajaxeditcomments.edit(this);" id="edit-2016" rel="nofollow">Edit<span class="aec-dropdownarrow" id="aec-dropdownarrow-2016"><a class="aec-dropdownlink" href="cid=2016" onclick="jQuery.ajaxeditcomments.dropdown(this); return false;" id="aec-dropdownlink-2016" rel="nofollow">More Options</span><span class="aec-dropdown" id="aec-dropdown-2016"><a title="Move Comments" class="move-comment" href="https://www.the3nr.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-ajax-edit-comments/php/move-comment.php?action=movecomment&p=942&c=2016&_wpnonce=2f414b9084&height=500&width=560" onclick="return jQuery.ajaxeditcomments.move(this);" id="move-2016" rel="nofollow">Move<a class="moderate-comment" href="https://www.the3nr.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-ajax-edit-comments/php/AjaxEditComments.php?action=unapprovecomment&p=942&c=2016&_wpnonce=ad6d2393f7" onclick="jQuery.ajaxeditcomments.moderate(this); return false;" id="moderate-2016" rel="nofollow">Moderate<a class="spam-comment" href="https://www.the3nr.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-ajax-edit-comments/php/AjaxEditComments.php?action=spamcomment&p=942&c=2016&_wpnonce=6741750924" onclick="jQuery.ajaxeditcomments.spam(this); return false;" id="spam-2016" rel="nofollow">Spam<a title="Blacklist Comment" class="blacklist-comment" href="https://www.the3nr.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-ajax-edit-comments/php/blacklist-comment.php?action=blacklist&p=942&c=2016&_wpnonce=6fd74004a4&height=550&width=600" onclick="jQuery.ajaxeditcomments.blacklist_comment(this); return false;" id="blacklist-2016" rel="nofollow">Blacklist<a class="delete-comment" href="https://www.the3nr.com/wp-content/plugins/wp-ajax-edit-comments/php/AjaxEditComments.php?action=deletecomment&p=942&c=2016&_wpnonce=5f534a96d5" onclick="jQuery.ajaxeditcomments.delete_comment(this); return false;" id="delete-2016" rel="nofollow">Delete</span></div>
Ah yes, the old "is our children learning" question. I would say the following to your question Dylan
1. I would be loathe to reward a team who was unaware of congressional authority to amend legislation by intervening to assist them on their road to victory.
2. As I mentioned earlier, at a tournament your role is to be an adjudicator, not an educator.
3. There is no bright line- as I mention above, everyone is substantially less intelligent then they perceive themselves to be. I'm sure any debater can rattle off a string of examples of judge comments that they thought were stupid. Once the intervention Rubicon is crossed we cannot differentiate between intelligent judges intervening because of "facts" and stupid judges intervening because of their ill-informed beliefs. Would you like a flat earther judging your children to out of hand reject their space add on? A pro choice judge who rejects the argument that abortion is murder? Once you allow intervention the die is cast.
The notion of the existence of an "intervention rubicon" is completely off base. There are literally thousands (if not millions) of miniature interventions that occur merely on the account of various little bits of accepted language and knowledge that are packaged into each and every argument that is advanced. Take your example of the severance perms voting issue. To vote negative, the judge necessarily must know what a permutation is, what severance is, what a severance permutation is, etc. The capacity for the negative to even make the argument depends on a wealth of shared assumptions and understandings.
The obvious retort to this claim is "no it doesn't – they say vote neg, so I do." This is a bad model for debate. First, it divorces the rationale for adjudication from actual argument. Yes, we should attempt to strive to maintain as much neutrality as possible, but never at the expense of embracing incoherent and/or nonsensical claims. Secondly, the "because they said so" rationale for voting links to the classic substantive crowd-out scenario. When I was debating in high school, this actually was a problem – there were more than a few instances when teams ACTUALLY did say "the sky is blue, vote neg." There were more than one where judges actually did.
Let me pose a counterfactual – what of a world where the neg makes the aforementioned severance perms argument, but at the top of the 1AR, the aff says "you should reject any and all arguments that lack an articulated claim, warrant, and link to an affirmative argument – I should not be forced to reply to stupid blippy neg theory crap. Extension of such arguments by the neg is a reason to vote aff." The aff then has no other argument that pertains to the severance perm. The neg extends the severance perm and the voting issue (but no explanation of why the aff perm is severance) in the 2NR but does not explicitly answer the aff's theory overview. The 2AR extends their theory overview, but once again does not deal with the severance perm argument. How does a judge vote?
The problem of incommensurability is a common one in an activity where there's limited speech times and a mandated end to the discussion. No argument is EVER drawn to a reasonably logical conclusion. One judge's "interpretation" is another's "intervention" – the goal, I think, should be to do so in a reasonably consistent and predictable manner, at least giving debaters the chance to adapt their argument to you.
One quick question:
The negative makes an awful argument, only for the affirmative to drop that argument. Would a 2NR saying "Extend X, it was dropped" be sufficient to warrant a ballot, assuming the 2AR dropped it. Would it require more intervention to apply the 1NC/Block evidence to the 2NR flow for them, or would it require more to completely ignore the flow/that argument?
Gonzo,
We appear to be talking about different things as per the ol' Shivley evidence.
"Take your example of the severance perms voting issue. To vote negative, the judge necessarily must know what a permutation is, what severance is, what a severance permutation is, etc. The capacity for the negative to even make the argument depends on a wealth of shared assumptions and understandings. "
I don't think knowing what a word means constitutes intervention or not.
In response to your hypothetical I would vote aff, the aff has made a an argument that responds to the argument the negative is going for- their thought has gone one level farther.
Nick,
Debate standards are such that you do not need to completely re-explain everything you said in previous speeches, and as such I would not require a 2NR to spend much time explaining a dropped argument.
OK Scott, question then-if a dumb argument isn't answered then the team who didn't annswer it is dumber, how do you resolve this-
1) 2NC says severance perms bad reject the team for precedent, 1AR drops the theory but extends the perm, 2NR says severance perms bad and extends the theory saying they dropped it, 2AR for the first time makes it a reason to reject arg and doesn't extend the perm.
"I don’t think knowing what a word means constitutes intervention or not."
This strikes me as a rather important warrant in this discussion (in the true Toulmin-Model sense of the term) – it's an assumption that probably divides the two sides informatively.
The "non-interventionist" side will claim that there are a set of neutrally observable arguments made in a debate round which do not depend, to any significant extent, on any substantive commitment to a conceptual scheme on the part of the judge. The non-interventionist side will say that they can understand either side's argument without any substantial sort of interpretation. This includes meanings of words – a judge, on this view, can vote on the dropped "severance perms are unfair" simply by understanding the meanings of these words, and then go on to recognize that the other team has not explicitly refuted them.
The "intervention-is-inevitable" side will counter (in a way similar to what I think Josh Gonzalez is gesturing towards) that there is no non-conceptual access to the language of either team, and that every act of flowing is also, ipso facto, an act of interpretation and, to the losing team, an act of intervention. To refute Scott's "knowing what a word means [does not constitute intervention]" claim, the invention-is-inevitable side will note that most seemingly non-normative or conceptually-governed terms actually include many conceptual and normative commitments. There are a ton of conceptual presuppositions involved in understanding what "permutation", "severance," etc. mean. Those presuppositions are, on this view at least, inevitably interventionist. There are no non-neutral understandings of their meanings.
This debate has been extensively discussed in the field of epistemology (especially Wilfrid Sellars' _Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind_), in the philosophy of language (especially W.V.O. Quine's "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" and Donald Davidson's "On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme") and in the philosophy of science (epsecially Thomas Kuhn's _The Structure of Scientific Revolutions)_. This is all reviewed and collected (albeit a bit polemically and shallowly) in Richard Rorty's _Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature_.
The upshot I take from all of it is rather unsatisfying for anyone wanting a conclusive answer to the intervention-or-non-intervention debate. That answer? "It depends." There are hypothetical reductiones ad adsurdum on both sides. Strict noninterventionism requires voting on the 51st "the sky is blue, vote affirmative" claim, even if the first 50 are answered. Yes, you could have a generalized response ("ignore all 'the sky is blue' arguments, wherever they are on the flow") – but then the initial arguments can be re-worked to avoid that general argument ("the sky is blue, vote affirmative; if this argument is not answered specifically you must vote aff – a generalized overview-ish response is insufficient" repeated 50 times). The negative could then adjust its overview-ish response ("the claim that an overview-ish response is not required is unreasoanble; allow the implicit cross-application"), and so on and so forth.
On the other hand, strict "intervention-is-inevitable" type talk seems to run the risk of allowing a judge to say "look, my judge philosophy says I never vote on kritiks – I act consistently, which is all you can ask." Such a position seems intuitively unreasonable, just in ways diametrically opposed the reason the other side did.
What is left? It depends. It depends on an act of (again, unsatisfyingly theoretically rigorous) Aristotleian-Deweyian-Rortyian "judgment." One must weigh the degree to which intervention seems required in a particular instance, in light of some other norms (like fairness, education, etc.) which often conflict, and which, also, have the same sort of difficulties in being defined in ways that provide non-circular groundings, just like the value of "non-interventionism" did above.
The reason it's unsatisfying to use "it depends" is that, as Aristotle seemed to first realize, the language of the things on which "it depends" will be unavoidably particular to the decision at hand. Aristotle suggests that the continually cultivation of this sort of inevitable balancing of impossible-to-be-non-circularly-defined terms is what being a person of sound judgment requires. And only the person who's reached that point can truly understand it.
Like I said, unsatisfying, at least in the abstract. But I'd venture to say the best and most respected judges in our activity have both an intuitive understanding of all these factors and a very keen ability to resolve their inevitable conflicts in a particular instance. It's what I think Josh Gonzalez refers to when he writes (correctly) "the goal, I think, should be to do so in a reasonably consistent and predictable manner, at least giving debaters the chance to adapt their argument to you."
Josh- the first part of your comment interests me the most:
"The “non-interventionist” side will claim that there are a set of neutrally observable arguments made in a debate round which do not depend, to any significant extent, on any substantive commitment to a conceptual scheme on the part of the judge."
I don't know where I made this claim (in fact I am quite sure I said the opposite re intervention vs interpretation), and frankly think it is irrelevant, but for the sake of argument I will say yes I do claim this. Can you please explain how "the permutation severs immediate implementation of the plan, which causes a moving target, this is a voting issue for fairness and ground" is
A. open to multiple interpretations and what they are
B. What conceptual schemes voting on the permutation vs not voting on it endorse
specifically when you say "most seemingly non-normative or conceptually-governed terms actually include many conceptual and normative commitments. There are a ton of conceptual presuppositions involved in understanding what “permutation”, “severance,” etc. mean. Those presuppositions are, on this view at least, inevitably interventionist. There are no non-neutral understandings of their meanings."
can you give examples of the normative and conceptual commitments of each side?
Scott – you write "I don’t know where I made this claim [about the possibility of neutrally observable arguments] (in fact I am quite sure I said the opposite re intervention vs interpretation), and frankly think it is irrelevant" – but your initial definition of "intervention" was as follows:
"Intervention is when a judge inserts themselves into a debate either to ignore an argument, make a cross application of an argument that was not made in the debate, or to add an explanation/warrant to an argument that was not in the debate."
The possibiltiy of non-intervention, then, relies on being able to identify an argument in a passive way, without conceptualizing the content of the words of that argument (or, in your words, "inserting themselves" into the debate). The idea that all the information you're relying on was presented "in the debate" seems akin to the logical-positivist notion that one can view "raw sense data" without conceptualizing it. To even look at the world is to understand and endorse a wide variety of concepts (i.e., I see something I know as red, because of a process of socialization, hearing others use the word, etc.). To *listen* to someone talking is to understand a wider variety of concepts (i.e., what is a word, what are its generally understood meanings, etc.). To listen to someone participating in an academic debate is to understand and endorse and even wider variety of concepts (all of the above, plus a bunch of specific jargon knowledge of and endorsement of the ontology of a debate round and the rules which generally govern it – where does one argument start and the next stop? Why do arguments identified as "voters" carry a presumptively increased significance? and so on).
What are the conceptual and normative presuppositions of “the permutation severs immediate implementation of the plan, which causes a moving target, this is a voting issue for fairness and ground"?
First – you understand the words spoken by each debater. You presuppose that the language they are speaking is English. You therefore identify the words they are speaking as words with discrete starts and finishes (something that's not there in the "raw" sense-data, where there are no "spaces," the main reason why people have trouble understanding a spoken language they do not know and think they are speaking too fast). I know this sounds like a shallow and non-harmful sort of "conceptual scheme" you are applying, and it seems irrelevant to the intervention/non-intervention debate, and it is, but the point is you are bringing antecedently held conceptual schemes to bear on the data of each speech. You are already "inserting yourself" in.
More argumentatively substantive conceptual scheme commitments? Well, there's what a permutation is in the context of debate. There's just the more literal knowledge of how the word is generally used in debate – as an affirmative argument used against various types of off-case positions (least controversially counterplans and kritiks, more controversially with disadvantages, etc.) The word "permutation" has uses in other contexts, after all, like in math – your ability to understand this argument presupposes that you select one use of the word "permutation" and not another. This is not because of something that was conveyed by use of the word "permutation" by itself; this is a choice you made because of the context of the situation and your general understanding of the sort of thing that happens in a debate round.
Pressing further, there's an underlying notion about what sorts of things permutations generally do (i.e., somehow show that an off-case position is not competitive with the affirmative), what sort of advocacy status they're usually assumed to have (conditional, dispositional or unconditional), and also there's the old "is the permutation an advocacy or a test of competitiveness" question. There's an understanding of how showing an off-case position to be non-competitive is an important thing for the affirmative to do in a debate.
My point was only to show that such presuppositions underlie every decision we make, that's inevitable, but not necessarily a bad thing, and that there are better and worse instances of it, though there is no way to be free of it. Hence Josh Gonzalez's suggestion that an "intervention Rubicon" is the wrong image. There is no "barrier" between interpretation and non-interpretation – no point at which one crosses it. We're always already across the river when we look at the world, communicate, much less have policy debates.
Josh,
I think what you mention here is swallowed up by the "intervention vs interpretation" distinction. Yes perception is not a passive exercise, but there is a difference between assuming what a permutation is when you hear the argument in a debate, and hearing it/assuming what it is and then making a conscious choice to set aside your understanding to not vote on the argument because you think it's a cheap shot. I am not attempting to argue the judge is a passive/neutral/objective/omnipotent observer. Quite the opposite. In my definition, an intervention is going beyond what you have described. This could obviously spark quibbling over the definition, but seriously- you know it when you see it. If there is no Rubicon, we should act as if.
As an aside, I find it ironic that intervention is defended by reference to the postmodern patois- see Frank Seaver's JP. What could me more conservative, reactionary (in the philosophical sense), or arrogant than to claim that you know the one true way to debate and using the ballot to police the boundaries?
So basically, to the "post positivist" K I would say "no link and turn".
"I have judged with and debated in front of you when you have flat out said I refused to accept an argument that was dropped- not because it wasn’t developed but because you disagree with it. "
That round was a perfect example of what I mean by thresholds. If I remember correctly (and it was a while ago, so I might be wrong on some details, but I think I will get the important ones right) You and Ramrod ran two Ks – an Ageism one (or maybe it was a counterplan with an ageism net benefit – details) and another K. Woodward impact turned Ageism, and dropped the other K. You dropped the Ageism Turns, and extended the other K. I read your Other K cards for 30 minutes and could not understand Anything in them. Like, the beginning and ending were off and the language was dense, and it didn't have any explanation in the tag. So I voted on the Ageism turns. The other two judges (Giovanni DiLuca and Corey Turoff) said that they couldn't understand the Other K either, but that its impacts were larger than the Ageism K. My "Threshold" for voting against Avery and Peter was that I would have to have been able to explain the argument to them that I voted against them on, and I got no help from the card on that. I'll stand behind that decision – I didn't understand your argument, and I read the Whole card like 5 times.
"Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. So now the threshold is not actually “was it a complete argument” but “was the judge able to FLOW a complete argument”?"
OF COURSE the question of whether an argument is seen as complete by the judge after the round depends on how much of it they were able to flow. How could it not? If they make a seven word argument, and I am able to only get 3 words of it down on the flow, I will Try to remember after the round the full argument, but if I can't, then I can't add things to it to make it a complete argument. Remember, it is almost never a situation of "This dropped argument is incomplete" it is almost always "There are two arguments, one is more complete than the other, I voted for it" and I honestly think that this isn't a straw person or accounted for in your definition of intervention. I think that almost every time, claims of the former are actually the latter. That is how I saw the example you brought up above. I don't have any illusion that there is One Correct Complete Answer or way to debate – I think that I, like most judges, try to make the best decision that they can given their own perception of the round, which is inevitably influenced by that judges' context, experience and abilities.
I tend to agree with Josh. I think that there are many instances where interpretation is misleadingly conceived of as intervention – that the normal process of interpretation of argument isn’t conscious, intentional intervention, but does require interpretation skills that are influenced by a judges opinions and experience.
I think that we all pretty much agree that judges should not ignore arguments simply because they disagree with them. I think that what many people call intervention is a judge deciding whether what is said by debaters actually constitutes “an argument.”
I don’t think that this is as simple as “bad debate is bad” – I, for example, don’t think “Voting issue: fairness and education” is a developed argument, even if that is the most common way of arguing impacts to theory. If I say “I didn’t think that there was enough there to vote on” it isn’t that I just disagreed with it, it’s that I don’t think that it was developed well enough to constitute an argument. I think that to say “You know what that meant – it was just short hand” is misleading. I have heard well developed voting issues that centered on claims to improve fairness and education. Does that mean that I should imply those arguments into the underdeveloped one? The use of shorthand is contextual – I know what they meant to say because I’ve seen a bunch of debates before on similar issues. But to develop those arguments from the Context of the shorthand rather than what they said in the round seems to me just as much “intervention” as rejecting it because of personal opinion.
Where personal opinion comes in is where the Threshold for what constitutes an actual argument should be drawn. I don’t think that this is avoidable – arguments that are terribly bad probably have a higher threshold. It would take a lot more explaining, for instance, to win that “Congress cannot amend legislation” than to win “Congress Can amend legislation”. I don’t want that to be a straw person, so I am going to try and use an example with both of us in it:
You personally believe in Aff Choice. That isn’t to say that you won’t vote against it if the Aff team doesn’t “win” it, just a statement of your preference based on our conversations – that if the negative gets to choose the framework, they can avoid their burden of rejoinder to debate the claims made in the 1AC.
I personally don’t believe in Aff Choice. That isn’t to say that I will vote against if the negative team doesn’t “win” it, although I have never actually been convinced to vote for it without it being dropped. I think that Aff choice lets the aff ignore its burden of rejoinder by wishing away negative arguments that they don’t want to answer.
What happens in a debate where the Aff team says, verbatim “The Aff team gets to choose – burden of rejoinder.” And the Neg team responds “The Aff team doesn’t get to choose – burden of rejoinder.” Obviously, neither team has done a very good job debating in this instance, so either team is at fault if they lose. I’m probably voting neg each time; you are probably voting Aff (or maybe not – I don’t want to ascribe decisions to you that you don’t support). Here, “the clear language of the round” can only be filtered through our own perspectives, which include argument preferences.
Now, most teams won’t just say that verbatim, but often that is what we as judges get Down on the flow. Most framework debates that focus on theory tend to be too fast for the amount of words said, making them difficult to flow beyond “Warrant / Claim”. So while students might Say a bit more than that, what we are left with at the end of the round Comes Down To the words on the flow – “Aff Choice – Burd of Rej.” Or “No Aff Choice –Burd of Rej”. Here, I think, that much of what is called intervention, is judges doing the best job that they can to reconstruct after the debate what was “Actually Said” in the debate from imperfect notes. Which is why I think that Thresholds are important. It is not only important from the point of explaining a full argument, but also for making sure that enough of it is flowed to stick in the judges mind at the end of the round.
Here is a question – lets say that they both did a good job of explaining. Lets say that the Aff said : “Aff choice is good – Burden of Rejoinder – if the negative gets to choose the framework, they can avoid their burden to debate the claims made in the 1AC.” And the Negative says “Aff choice is bad – Burden of Rejoinder – Aff choice lets the aff ignore its burden by wishing away negative arguments that they don’t want to answer”. Neither side drops their opponents arguments, and neither side makes comparisons between the aff and neg burdens of rejoinder. How would you vote? If I am honest, I probably will vote Neg in this instance, because I understand the neg argument and have never truly understood the Aff. That may be synonymous with “Agree with” functionally, but I’m not sure how to avoid this.
Alderete Says-
“I think that we all pretty much agree that judges should not ignore arguments simply because they disagree with them. I think that what many people call intervention is a judge deciding whether what is said by debaters actually constitutes “an argument.””
It is difficult for me to respond to this claim without referencing specific examples of rounds I have been involved with you in Alderete, so I will just say I think you know exactly what distinction I am referring to and are feigning naivete. Actually I will go farther than that- I have judged with and debated in front of you when you have flat out said I refused to accept an argument that was dropped- not because it wasn’t developed but because you disagree with it.
Alderete Says-
“I don’t think that this is as simple as “bad debate is bad” – I, for example, don’t think “Voting issue: fairness and education” is a developed argument, even if that is the most common way of arguing impacts to theory. If I say “I didn’t think that there was enough there to vote on” it isn’t that I just disagreed with it, it’s that I don’t think that it was developed well enough to constitute an argument. I think that to say “You know what that meant – it was just short hand” is misleading. I have heard well developed voting issues that centered on claims to improve fairness and education. Does that mean that I should imply those arguments into the underdeveloped one? The use of shorthand is contextual – I know what they meant to say because I’ve seen a bunch of debates before on similar issues. But to develop those arguments from the Context of the shorthand rather than what they said in the round seems to me just as much “intervention” as rejecting it because of personal opinion.”
2 points
1-it is impossible for students to know what shorthand you will and will not accept making your standard capricious and arbitrary.
2-voting on those arguments does not require intervention to “develop them” this is a straw man you have conjured out of thin air- at no point did I advocate doing this. Non intervention takes their claim at literal face value. I assume this will prompt a response with more postmodern jargon about literal face value so I will pre-emptive post my reply “get real”.
Alderete Says-
“Blah blah blah its inevitable/aff choice example”
This is argument by hyperbole. You have created a hypothetical nearly impossible to occur in the real world, but I will play your game you rogue:
1-if possible I would set this argument aside as being won by neither team and evaluate the rest of the debate
2-if 2nr/2ar collapsed down to just those sentences I would vote aff- I would interpret the word rejoinder- since it is a negative burden as it exists in the debate lexicon I would vote aff. And probably award a combined 2 speaker points for all 4 debaters. This is an unfortunate result, but perhaps the best way out of this absurd situation and avoids personal preferences.
For the record, I do not “believe” in aff choice as much as I “believe” the negative responses to it are circular and stupid.
Alderete Says-
“Now, most teams won’t just say that verbatim, but often that is what we as judges get Down on the flow.”
Have you tried flowing in Debate Synergy? I find its shortcut keys allow me to get much more written down than normal.
Alderete Says-
“Most framework debates that focus on theory tend to be too fast for the amount of words said, making them difficult to flow beyond “Warrant / Claim”. So while students might Say a bit more than that, what we are left with at the end of the round Comes Down To the words on the flow – “Aff Choice – Burd of Rej.” Or “No Aff Choice –Burd of Rej”. Here, I think, that much of what is called intervention, is judges doing the best job that they can to reconstruct after the debate what was “Actually Said” in the debate from imperfect notes. “
Here again I think we are disagreeing over what is intervention, a primary reason I defined it in my initial post.
Alderete Says-
“Which is why I think that Thresholds are important. It is not only important from the point of explaining a full argument, but also for making sure that enough of it is flowed to stick in the judges mind at the end of the round.”
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. So now the threshold is not actually “was it a complete argument” but “was the judge able to FLOW a complete argument”?
Alderete Says-
Here is a question – lets say that they both did a good job of explaining. Lets say that the Aff said : “Aff choice is good – Burden of Rejoinder – if the negative gets to choose the framework, they can avoid their burden to debate the claims made in the 1AC.” And the Negative says “Aff choice is bad – Burden of Rejoinder – Aff choice lets the aff ignore its burden by wishing away negative arguments that they don’t want to answer”. Neither side drops their opponents arguments, and neither side makes comparisons between the aff and neg burdens of rejoinder. How would you vote? If I am honest, I probably will vote Neg in this instance, because I understand the neg argument and have never truly understood the Aff. That may be synonymous with “Agree with” functionally, but I’m not sure how to avoid this.
I don’t understand how this is different from your original hypothetical- both sides appear to be parroting the same arguments, so my decision process would be the same. Also, in general Alderete I would say “Only an idiot incapable of reading come come to that conclusion”.
THATS A BURN
Alderete,
That wasn't the debate I was referring to, although that was a gem…