Defense Against the Dark Arts OWLS!!!

Contents
AT Presumption ............................................................................................................................................ 1 AT: Aff Presumption .................................................................................................................................. 1 AT: Neg Presumption .................................................................................................................................... 3 AT: Permissibility ........................................................................................................................................... 5 AT: Neg gets permissibility ground/aff must prove obligation. ................................................................ 6 AT AFC/AEC ............................................................................................................................................... 7 AT: the Framework of Death..................................................................................................................... 8

AT Presumption
AT: Aff Presumption
What is presumption? It means defaulting to one side if there is no offense. It doesnt see that many rounds where there is nothing in the round, but potentially it is irresolvable. There are two kinds of presumption. 1. Resolutional presumption: This is where they say that you should default to their side because of something I advocate. a. For example, on the animal rights topic they would say default to the side that gives rights instead of the side that takes them away. The thing about this is that the arguments are supposed to be substantive, but they tend to be really unwarranted and short. You should vote off this argument that should be offense but it is unwarranted and underdeveloped is what they get at.

2. Structural presumption: Default to me because of structural features of the round.

a. They will be like, oh time skew because the aff has shorter responses so if I made the round equal then I made it a lot better. If both debaters made the round such a clusterfuck then voter for me for not fucking up as badly. i. This is problematic because there are other things to do to get around it like speak faster and have better word economy. ii. What they are doing in the round performativly means that we shouldnt iii. Their speeches dont have to do that many things in each of their speech. I have to do explain my advocacy, answer the aff, crystalize in just one speech where they do that throughout the entire round. b. Another justification is side bias that the negative wins a certain percentage of outrounds. i. No stats, only looks to the TOC, and aff won the TOC. We also dont want to use just one tournament because it is an overly limited sample size. It is a very tiny component of the debate community, and they are more neg oriented. If you compare the TOC to the local circuit in the northeast we cant conclude. Also, this statistic comes from specific resolutions, and the side bias changes from topic to topic. And, aff still wins in rounds, like the TOC this year when Rebecca won, the Harvard Round Robin Finals, and Berkley Michael Harris affirmed Octas through finals every round and won it. Maybe you could have won the debate if you didnt spend a minute of the debate on pre-empts, how do you expect to win off offense if you dont read much of it in the1AC c. Another one is that we assume something is true before it is false. Another one deals with like skep triggers, so if you answer my position then skep means so we have to go to structure. This is only true if there are only one framework in the round. i. The importance of preventing paralysis concedes that impacts are relevant. This is a reason not to presume, but instead to consider impacts. ii. There are more ways to prove a statement false than true because there are multiple ways to prove it false. The statement I should eat bread must prove that I exist, I can eat, there must be bread, and infinite other assumptions. DO NOT USE THIS TO TRIGGER SKEP UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. iii. It is infinitely regressive because you would presume both sides. You have to presume against presumption. HAHAHAHA Meta-presumption! This argument is infinitely regressive because it justifies presuming and not presuming because both sides would be presumed true by this logic. So ignore presumption.

d. Answering my framework = there cant be a framework = skep = presume.

i.

ii.

This assumes that there is only one framework but if I win a competing framework then answering theirs doesnt trigger skep or presumption; it just means we use my framework. This is the fallacy of false dilemma because it creates a false dichotomy because there is another standard we can appeal to. For example, policy makers dont stop creating laws just because there is political gridlock. In real world terms we look to compromises. You dont necessarily have to use my framework, but you could do something like combine most of our frameworks.

e. Structural presumption in general.

i. ii.

iii. iv.

If these args were true then only one side would win one side more consistently. This takes control out of the debaters hands and external factors shouldnt dictate who wins. If they admit external factors shouldnt determine the winner, then the i. argument applies, if they say that external factors should then just be like HA! YOU WON THE COIN FLIP, SHUT UP! (if this applies) If there is truly no offense then look to other factors that the debaters did control, like clarity and communication, cross ex, better decision calculus, strength of evidence. Yes that is subjective but at least the debaters had some influence on the decision.

AT: Neg Presumption

a. Aff speaks first and last. i. Neg gets much longer speeches and I can make new arguments in the rebuttals; s/he can do more w/ the time s/he has.

ii.

iii.

Speaking last can be disadvantageous because judges may have already decided the round before the 2AR, or they have specific expectations before the 2AR. The neg can determine the things that the judge is listening for in the 2AR. Not a reason to presume because the round has to begin and end somewhere. It isnt my fault that I speak last.

b. The aff gets infinite prep. i. ii. Pre-round prep is = because we both get topics at the same time. T/Neg gets more prep and the neg not only gets topic prep, but also gets AC speech time to plan strat.

c. Neg is reactive i. T/ reactivity gives the neg gets an advantage because s/he gets to decide strat entirely based on the AC and I cant shift my advocacy. Reactivity is non-unique and both sides have to be reactive at some point; not a reason to presume either side.

ii.

d. Aff gets two rebuttals and I only get one. i. The Negatives first speech has a rebuttal built into it because s/he gets response time so there is no special advantage b/c its really two speeches in one. Neg chooses his/her strat bedcause s/he chose to run offs/straight ref/ etc., so Im not responsible for his/her time mismanagement. Their time problems arent my problem. Having more speeches doesnt matter because of time skew within the speeches so I had less time in each speech.

ii.

iii.

e. The aff needs to be proven true so we must assume it to be false before true.

i.

This creates paralysis because we cant do anything if we presume everything false. This defeats the point of having a round in the first place. We cant assess arguments if we dont make some basic assumptions first. (There are justifications for using intuition first). We can never deal with the topic we are set to deal with first because we are going to be stuck on the first assumption. The government ought to do X devolves down to a discussion of where the government ever exists. His/her logical applies to him/her as well because reasons to presume that everything is false also applies to presume to presumption arguments. So cant presume both ways.

ii.

AT: Permissibility
Presumption is like, yo, the judge cant resolve the round on substantive issues, so the judge must default one way or another. Permissibility is like, if the other side doesnt prove a prohibition (doesnt show that we CANT have an obligation not to do something), then everything is permissible. Permissibility is usually clear on the wording of the topic. Permissiblitiy leads to presumption because: 1. If we dont know whether to permit or prohibit an action then we should default permitting it. 2. Then they have a warrant for it. a. Freedom is good, so if she decides to do something we should more often then not let her do it. b. If the resolution says the word ought then the affirmative must prove an obligation and the negative must prove a prohibition then the action is permissible. The problem with the second argument is that we can weigh between permissible actions. c. *Enoch+ We cant have two conflicting obligations so if I show a conflict then both actions are permissible. An obligation is something you are bound to do, so I say Robin is obligated to come to lab for the day, but then Robin gets a phone call from her mom saying that she needs to call her back immediately because it is an emergency, then

there is conflict so you can do both. The argument is that they cancel out because they are conflicting obligations, or they argue that neither are obligations. 3. If the action is ONLY permissible its not obligatory by definition, so we negate (aff has to prove obligation because of ought)

AT: Neg gets permissibility ground/aff must prove obligation.

1. Ought = being used for being right, so I dont have to prove an obligation. (dictionary definition). Reasons to prefer: a) common usage because it is the first dictionary definition. Broader definitions allow for more advocacies, their def excludes any non-obligation ACs. There is more engagement with a broad definition. 2. Defining ought as an obligation doesnt allow for prescriptive debate because they only question whether the duty exists descritivly (e.g., though laws/Constitution); we dont get to weigh args b/c the debate becomes a factual question fo whether the duty DOES exist, not whether it SHOULD. 3. Obligations are within the scope of permissible actions, so proving it permissible doesnt mean that obligations are distinct from obligations. The action still has a chance of being obligatory. Give the aff credence on it. Ex: it is permissible and obligatory for me to pay taxes. 4. Both sides are permissible because it isnt a reason to negate which makes the round irresolvable, so dont vote here because they cant resolve it either way. 5. A tie on the flow only means the content was equal not the debating. We could make equally valid arguments but I might be more persuasive in some way. The ballot asks for who did the better debating, but the flow isnt the sole determiner of that. 6. Permissibility doesnt trigger presumption because there cant be a reason to presume because permissibility debate are irresolvable and wed have to presume for other reasons which they dont provide. Reject presumption at this point. 7.

The Moral Ladder. Prohibited CANT DO THE ACTION Permissble OKAY TO DO Obligatory MUST DO Supererogatory DONT HAVE TO DO, BUT IT WOULD BE GOOD IF YOU DID

AT AFC/AEC
AFC: Aff Framework Choice AEC: Aff Ethical Choice

Justifications for this:

1. Time skew I shouldnt have to restart the round in the 1AR a. No time skew. We both get 13 minutes to speak. b. Aff can leverage AC contentional offense in the round against the neg. c. Aff could just win the aff framework and engage it. You dont have to restart the round. d. You have the structural advantage of having the first and the last speech. People remember take-aways of debate better because of psychology. e. Aff wins a lot, Michael Harris won Berkley outrounds on aff, Rebecca won the TOC and the Harvard Round robin on aff. f. It legitizes the aff running really abusive framework so there isnt any way to check back the abuse, because even if you run theory it kills the internal link to philosophical education. g. It discourages research because the aff can just recycle the same abusive framework on every topic. That kills philosophical education. Research is key to information process and I control the internal link to policy education through philosophical education.

2. Neg gets to be reactive to the affirmative we should use my Framework to make the strategic options more equal. a. He kills equality because I cant run competing frameworks anyway. b. Strategy is inherently unequal because we try to win arguments or get the upper hand in round. c. If equality is the ultimate end then we should always negate the resolution so we both have equal wins and losses at the end of the tournament. d. Because I have to be reactive means that if I do meet this expectation and react to the AC by proving the framework false then there isnt a way for us to adjudicate impacts. 3. Topic-specific education my framework gives us more access to substantive arguments. 4. Prefer reasonable aff interps b/c those avoid theory debates we should access substance. 5. Philosophy education affs will come up with new and creative frameworks that the negatives have to answer. 6. Strat skew the neg can exclude me by generating so many layers on a meta-ethical level; this solves for their ability to get out of debating me 7. Quality of ground Ac can be functional in the 1AR; the neg can deal with framework and contentional level, which appeals to reciprocity, time skew, strat skew.

AT: the Framework of Death

1. Aff gets constructive freedom. 2. Neg has to accept EVERYTHING even if it isnt warranted.

AT: Skep
1. Rejecting my framework means that there is no framework which means that there is no morality so hahahaha skepticism.

a. Fallacy of false dilemma just because his or her framework isnt true doesnt mean theres no moral framework; default to mine b. There can be other problems with his or her framework that she or hes not accounting for M can still exist even if she or he got it wrong. c. This is a terrible way of making ethical decisions it throws the baby out with the bathwater. There is always a risk that some aspect of our reasoning is wrong. That means that we dont have advocacies.

2. We can never operate external to our own moral beliefs, cant access M truth, so theres no M. a. There are some sort of things that we know are intuitively true. We dont need to individually access moral truth to create moral rules, eg we dont need to experience genocide to make arguments why genocide is flawed. b. This assumes that we can only derive arguments from experience, but people have moral imagination. That is the only way we can make arguments about things we havent experienced. c. To affirm a value judgement isnt the same as proving the statement true factually or scientifically. affirm = to uphold or advocate for, not to prove true. Value judgments cant be proven factually true. He is putting the wrong burden on me. RTP: We can actually debate under this conception of debate as opposed to making factual or not factual claims.

3. M = subjective, so cant exist as a truth Morality isnt truth-act or There are no moral facts *Wittgenstein+ Morality isnt a descriptive truth. a. Wrong definition of affirm, skep doesnt apply or matter. b. S/hes making a subjective judgment about peoples moral views. If there are no moral facts then skep itself cant be a moral fact. c. Even if morality is subjective we can make non-moral arguments about governmental action (e.g.) I can prove that states better fulfill their function through my side. 4. Many worlds infinite number of universes; There is always the potential to be acting immorally in another world even if in our world it is a good action. a. This essentially isnt verifiable but I cant access that other universe. Thus the premise is flawed. Even if he does read smart people talking about it, they just think it is a cool idea. b. Even if there are other universes we cant verify what is happening there, so we dont know if what is good here is bad there.

c. Even if this theory is true, doesnt matter because we still care about good in this world, regardless of whats happening in others. d. Even if the theory is true we can still make a difference in smaller terms on this planet right now. Giving money to starving isnt going to stop world starving, but not completely solving doesnt mean that the good got from that isnt bad. 5. Generic Skep a. Skep fails because it assumes that certain things are good/bad (e.., assumes that truth is good) self-contradictory. What is wrong with me taking a position on genocide being bad, even if it just my opinion you are asserting that truth is valuable. b. Debate is impossible without the ability to pass moral judgments the ability to argue about ethics precludes any debate(debate = arguing in defense or against anything) so he can win a debate round without debating. c. The ability to label actions immoral or wrong is unique and portable skills. (arg development, evidence comparison, unique topical discussion, substantive engagement,) d. Skep is unfair and unreciprocal because it puts a 100% burden of proof on one debater one person has to prove args, the other just gets to say, I dont think so (no burden of rejoinder) e. Skep contradicts any theory arguments or performance that s/he or he has in the round. Theory arguments appeal to fairness or education which has a conception of goodness or badness. Just the act of vote for me says Im better in some way. There is an imposition on their free will if they want to vote in the first place.

States are not moral agents

1. States have no moral obligations because the state is the collection of individuals and their morals conflict all the time. a. If they are then they just represent more than one moral rule. By this logic then any group is amoral. A family or two people together. b. We can still debate about the morality of rules from amoral agents, so even if they arent moral actors we can still evaluate their actions through moral actions. Morality is about human interaction and the principles around that action. By analogy, an insane person doesnt have free will but if he shoots a bunch of people we can still argue that shooting about a lot of people is bad. c. States are controlled by deliberative processes (e.g., lawmaking in Congress = result of debate, discussion, etc.) = product of moral reasoning (if theres intent, there can be moral judgment. 2. Contracts states = artificial institutions (agent not a principle)

3. States

Skep Presumption

1.