Debate is a Broken form of Argumentation

== Con Case == Introduction and Definitions: Con sets up 3 ways he can win 1. He can't win if he shows that inflationary arguments don't give undue advantage to either side. This is because even if debate is still fair, argumentation can be broken. For example if we both just spam arguments at each other and drop them like wildfire, it might be fair but the debate will fail to depend on argument quality. Starcraft is still broken even if we can both spam zergling mass. 2. Sure. 3. Sure. As long as the counter itself does not break debate. SID and AID His SID and AID are just fine with me. I have an irrelevant disagreement with his AID analysis because I think both Pro and Con are equally susceptible to AID. It doesn't matter who has the BOP because argument complexity depends on ideas themselves, not their proofs. == Rebuttals == A) Linguistic Asymmetry Con gives 3 example rebuttals that actually take up less space than "the sky is red". He uses indefinite articles to make them shorter. The context here is very obvious because he's copy-pasted what he's responding. In a real debate, lack of context would mean the indefinite article "it" becomes meaningless, and his response would fail. If he C&P's the response then his character burden becomes way larger. Even if you don't buy my counter-examples, the theory of linguistic asymmetry still stands. Con thinks it would be very difficult in practice to exploit linguistic asymmetry. By itself, my examples seem trivial because a string of 10 blank assertions like "the sky is red" could maybe waste only 50 of my opponent's characters. But that might be enough in debates that are already pressed up against character limits. For example, in this debate CiRrk is dropping arguments, and using abbreviations like "XA" "AC" "NC" "DA" because he has so little space due to non-linguistic burdens. Clearly +/-50 characters makes a difference to him. http://www.debate.org... B) Logos Asymmetry 1) SID Con thinks that even if both debaters have to drop arguments, they will only focus on the most important ones. This assumes that the resolution can be adequately debated using only a few core arguments. This depends heavily on the resolution. Some resolutions will be outright broken by this phenomenon, and those that aren't still restrict the arguments available to debaters, thus frustrating otherwise valid approaches. Additionally, dropped arguments usually count as concessions, so the first drop just gets extended and the dropper or person with BOP auto-loses. Con points out that Volumetric limits have a good utilitarian value because no one wants to read an endless debate. I agree. But my burden is to prove that debate is a broken form of argumentation. It doesn't matter if balanced forms of argumentation are cumbersome to read. 2) AID Con thinks that AID would actually break debate. He gives us two options: 1. Rule Blocks: i) Failure to Anticipate Con wants debaters to anticipate when AID would occur. I claim that this is deductively impossible. There may be some debates where it is inductively obvious that there is asymmetry, but there is no universal methodology for anticipating AID. Therefore, rule blocks violate rule 1 of "valid rules" because "competitors have no way of knowing in advance if they would violate the rule". This is particularly true if the rule is introduced up front, because you don't know what arguments your opponent is going to use against you, so you are always in danger of being accused of running an AID argument. ii) Limits Arguments Additionally, the rule block Con has in mind is to ask your opponent to limit themselves to a few strong arguments. As above, this assumes that the resolution CAN be limited to a few arguments. It also violates rule 3 of "valid rules" because it blocks otherwise valid argumentation strategies. iii) Persistence of AID Con is also assuming that 1-2 arguments would be "small enough" to fit inside a debate. Arguments themselves can be very very long and experience AID in themselves, so the block isn't soluble. iv) Contextual Harm Even if you think the AID effects can be greatly mitigated, small inflation can push debates over the edge if they are already pushing up against Volume limits (as above with CiRrk). v) Difficulty Proving AID Lastly, Con takes it for granted that the rule will just be implemented without problems. In reality, there is conflict over rules and there needs to be some clear way in which disputes are resolved. Rule 2 of "valid rules" requires that rule violations/appeals need to be clear. I claim that there is no methodological way to identify asymmetric arguments because the mere observation of inflation is not a sufficient condition for AID. There may be some unobserved argumentative strategy that resolves the AID. Debaters would have to prove they had selected the logically optimal strategy - i.e. that no better strategy exists that would resolve inflation. Proving a negative is impossible because logic/argumentation is limitless. vi) Meta AID arguments Any rule introduced is subject to dispute. An argument about AID can itself suffer from AID. As inductive evidence, I offer the fact that I've come up with 6 arguments against it. There may be more. This last point is also self-referential so there might be potential for an endless chain of arguments. I don't really want to think about it too hard... vii) Meta AID recursion I As you can see above, the argument about AID is inflating. Extend to bolster my inductive case that AID rules cause AID. viii) Meta AID recursion II As you can see above, the argument about AID is inflating... ix) Meta-Meta Arguments There are only two possible outcomes now. Either Con concedes that AID is inflating on me, or argues that AID should not be inflating if I adopted a different argumentative strategy, which slams me with another argument I have to rebut this resulting in AID.x) Meta-Meta recursion IIf my opponent argues with ix, he creates more inflation. http://canv.as... 2. Counter: Con thinks that if you miss your chance to run the rule up front, you can still make an ad hoc observation about AID. You can Cross-Apply all the above arguments from "1. Rule Blocks" because this is really the same basic technique. It just occurs in later rounds. I would add that there's potential for abuse if the standard is introduced ad hoc because it means debaters have already committed to their argumentative positions. Con adds in that judges can intervene and identify abuse. This is itself abusive because the outcome of the round no longer depends on the debaters, but on what arguments the judges can interject and complete on their behalf. He's implicitly admitting that because debaters are failing to argue (debate is broken), judges can continue the argumentation outside the round. I.e. debate is broken and we need alternatives. == Conclusion == There are only imperfect remedies for inflationary debate. In round 2, I kept way under the character limit. I am now in danger of pressing up against it despite the clear irony of a debate about how debate is broken being itself broken. Maybe that's Pro offense. XA and extend? I can has DA in the NC? Debate is lulsy. Also "nuclear weapons exist".