"The basic problem with T/S cases is that they look good if you know how things came out… so, in order to make them debatable, you must revert back to the mindset of the time…
BUT, you and your opponents and the judge all know how it actually came out, and as such are persuaded by that knowledge… no matter how much you say you are shifting the mind-set, it simply cannot happen completely."
patty understands painfully little about the marketplace of ideas. if patty is correct that the judge and opponents are necessarily biased in favor of the status quo, then they are more likely to pick up OPP since GOV must propose a change from the status quo. thus, teams that run t-s cases should be dissuaded from doing so as it’s not in their best interest. i don’t see any reason to legislate agains T-S if, as patty contends, the market will necessarily solve against them.
why do apda kids run t-s cases? because patty’s status quo argument is bunk. historical counterfactuals are quite interesting to discuss. the presence of t-s widens the discourse of parliamentary debate. under npda/apda status quo, experts in policy, political theory and philosophy flourish. what about debaters who chose to study and are interested in history? should they not be able to run their strong suit? i think well rounded debaters should be prepared to discuss history in addition to theory.
"my question is: where’s the ethos? I have a debater who two seconds ago was unclear about who was threatning whom, how, and why, yet all of a sudden I’m supposed to buy mindset arguments from them? "
the issue of specific knowledge has absolutely nothing to do with t-s. mark’s right, i might not know anything about the six day war and might get fucked in a given round. then again, i might also be a history major and get fucked when someone runs a present day constitutional law case.
the beauty of debate is in the ability of the participants to think quickly on their feet on the widest variety of topics possible. we shouldn’t arcanely and legislatively limit our discourse, we should expand it. if it need be limited, let the marketplace of ideas solve.