Team Policy is Broken, Part 7: Incoherence
Let’s continue from our last post analyzing ways to make Presumption arguments work in Team Policy debate.
D) Compromise Coherence
We’ve exhausted all options except one: run arguments that contradict the Presumption argument. When you’re done with Topicality, you move on to Disadvantages, Backfires, and Costs - as well as direct responses to the affirmative case.
Normally, we’d advise against this. Implicitly invalidating your own arguments is suicide in most other formats - most notably LD. But Team Policy puts the negative in an extreme strategic scenario. We’ve already established that there are no other viable options.
Team Policy forces you to mix Presumption and Impact Calculus arguments.
In other words, you have to say: “The affirmative Plan doesn’t matter and shouldn’t even be examined. Now let’s examine it.” This is the cardinal flaw with the Team Policy format.
If you’re used to Team Policy, this may not seem like a big deal. That’s only because you’ve grown acclimated to it. Try to step outside the format and look at it from the outside, applying general principles of theory and strategy. Being forced to immediately contradict yourself whenever you run Presumption is a problem. And while you and many of your judges may be used to seeing it, you can’t acclimate yourself completely to incoherence. There’s a basic cognitive dissonance to this tactic that will always feel wrong. The best-run version of this tactic is more vulnerable to refutation and persuasively weaker than it should be.
Even beyond that, the fact that the negative is forced to follow this specific route just to avoid collapsing means the format is far more rigid than it appears.
Verdict: Viable due to the format.
When you use this tactic, bear these two things in mind.
Focus on Presumption. If you’re running Presumption arguments at all, they should be the focus of your entire strategy. Use impact calculus arguments only as a last resort to fill your time. When you get to them, drop your passion down.
Lampshade. Take a moment to explicitly acknowledge the dissonance when you transitition from Presumption to Impact Calculus arguments. Like this:
“Since the Plan isn’t an example of the resolution, it doesn’t matter. You don’t need to look any further to make a decision. But we were really looking forward to a substantive debate, and I’m sure you were too. We do have some time left, so just for fun, let’s look at the particulars of the Plan. Again: this won’t matter when you cast your ballot. But as it turns out, the Plan is not a good idea.”
E) Don’t run Presumption
There’s nothing logically wrong with Presumption arguments. They are an important part of the Policy theory ecosystem. However, because of the extreme strategic landscape, Presumption arguments are disproportionately weak. That means you should avoid running them as much as possible.
Run Presumption arguments only when they’re far stronger than any other options.
Don’t run Tricot unless there’s no reasonable way to interpret the resolution the way the affirmative did. Don’t run Topicality unless the judge is already expecting it. Don’t run Spec at all - run Secret Spec instead.
Whenever you consider running a Presumption argument, pause for a moment. Ask yourself: “Can I think of a Detriment that is nearly as strong?” If you can, run that instead. Never use Presumption to fill a blank space in a case, and don’t use canned Topicality arguments “because they sometimes work.”
Put simply, the Team Policy format isn’t designed to handle Presumption arguments. You can create a much cleaner debate by avoiding them and building your offense around intuitive Detriments.
The Omni series continues. Stay tuned.