A2: REPRESENTATIONS K

REPS K ATTACKS JUSTIFICATIONS NOT OUTCOMES

First – let me define what I mean by “representational critique”. By this, I refer to any

argument that takes issue with justification for action that is not
necessarily tied to outcome of action. This can become blurred, so let me give an example. If a
team reads a Disarm plan with two advantages: proliferation and
environmental destruction (with a species loss = human extinction impact), and the Neg team
critiques Apocalyptic depictions of the environment, that is a Reps K.
Why? Because the Aff team justified the plan by using apocalypticism –

but such terminology is not necessarily an outcome of Disarmament.

The same plan could be justified solely because of the prolif advantage –
or for many other potential reasons.
On the other hand, if a Neg team said “Arms control is bad because it
consolidates U.S. security and preserves capitalism”, that is a critique of
outcome. Disarming necessarily causes (albeit indirectly) capitalism.

REPRESENTATIONS IN THE AC ARE OPTIONAL JUSTIFICATIONS

NOT MANDATORY OUTCOMES

, to say that representations matter—insofar as they

However

determine/influence policy outcomes—says little or nothing about which

justifications should be used for policymaking. The representations presented
by the 1AC that are justifications for action, instead of outcomes of the plan
are neither *mandatory* nor *inevitable* outcomes of voting Aff.

Thus, the judge, at the end of the debate, should be able to choose (for themselves) why to
vote Aff or Neg. Logically, one can choose the best arguments from the
set of available reasons presented in the debate. Not every 1AC
justification needs to be part of the final “package” of voting Aff. If one
or more representations for voting for the plan is undesirable, they should not be
used. If, at the end of the debate, positive/beneficial justifications for acting
remain, the plan is desirable and the Aff should win.
THIS IS NOT SEVERENCE

“Severance”
In my opinion, importing the theory of CP competition into these debates is a clear misapplication of the term.

implies an initial attachment—that the plan initially required that

certain justifications be used for acting. In other words, the Neg assumes that
the Aff had said that voting for the plan mandates that certain
representations be used.  

This is false. As the above example about Disarm and Environmental Rhetoric demonstrates, justifications
for action are frequently disconnected from outcome. Banning the bomb
may affect the environment, but it doesn’t dictate how we choose to
speak about/represent ecology. In this way, representations are different than, say, a policy advantage to the
plan. Banning the bomb may necessarily stop proliferation. Then, “prolif

good” would be an inescapable disadvantage of the plan.

The outcome/justification distinction is highly important. If the Neg straight impact-

turns the prolif advantage, there’s nothing to concede to “sever” the link to the advantage. If the Neg only says

“Prolif representations are racist” with no reason that the *plan* causes
such depictions (only a link about how the Aff team used them), the
impact is much more uncertain. Commonly, judges assess an impact to the Reps K (“How bad are those
justfications?”) and then weighs that against the case. This is a fundamental logical error. If a certain set of

justifications is flawed, then the judge should simply not use them, not
*require* the Aff to use them and assess it a value similar to the plan’s
outcomes – an entirely different category of argument.

if a speaker
Why? Because the judge is a dynamic thinker, like any engaged decision-maker. At a town hall meeting,

proposed a policy for three reasons, two of which were excellent and one
was crap, you *should* agree with their proposal for the two good
reasons and ignore the third. Good ideas are good if they have beneficial
outcomes, regardless of how they are justified.

Interestingly, the contrary position—that you should hold speakers to every

reason they cite as justification and use it to assess their policy—is one of
the most reactionary and anti-critical stances one could take. It prioritizes
who speaks over what is spoken about. It ignores content for form. It
punishes instead of compromises. And, fundamentally, it is a tactic used by
conservative political forces to crush progressivism. Do the critique folk
really want to be in this company?
The debate judge should be treated like an intelligent and dynamic policy-
maker. The affirmative should forward a proposal with a set of justifications.
The Neg can criticize (via DAs, a counterplan, a K, etc.) the plan or the
justifications. If the Neg wins that the plan is a bad idea, they win. If the Neg
wins that the justification is bad, then the judge should reject that
justification and determine whether the plan is a good idea for any other
potential reason.
There isn’t “no cost” to presenting poor justifications for action on the Aff.
In all likelihood, you’d lose your entire advantage. The disarm aff that spots
the Environment Reps K would no longer be able to claim the environment
advantage as a reason for acting. The K still has value—but it’s meaning
changes to a “reason not to use such representation” instead of a DA to the
plan. If the Aff *only* had an environment advantage, the K would be a
reason to vote Neg on presumption. The Reps K isn’t a DA to the plan. It
can never be “Environmental Reps cause extinction – outweighs the case”,
because the conclusion of that statement is that those justifications should
never be used for acting in the first place. Translation: “No Link, Judge”.
Finally, what about the Doty card and other “reps matter” style arguments
that I mentioned before? Well, representations matter—but those arguments
presume that the reps actually used influence policy. My position is that
the judge can choose which representations to use for policy enactment, so
Doty et al. applies to the 1AC but not the final position chosen by the judge
that is a reason to vote Aff because it affirms the plan.
In the end: let the judge choose. It’s a far more coherent model of decision-
making.