Propping Absolutist Motions: Lumpiness is your friend.
An absolutist motion is one which proposes a rule with no exceptions. For example
- [Normal] THW ban abortion
- [Absolutist] THW ban abortion in all circumstances
In BP we assume motions propose general rules which apply in the vast majority of cases. Because of this we allow gov teams to caveat out certain rare or unreasonable situations. Absolutist motions prevent this by forcing Government to defend each and every instance where their rule applies. This is far, far harder. Simply put, in absolutist motions, all Opp has to do is find and defend one case where the motion would be a bad idea. For example, in an absolutist abortion motion, opp would have to argue not that abortion should generally be allowed, but only argue specific, very strong cases where it should be allowed, such as in cases of rape,pedophilia or when continuing the pregnancy would lead to the death of both mother and child.
A question I have been asked many times is what to do as gov in such a motion. There are two options:
- Show your policy is good in every single devilish scenario Opp can imagine.
- Show the decision is "Lumpy". i.e: we can do or not do the policy but for some reason we cannot use it selectively for only some cases and not others,
Option one is the simplest but also the hardest. If you can pull it off, you have outclassed your opposition so thoroughly that there is little I can say to help other than to try and make any harms/benefits you argue as general as possible. Option two is trickier but usually more useful. In economics, the word "lumpy" refers to a good which cannot be broken down into smaller pieces for purchase. For example, a third world farming co-operative with a small plot of land could need exactly 2.5 tractors worth of work to plow all it's land but, as tractors are a lumpy good and cannot be split into smaller pieces, it would have to purchase three tractors, wasting 0.5 tractors worth of money, or purchase 2 tractors and leave some fields fallow. By showing that a certain policy is lumpy, it becomes impossible for Opp to pick and choose which cases they want to defend and instead forces them to defend the general balance of harms of the policy.
How exactly you argue that a certain policy decision is lumpy depends on the motion, but there are a few lines which recur often enough to be worth mentioning:
- Lack of Information
- Lack of Control
- Perverse Incentives (usually political)
- Slippery Slope
Lack of information simply means arguing that it is impossible or inordinately difficult for the actor in a motion to distinguish between cases where the policy is good and those where it is less good. For example, in a torture debate where Government claims it would only torture known terrorists, Opposition could argue that it is impossible to be even reasonably certain in advance id someone suspected of terrorism is actually guilty. This could be true because of reasons ranging from bias in intelligence agencies/police to the fact that terrorist cells will often divert suspicion onto innocent third parties by planting messages/evidence.
Lack of control means that a government or other actor lacks the degree of control or power necessary in order to precisely specify when a policy is carried out and so can only set general rules. For example, in the motion "TH, as the Ugandan government, would allow soldiers to confiscate private property in times of war", it could be plausibly argued that this will result in soldiers confiscating property unrelated to the war effort as the Ugandan government lacks the degree of oversight necessary to control soldiers actions. There are three lines I have seen used to justify lack of control arguments. One is to show that the government lacks the information about an agencies actions and so cannot ensure compliance. This may seem strange but it is often plausible in debates about intelligence agencies which are necessarily secretive and compartmentalized. Another tactic is to argue that certain agencies or institutions, usually those tasked with enforcing the policy in question, have seriously perverse incentives and that these incentives are structural, meaning an unavoidable result of the role/job, and so cannot be easily removed. Finally, the standard slipper slope arguments, if made well, can often show why a certain policy stance is not sustainable and will necessarily lead to political or institutional change which in turn leads to devolution to a more general or broader policy.
Example: "This House believes that the West should stop all attempts to gather information or intelligence by deception and/or coercion of foreign citizens."
The round 7 motion from this years EUDC is absolutist. As gov you have to defend never, ever deceiving or coercing foreigners. Inevitably, what any decent Opp team will do is focus on a few cases where deception is obviously useful, the only option and has minimal risk of political backlash if discovered. What to do? Here are a few lines to think about*:
- Impossible to know in advance who has necessary information = always have to cast a wide net.
- Compartmentalization of HUMINT makes granular control of case officers nigh impossible. Case officers have perverse incentives to maximize information gained and sources established to aid career progression. Result: deception used in cases where unwise/risk of backlash even if state does not desire it.
- HUMINT is easy to manipulate/lie with as it often cannot be verified and sources are kept secret. Politicians/Intelligence Agencies have an incentive to twist intelligence to present a distorted picture of reality. Result: Using HUMINT allows for deception far more easily than SIGINT, leading to more deception, worse decisions and more deaths/instability.
*If you lack background knowledge in intelligence, these articles briefly explain the four kinds of intelligence.
Member discussion