plan-plan

[Laurie Diane Ishak]

i know that there are a lot of mixed emotions about plan-plan
debates but i'm interested in finding out more about the theory (for and
against) the use of such a steategy.  for instance, would a negative team
run plan-plan just to outweigh the affirmitive teams impacts....and also
wouldn't the negative be confined to only running case specific da's-that
way they don't eat them also...i know you could also run topicality but
that seems absurd if the voter is based on division of ground.  and if you
wanted to run plan-plan would you just stand up and read a case in length
(i.e harms, inherency, and solvency) or would you literally just read an
opposing plan?? i know this subject was discussed in detail last year but
i didn't hear any of it....i'm not all up on the pros and cons so if
anyone can help me figure it out please backchannel me...

thanks
laurie
mtsu