more plan plan questions

[Mike]

Here's my take on the plan-plan debate...



Mark H. Jones wrote:
>
> I have a few questions on the plan-plan debate.



>
> 1st. What happens to the issue of topicality? If the Negetive can run a
> topical case, thereby T does not really matter, what prevents the aff from
> running a non-topical plan? Plan-Plan debate seems to justify the removal
> of a topic/resolution all together.

Actually, what disappears is the "antiquated" notion of affirmative and
negative.  The plan plan debate operates under the premise that there is
opportunity costs and finite resources.  We cannot implement every plan
under the sun, so we have to make choices.  Therefore, the "aff" has the
first plan and the "neg" has the second plan.

So both are bound by the resolution really.  If one is topical, it is
the preferred plan even if the other one is superior as far as
advantages.


>
> 2nd. What prevents the 2ac after hearing the Negative-topical plan and
> saying, "fine the 'aff' is replanning and now we do both cases. We
> increase the good in the world, and since both actions are topical it is
> legit we can do both."

well, the answer is pretty simple--advocacy.  the 1ac takes a position
and that is their position.  you can't perm or shift...  you are stuck
with it.  Instead the 2ac strategy would be to make comparisons between
p1 and p2.  disads, solvency take-outs and case turns are all ground for
the 2ac into the block (as well as answering any disads to p1.

the same thing that prevents a team from going "oops--my 1ac had three
disads I have no answer to, so here is a new case in 2ac" during a
"traditional" debate.

>
> 3rd Could someone back-channel, me with a justification for plan plan
> debate beyond "a policy maker should vote for the best policy option."

Korcok had a pretty good explanation on ceda-l about a year and a half
ago.  I don't recall the specifics and I am not that down with the
theoretical underpinnings.
It is in the ceda-l archives though on debate central.

>
> 4th. What happens when the 2ac scraps the original 1ac and replans using
> the "neg's" topical plan? Does the neg win wimply because they said the
> plan first? That seems like a horrid way to decide debate rounds.
>

No, I explained this in answer to question 2.  the problem in the
advocacy shift from 1ac.  just like i think that it would be abusive to
go plan plan and then in 2nr revert to a defense of the status quo.


> I would appreciate any constructive answers to these questions especially
> 3 and 4


hope these are constructive.

mike

>
> "Here comes the orator, with his flood of words and his drop of reason."
> --Benjamin Franklin
>
> Mark H. Jones
> Central Methodist College
> Fayette, MO. 65248

--
Michael Krueger
Asst. Director of Debate
Middle Tennessee State University
Box 43
Murfreesboro, TN 37132
(615)  898-2273 (office)
(615) 898-5826 (fax)
http://www.mtsu.edu/~debate
http://www.mtsu.edu/~mkrueger
http://www.mtsu.edu/~wmts