plan-plan, the dark lord, and other things that go bump in the , night
Sun Nov 16 00:46:09 CST 1997
On Sat, 15 Nov 1997, Phil Kerpen wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Nov 1997, Brian Reddinger wrote:
> Because every theory contains some potentially abusive situations. It's
> not a reason to reject the theory as a whole. I mean, do you think that
> all traditional, competition-based counterplans should be rejected because
> of the possibility of plan-minus?? My argument is that you never have to
> vote on potential abuse, because when the abuse actually happens, in-round
> abuse arguments would always check. In a regular p/p round, ground is
> equal and there is NO abuse; that's what's important, not some
> hypothetical situation that wouldn't happen because of abuse args.
Not all. But as I said before the plan-minus/plus debate is uniquely
justified by plan-plan theory. It is a better topical option, right? At
least with "traditional" theory the counterplan has to be a better policy.
As much as I hate the anology, I wonder what congress would think about a
debate about the distinction between $1000 and $999 for the funding.
NO abuse is a strong statement. I doubt that.
> And why would development suck?? The generics are gone, for the most
> part, since both plans have to be topical. The debate becomes about
Generics are gone? Uh why is that? Not all disads link to everything.
Plus, specific links are all the rage. I don't have many disads that link
off resolutional terms anymore. They're what you win on in reality.Besides,
there are plenty of topical affirmatives that don't link to the most
popular generics. I think it's a bit hasty to count them off.
And what do you compare? Let's say two big sticks go head to head.
Better solvency for the china advantage? How do you evaluate mitigations?
Hopefully you'd have a net benefit. That's a generic which you have said
are gone for the most part.
> > > Also, don't forget the empirical argument. There have been a lot of p/p
> > > debate, and the affirmative has won a lot of them on the substantive
> > > issues.
> > >
> > I've only heard of one debate where it was a substantive ballot. that is
> > what happened. the neg won.
> Talk to Lechtrek and Mahoney. There have been many, many p/p debates in
> which the aff won on substantive issues.
Lechtrek and Mahoney, where are you? How do these arguments work in
> > > Oh, and disclosure solves.
> > uh, why? do you disclose your negative plan too?
> > read disads in the 1ac?
> > sounds silly, but I don't know what happens in reality.
> Never seen it done. No incredible reason not to do it, but generally I
> think people have stronger advantages that they would prefer to get out.
> > > Your right. The aff doesn't have an advantage any more in p/p debate.
> > > That's what equal ground is all about, eliminating any advantage for one
> > > side.
> > >
You CAN'T eliminate strategic advantage. Someone always gets to talk
last. Someone always gets the block. Equal ground is not the holy grail.
> > equal nothing. 1ar sucks in a plan plan debate.
> I still don't understand this argument. Also, I should point out that the
> ever popular ``p/p hurts 1AR'' contradicts with the also popular ``no
1AR argument: You run your plan-plan. I say, cool. I debate it straight
up. I read my disads in the 2AC and answer yours. 2NC turns the disads.
1NR extends the 1NC disads and the other plan. 1AR answers it all in six
minutes. I wouldn't want to give that speech. I don't care where you are
in that debate, the time crunch for the 1AR is way more immense than the
2NR, who gets to focus the debate on whatever s/he wants. Three speeches
for the 1AR: 2NC, 1NR, and extend the 2AC. Plus prempting the 2NR if
s/he's ambitious. Sounds shitty to me.
no clash: Where is the contradiction? It's not as you make it seem
And what IS the answer to no clash? It seems that comparing two policies
which could easily be done together, for no other reason than to equalize
ground, would seem like ignoring the fact that there ARE two ships passing
in the night, just becasue it's easier for the negative to do so. My
point is that equalizing ground doesn't answer no clash. What is the
note: this letter got pretty long. Stuff that I deleted was stuff that I
basically agreed with you about.
Fight the power.
More information about the Mailman