ans West (4)

[Bob Lechtreck]

At 11:08 PM 2/4/98 -0700, Doyle Srader wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>
> Plan/plan gives almost perfectly equal ground, because it's the *same*
> ground.

Didn't say ground: I said _equality_. Debates aren't equal. "Ground" is a
buzz-phrase that has come to mean very little.
>>>>>>>>>>

But it should. Ground is the basis for all of our jurisdictionals. How much
more importance should we give it?

>>>>>>>>>>
Debate is still unequal.
>>>>>>>>>>

Damn, and I thought we had achieved perfect equality.

So, Doyle, should we, in a non-equal world, give up trying to achieve
equality? I think that every step towards making debate MORE equal is a good
thing. I also think P2 does that.

>>>>>>>>>>
Speaking first and last is not equal to the negative block. The right to
pick the starting point of debate is not offset by ... well, anything.
Plan-plan included.
>>>>>>>>>>

Not true. The right to pick the starting point of the debate IS offset by
plan/plan. If the aff chooses a starting point which crushes your ground, P2
allows for the neg to choose a different starting point.

>>>>>>>>>>
My counterclaim is that "equalizing" or pursuing "fairness" is silly and
misleading, that teams (or at least judges) ought to accept that debate is
_un_equal, and just to police the most egregious excesses.
>>>>>>>>>>

Not as easy as it sounds. Ground reduction comes in many and severe shapes.

>>>>>>>>>>
Reductio ad absurdum is an awfully shaky way to argue, hombre. If the
affirmative's choice of plan gives the negative all other topical
options, does the affirmative's choice of inflection give the negative
all other audible options, meaning that if the negative can re-read the
1AC in a more aesthetically pleasing way, they win? With that out of my
system ...
>>>>>>>>>>

Nope, that ain't the theory. Even using a different inflection it is STILL
the same case. Or do you think that judges should be able to use vocal
quality as a voting issue?

>>>>>>>>>>
Well, the only other follow-up comment I have is the same explanation I
had above. Perfect equality isn't out there.
>>>>>>>>>>

Doesn't mean we should try to make it better.

>>>>>>>>>>
Ground encroachments that can successfully be characterized as outrageous
might be reasons for me to vote.
>>>>>>>>>>

So if the aff says rape is bad, and the neg is forced to have to try to
argue this, you would vote neg because of ground loss? I doubt it.

>>>>>>>>>>
Has anyone noticed that I'm in for eight debates in Chicago this weekend?
Trying to persuade *more* people to exercise their option on me? Would I
do a thing like that?
>>>>>>>>>>

Won't work anyway. Very few P2 debates this year. Too much neg ground.

Peace,

Bob Lechtreck
Bakersfield College
"Putting out fires, and damn good debaters!!!"