multidirectionality apologetic

[glen frappier]

Hold on a minute...i'd really like to know which teams ran a solvency
advocate argument as some type of procedural and consistently convinced
judges to vote for it.  My recollection is that the argument was awful and
that the negative usually got jack out of it except for some miniscule time
trade off.

Glen

----------
> From: Matt Stannard <MATTANDLEO at AOL.COM>
> To: EDEBATE at LIST.UVM.EDU
> Subject: Re: multidirectionality apologetic
> Date: Wednesday, June 10, 1998 1:06 AM
>
> In a message dated 6/9/98 10:59:12 PM, d.breshears at MAIL.UTEXAS.EDU wrote:
>
> <<Which theory arguments would those be?  Were they not tried on the
Mexico
>
> topic?  My experience has been that it's a hard call to make as a judge,
>
> certainly not something easily checked by "good theory arguments".  It
works
>
> in principle, just like a debate over qual's, but it's rarely cut & dry
in
>
> practice.>>
>
> Basic solvency advocacy positons really proliferated on the mexico topic
and
> afterwords, in the ceda community, the need for solid advocacy literature
was
> generally accepted, although doubts remain about the validity of multiple
> authors synthesized into a plan.
>
> now the only person, apparently, who enjoyed the mexico topic :(
> stannard