CR-A2: Walton

[Tracy Gonos and Paul Hayes]

This is the same tired discussion that has been going on all weekend - I
challenge anyone who keeps saying over and over that there is no ground
besides alt agent cp's on the cr topics to back up this claim with support
in the literature.  Come on and admit that you haven't been in the
literature and that in reality this no ground thing is nothing more than an
assumption (and we all know what happens when we assume...)

In my discussions with Jessica I have said over and over what other
negative ground exists.  Slusher has done the same.  I have even gone to
the trouble of providing specific examples of what given debates would look
like just to prove that there is "good" specific and generic ground on the
CR topic BESIDES the agent CP.  I got plenty more strategies that don't
rely on agent cp's. I challenge anyone in the "cr gives no good ground"
school of thought to actually get into the literature and propose an actual
concrete example of a likely affirmative where the negatives only real
ground is to run an agent cp or where they have no ground at all.  It's
only fair - I've provided the counter examples.  Also it would be much more
productive than continuing to constantly reiterate the same objections
based on incorrect assumptions about the topic literature

> Remember, it you remove the potential for the neg to say that
resolutional
> action is, on face, a bad idea, you have already crushed neg ground.

As I have said in previous posts (and illustrated with examples) the
negative absolutely has ground to say congressional action to strengthen cr
is a bad thing.  Why do you think negatives can't say this.  Even the "PC"
literature says this ten different ways.  And what about the non-PC
literature?  It says it too and even conservatives have gotten smart enough
to frame their arguments in such a way that they tend to avoid the
"repugnancy" pitfall that everyone is so worried about.  Lots of people
also say CR are bad, that the entire concept of "rights" is bad - again for
multiple reasons.


> I think you will be hard pressed to find many people who will say that
civil
> rights are a bad idea. Why FORCE negs to debate the actor instead of the
action.


Wrong!!!! See above.

peace,
t