[eDebate] agent/actor c-plans-OK Mike, I'll bite

scottelliott at grandecom.net scottelliott
Fri May 12 14:32:54 CDT 2006


O.K. Mike, I'll bite. Everyone in the debate world knows I am an idiot already,
so you won't hurt my feelings with ad homs. To be honest with you, I don't get
your argument (you are starting to be as obtuse as Jackie Massey on what a good
resolution would be).

Work with me on the following example.

Take the following resolution:

Resolved: The United States Supreme Court should overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Plan: On the next available docket the U.S. Supreme Court will accept one or
more test cases challenging Roe vs. Wade, will accept briefs from parties with
real interest in the case as well as amics breifs, and, upon oral hearing, will
issue a ruling overturning Roe v. Wade.

Adv. I Abortions are bad--especially for unborn children. (We will sing
KUMBIJAH)

Adv. II. Patriarchy  (Good or bad--you can choose) We can argue Rt. to Abortion
increases patriarchy and that's bad. Or, we can argue that banning right to
abortion will crush womyn's rights and that's good--stops the big rock from
hitting us.

Anyway, the point is Mike, that I present a plan that the Court overturn a case,
then i claim advantages.


Now, the negative runs the following Counter-plan:

The U.S. Congress (through CON-CON or however it is supposed to get done),
through constiutional means, will Amend the U.S. Constitution. The Amendment
will prohibit abortions. The legislative intent is to take away the right of a
woman to have an abortion.

Competitiveness: We suck up both of the Aff's advantages because we take away
the right to have an abortion in the United States.

Net benefits:

(1) Court Cred. If court overtunrs, it loses credibility. That's bad for some
reason having to do with Isreali elections and genocide in the Sudan.
(2) More democratic then 7.5 old men and 1.5 women (Bader-Ginsberg is sort of a
split, don't you think).
(3) Global modeling--I am sure there is a reason.

So Mike, why does this not compete? I don't have my 1972 JAFA's laying around
anymore.

The US S.Court and Congress are both USFG actors. Past policy debates have
allowed the Congress to pass legislation or Amendments, so you can't claim
multiple actors or fiat abuse. You on the Aff have shitloads of ground remaining
to run disads against the C-plan and to test through permutations. But my
net-benefit--i.e. the court cred disad would say doing plan and c-plan at the
same time would suck. So, why wouldn't a policy maker make the rational choice
of one or the other? The real world of policy making does it all of the
time--in fact, Roe v. Wade is a perfect example of how, in 1972, women's
advocates found it to be more cost effective to go the Courts route than to try
to legalize abortion in every state. So, the real world model applies. It is not
your "have Jesus come down and take all the fetuses straight to heaven," in
other words, it is not Utopian.

So, there's the "I call bullshit," challenge. Where am I wrong (because I know I
must be somehow).

Scott







More information about the Mailman mailing list