[eDebate] ans. elliott

scottelliott at grandecom.net scottelliott
Sat May 13 00:05:33 CDT 2006


Actually Mike, I have not been in the swamp for years, I am currently a
commercial liability insurance lawyer in Dallas. You and your sources are as
clear as swamp water.

I think there are holes in the''75 JAFA article--namely, it seems to me that
Roho--whoever, places an unjustified burden on the negative c-plan that they do
not place on themselves. When in the f---, sorry, when has an affirmative ever
had to prove the likelihood of their plan being passed by their resolutionally
defined actor? Isn't that what your JAFA theorists are saying the Negative has
to prove? If the negative has to read cards that say "there is an 85%
likelihood than a Constitutional ban on Abortion would pass Congress"--this is
what I get from your theorists--then why don't I as a negative get to
argue--"The Aff. has failed to read any cards saying it is even 50% likely that
the Court will overturn Roe." Is it me, or is this some kind of screwed up form
of reverse inherency? I see no justification for the claim that the negative
has to prove that their c-plan is more likely to pass than the Aff. If the Aff.
gets to waive the magic wand of fiat, then the negiative should get a chance to
wave it too, with limits.

I think your analogies, while cute, offer the audience false dichtomies.
First, your original proposal was Resolved: Person X should buy a Prius. Your
hypo c-plan was the person down the block should buy Prius. Now Mike, even us
folks from da swamp know this is a non-competive counter-plan subject to an
easy perm.  Rather, the true c-plan would be one of the following:

(a) Person X should buy a Big Diesel Truck. Net benefit, we need to increse
global warming. That gives the judge a clear alternative. And there is
competition.

(b) Person X should buy a bicycle. Solves for your advantage better, you have
disad ground, and there is a net benefit of something.

(c) Person X's wife buys the Prius. It solves 100% of your advantage, plus we
get a little "empowerment" advantage. If you perm, you lose the benefits of
women's choice, or some bullshit like that.

Now, according to your theorists, you, the Aff., don't have the burden to prove
the likelihood of Mr. X doing the plan becuz yooz gots da fiat. But, I, the
negative, have some mythical burden to prove that the wife of X has a 50.1%
probability or more of doing the c-plan? Where in the hell does that
justification
come into play?


How does this set of analogies apply to my Roe hypo? Well Mr. and Mrs. X are
within the same family. They have the same family rules and norms and budget.

Similalrly, the COngress and the U.S. S. Court are--dare I say it--co-equal
branches of government. They both operate from the same "budget" and "norms,
i.e. they are both given powers under the Constitution to dramatically affect
privacy rights of women. The S. Court does it through creative interpretation
of the COnstituion and Congress does it through the blunt force of a
COnstitutional Amendment. BTW, the President does not have this power, nor does
China, and even Jesus does not have it. So, don't digress from some bullshit
utopian c-plans that I previously
dismissed.

To me, in a Roe debate or a curtailment of Pres. powers debate, the analogy to a
family buying a car applies. We have two co-equal parties,
husband/wife--Courts-Congress--that have equal abilities and assets (family has
their joint bank account and the government bodies have their Constitutional
powers) to enact a certain policy. Why don't they compete? Why do you and those
people from circa 1975 and 1980 get to impose an arbritrary rule on the
negative?

Quick dismissals of your arguments/counter-examples:

China do the plan--not the same source of power/assets as my example.
Women just stop having abortions  (i.e. terrorists stop killing people
voluntarily) Again, not the same limited pool of Constitutional powers, or
"family budget"
Have cajun lawyers play zydeco. While you underestimate the transformative power
of zydeco, it too falls victim to the criticism I am making.

I think a strong theoretical case can be made for a Congressional Constitutional
Amendment c-plan versus a Court Ruling Plan that is exclusive of the solvency
advocate debate or competition debates. Namely, this specific type of c-plan is
(1) not utopian (2) has actually been done going both ways, (i.e COurts have
overturned Congress and Congress has overturned the COurts) (3) Is derived from
an extremely limited base of "fiat power" that does NOT explode negative ground
to a point where the negative can use fiat to wish away all of the problems of
the world (4) Is a real debate about the relative powers bestowed to the
branches of our govenrment.

Minimally, I really want to understand the justifiaction for forcing the
negative to have to prove the likelihood of the c-plan being passed when the
Aff. does not have to meet the same burden.

One last point, I have not read the '75 JAFA article since 1989 when I was
debating. But I recall that this section was talking specifically about
states-c-plans. I think we can distinguish the states c-plan from the
Congrssional Constitutional Amendment c-plan. (However, there may be a CON-CON
c-plan that may be legit under my theory that fiat stems from powers grnated
under the constituion)

Using the Roe example. States do not have the ability to overturn Roe, or to
have the effect of overturning Roe. Only two agents in the world have that
ability--the S. Court and Congress.

One Pres curtailment of Pres. Powers topic. Again, and obviously, the States
don't have the power to curtail Pres. powers. Only COngress and the S. Court
have that power.

But, you say, the President could voluntarily curtail his own powers. This,
however, is akin to the Utopian c-plans of having women just stop having
abortions or having Bin Laden turn himself in. The distinction, to me, is one
of----inherency. The agent of action has to force someone or something to do
something it would otherwise not do. In other words, fiat should be limited to
having one agent act to force others to do something that would not be done in
the status quo.

It should be an abuse of fiat for one to advocate a change of oneself. In other
words, for the negative to c-plan on Pres. Powers,: Bush will stop wire
tapping, is the same as C-plan: Bin Laden will kill himself.

This is not fleshed out completely, but I think the Congressional C-plan is a
different breed of cat on this type of topic, than the criticism that the NDT
stoics were talking about in 1975.

Scott









More information about the Mailman mailing list