[eDebate] ans Neal
Fri May 12 10:27:42 CDT 2006
You claimed there is a jurisdictional reason agent counterplans are
stupid. I answered there was not a jurisdictional claim but rather a
net-beneficial claim. Your response then says agent counterplans are
stupid because A. there is no literature to support them (no
disagreement here) and B. because there is a jurisdictional claim
What is this jurisdictional claim? Of course in the real world I
cannot have my neighbor buy the Prius instead, but as you explicate
in this latest post we are engaged in a game that goes beyond the
literature to one where our critics hold an authority that is not
real world. In the back of the room I am the USFG whereas no other
solitary person can claim that. The rules of choice and options have
already been abandoned, wanting to reign them in does not mean they
are reigned in.
I get the Prius example (I though it was very funny, esp. since my
debate geekiness is admired and found to be quite attractive) but
your notion of limited autonomy does not translate to the roll of the
critic in the back of the room. Here is my question again: if the
affirmative wants to have the USSC vacate Carnivore and I am the
USFG, why is it illegitimate to weigh that option against having Bush
abandon Carnivore? I understand you would prefer the debate critic
to be limited in these discussions, but that is based on preference
not any clear rules of debate as you paint it to be.
You ask me where my comparative evidence is and I say that your
description of debate at the top of the post is correct therefore I
do not need the comparative evidence. It would be nice if people not
in debate considered such things but they don't and that is what
makes this game of ours so great.
What is needed is not more claims that the current model of the
critic is silly or non-sensical but rather why it is not as
beneficial as a more limited model. You need to engage the
opposition theory instead of dismissing it.
I did not take your post personally, but it is so tiring when people
who are smart think they are the only smart kids in the room. When 3
decades have passed and this community still disagrees with you, I
would think the non-arrogant person would investigate why they
disagree instead of calling everyone else stupid. You have a neat
theory argument, but it limits the critic to a roll that is too
limited and one that is not preferred. There are educational
benefits to both approaches but you dismiss these out of hand by
saying that 30 years have passed without a single good argument, like
some genetic mistake passed down.
Speaking of genetics: You can call me a midget all you want (no
matter what doctors, you, my friends or my mother say) but I know
that I am average height. But damn dude, calling me a lawyer.
That's just mean! Okay, so you are much funnier than I am.
More information about the Mailman