[eDebate] ans. elliott

Paul Strait paulstrait
Sat May 13 08:20:01 CDT 2006


Elliot says:

"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."

response:

Yes, in fact no one thinks that the negative should have to prove their 
counterplan is likely.  This precisely is the problem with fiating 
alternative agents-- a unitary decision maker would need to know about the 
liklihood of another actor taking some action.  No one is arguing that agent 
counterplans are okay so long as the negative can prove they are likely-- 
these are called inherency arguments-- the fact that a rational decision 
maker would have to rely on liklihood demonstrates how silly the idea of 
alternative agent fiat is.


-----



elliot says:

"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."

response:


Do they have net benefits in the swamp?  This counterplan competes because 
there is a DA to the plan; it is obviously not mutually exclusive.


-------


elliot says:

"(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. "

response:

Ironically, no, there isn't.  This counterplan is not competitive at all.

-------


elliot says:

"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? "

response:

no where in a rational debate.  If Korcok is thinking through the reasons 
for and against purchasing a Prius, that his wife could purchase it is 
irrelevent unless she actually might do so.  I don't understand what is 
complex about this.  Literally no one outside of the debate community would 
think this kind of argument was meaningful or persuasive.

------


elliot says:

"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,"

response:

This is irrelevent, but seriously, wtf.

------

elliot says:

"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? "

response:

It is not that they do not compete-- rather, no system of rational 
decision-making would pick between the two.  Since no one would decide 
between congress on the one hand or the courts on the other hand, there is 
no literature discussing this choice in the context presented in the debate. 
  It is an absurdity.

-------

elliot says:

"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"


response:


This is a solvency question-- why is it at all relevent?

-----

elliot says:

"It should be an abuse of fiat for one to advocate a change of oneself. "

response:

I get that you are attacking object fiat, which is truly a non-sequitar btw, 
but this statement is beyond silly.  With the exception of some uniqueness 
counterplans, all plans and counterplans involve some 'change of oneself.'  
Otherwise, as you ironically point out, there would be no inherency.


LPS






More information about the Mailman mailing list