[eDebate] ans. elliott
Sat May 13 08:20:01 CDT 2006
"When in the f---, sorry, when has an affirmative ever
had to prove the likelihood of their plan being passed by their
defined actor? Isn't that what your JAFA theorists are saying the Negative
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
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
the Court will overturn Roe." Is it me, or is this some kind of screwed up
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."
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.
"I think your analogies, while cute, offer the audience false dichtomies.
First, your original proposal was Resolved: Person X should buy a Prius.
hypo c-plan was the person down the block should buy Prius. Now Mike, even
folks from da swamp know this is a non-competive counter-plan subject to an
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.
"(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
Ironically, no, there isn't. This counterplan is not competitive at all.
"Now, according to your theorists, you, the Aff., don't have the burden to
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
come into play? "
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.
"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
This is irrelevent, but seriously, wtf.
"To me, in a Roe debate or a curtailment of Pres. powers debate, the analogy
family buying a car applies. We have two co-equal parties,
husband/wife--Courts-Congress--that have equal abilities and assets (family
their joint bank account and the government bodies have their Constitutional
powers) to enact a certain policy. Why don't they compete? "
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.
"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
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"
This is a solvency question-- why is it at all relevent?
"It should be an abuse of fiat for one to advocate a change of oneself. "
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.
More information about the Mailman