Reply to Gehrke re plan-plan problems

[JKM1993@aol.com]

>From:   IN%"pjgehrke@ecst.csuchico.edu"
>Subj:   Problems with Plan-Plan...

Pat,

I have a comment and a question:

(1) Your commentary re plan-plan seems to presume that the negative will
employ a strategy that selects a plan _other_ than the affirmative plan. I
recognize that many negatives might make this error, but, if we presume that
the negative accepts the theory and selects its arguments strategically
rather than randomly, i.e., accept the theory and advocate the affirmative
plan, many of your objections no longer matter.

(2) What is the reason that the negative cannot make plan-plan argumentation
a conditional argument in the debate? I understand that the negative might
not want to argue plan-plan and more conventional approaches simultaneously
because of the potential for theoretical or practical contradictions.
However, if the negative has _carefully_ prepared for the debate, why is it
that this negative option (plan-plan) serves to "lock-in" the negative
position any more than conventional (nontopicality, critique, cplan, disad)
approaches? (Your posting seems to indicate that the affirmative should not
allow the negative to "get away" with arguing other positions. It does not
clearly state the reasons that the affirmative could use to take such a
stand).

Best,

John

John Meany
Claremont Colleges

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Korcokian Ramblings
• Next by Date: Reply re response to meany
• Prev by thread: Seattle U and Pacific too!
• Next by thread: Reply re response to meany
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page