[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Reply to Shaffer re plan-plan

Received the following...my replies included...

Derek Shaffer wrote:

>Entirely agree with recent comments concerning the problem of topical, plan
>inclusive counterplans ("plan+").  Haven't heard any coherent argument as
>to why a 1N can't stand up and say, "yep, 1AC sounds pretty good.  We'll do
>the same damn thing but also..."  Judge then has to vote for whichever of
>the two non-competing options proves to be better.

This is the way in which plan-plan creates a level of bureaucracy without
changing the circumstances of debates. 

When teams debate the negative, they can advocate the affirmative plan plus.
In this way, the negative can moot the position of the affirmative in the
debate and add, for example, their own affirmative plan. (Obviously, many
would select this option given argument familiarity and the disproportionate
success of affirmative teams). 

The consequence is obvious: a team, given the tournament designation
"negative", will introduce its own affirmative plan as an addition to the
affirmative plan in plan-plan debates. The "negative" will, therefore, debate
the affirmative side of the resolution. Of course, a team will, therefore,
debate against the opponent's affirmative case whenever they are given the
designation "affirmative" by the tournament. The "affirmative" side will,
therefore, be required to introduce their negative arguments.

If debaters follow this form, plan-plan theory will only change the side
designations in the debate: the affirmative will argue the negative and the
negative will argue the affirmative. Everyone will just be required to listen
to a lengthy preamble before the same debates occur...

By the way, I don't consider this the "best" option re plan-plan for the
negative. (A note: I am not endorsing plan-plan). Embracing the theory, the
negative team should adopt the affirmative plan without additions. This
effectively moots the object of the discussion (resolution/plan). The
negative can now invest time in a debate which recenters the subject of the
discussion (speakers). The negative can argue, for a variety of reasons
including materiality, identity, desire, aesthetics, culture, etc., that
their expression of the plan is superior to the affirmative's expression of
the plan. This subverts and displaces the traditional policy debate and
inserts a narrative discourse, with the debate participants as authority...


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