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

Re:Shafter and Dispositionality

Anyhow, a few backchannels (which I hope people will actually post to the
L) indicate that I'm not the only one whose a bit bewildered by claims of
dispositionality.  Sean is absolutely correct that our counterplans were
ALWAYS run conditionally, and offered us the unrestricted prerrogative to
keep them or punt out of them as we saw fit.  That was very much a matter
of conscious choice.  I did then, and still do believe that counterplans
are entirely conditional without exception.  As such, I felt it would be
misleading to label and present our counterplans as anything other than
conditional, whatever our theoretical justifications for punting them might
eventually turn out to be.  My sole concern is that other negative teams
often steer clear of an honest discussion of conditionality by simply
hiding behind the unenforcable jargon of dispositionality.  If the Berm Dog
and I were ever abusive in our counterplanning, we were at least forthright
about it and welcomed a debate over the theoretical merits of our
particular strategy.  When affs said, "conditionality bad", I don't recall
responding with: "that's not MY type of conditionality your referring to."


I don't need three damn counterexamples in response to your meager
offerings.  All my claims are conditional--for explanation, see above.  If
you and Foote proved suffiently bold to straight turn Gonzaga's NATO
counterplans, I have every confidence that it was because of the severe
difficulties you both enountered with regards to the pronunication, and,
or, conceptualization of the term "permutation" rather than as a result of
any strategic inklings you may have had.  Of course, I revel in war stories
such as your own, told by veterans who have proudly acquired a large
collection of metal plates, especially when they contain the eloquence and
wit that I associate with your own cherished murmurings.

No doubt, MSU's octas strategy of sticking with a CP that was being
straight turned proved somewhat costly for them (3-0 decision against).  It
is for precisely that reason, that I expect a strong incentive exists for
the vast portion of negs to take the easy theoretical escape routes when
and if they find their counterplans getting crushed.  Absent independent
argumentation about the abusiveness of conditional counterplans or ironclad
judge enforcement of what constitutes dispositionality, I don't know why
dispositional counterplans don't have the exact same implications for a
debate as do conditional ones.

Sean, if your opinion was sufficient to constitute a "CEDA consensus," then
I would've been doomed to spend my entire college career talking funny and
wearing a dumbass pony tail.  All my love.

 - D

P.S. - this is fun


Sean once babbled:

>OK-Here are 3 examples, and it is now your burden ot provide 3 counterexamples
>of when the negative ran a dispositional cplan, got it straight turned and
>tried to kick out of it based on no competition. (Fat chance b/c you ran your
>cplans conditionally for fear of the straight turn and some real hard knocks
>debating :-)
>
>Octos and quarters at GSL my senior year against two Gonzaga teams.  Both times
>they ran a Nato Cpln against foote and I and both times we conceded the CPln
>competed and linked disads and turns to the cpln.  They fought well & thenit
>was time for Cornell in sems and then finals and another big plate for my wall
>:-)
>
>Octos at Nats this year.  Viking and Wyatt run a cpln, Vermont says it competes
>and runs disads to it, they debate it out. NO BULLSHIT.
>
>Just b/c you would have tried to kick out of the cplan doesn't mean everyone
>else has no sense of what dispositionality or truly advocating something in a
>round means.  Your lack of consensus argumetn is unsupported by anyone but
>yourself.
>
>harry belafonte
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page