Re: Shafter and Dispositionality

[dls10@cornell.edu (Derek Shaffer)]

 - D

>the more i read from derek and sean re: the "distinction" between
>dispositionality and conditionality leads me down the following path.
>
>The distinction is artificial.  The point is whether conditionality
>allows negatives to drop the counterplan without an out.  I remember a
>thread a while ago by Bahm, et al suggesting that this was ok, because
>the turns prove the counterplan is not competitive.
>
>While I don't endorse this strategy, I bring it up to illustrate that I
>think Sean and Derek agree:  negatives ought not be able to get out of
>turns by saying, oh, sorry, we were arguing that conditionally and the
>condition was whether you are kicking our ass.
>
>If there is not agreement to that point let's discuss it for what it is.
>I think the labels just confuse what the real issue is.
>
>Derek, why is conditionality bad other than the instance where negatives
>want to drop out of a bunch of turns.  If there is a permutation or some
>legitimact argument, why can't we kick out?  HOW is that different than
>a no link answer to a disad or a we meet answer to topicality.
>
>The conditionality debates I have seen are just another lame attempt to
>win "reverse voting issue."
>
>becky
>

---

• Prev by Date: Re: cp and dispositionality
• Next by Date: Re: Bold New Debate Theory
• Prev by thread: Re: False claims about Korcok
• Next by thread: more plan/planSome resolutions provide more Aff ground and some provide more neg ground.It has long been a major misperception in debate theory that the resolution
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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