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

Reply re Reply to Kloster re new math

Received the following...my replies included

>From:   IN%"mattloch@chiba.netxn.com"
>Subj:   RE: Reply to Kloster re the new math

>>For this reason, the pursuit of equal ground is an argument for the
>>_inclusion_ of the negative adoption of the affirmative plan in plan-plan
>>theory.

>That sort of tactic is not excluded in this theory. 

Many plan-plan advocates, including Kloster, have claimed that this tactic is
excluded from plan-plan theory...I disagree with the claims re exclusion and
believe that the arguments for plan-plan are consistent with its inclusion...

>Hoever, until you hear
>this in a round, you can't just say, "this theory has possible abuses. We
>should reject it because of those possible abuses." Well, guess what? T can
>be an abusive position. Yet in nearly every round the neg runs at least one,
>and in those rounds then aff doesn't say "This T is abusive, reject EVERY T
>you hear from now on,starting now", but instead "they are abusing our
>ground
>IN THIS ROUND." For that, the judge can decide wether or not the T being
>run
>is indeed abusive, not simply if ANY T is abusive

You have completely misinterpreted my argument. I have not argued for a
universal theoretical rejection of plan-plan theory. I have _not_ argued that
the inclusion of the negative adoption of the affirmative plan is a possible
abuse of the plan-plan theory. I have argued that negative adoption of the
affirmative plan is the _core_ of the theory and an irresistible strategic
lure for the negative (arguing that only the self-hating negative would fail
to exploit the opportunities of the plan-plan theory)...

I have argued that negative adoption of the affirmative plan is more
consistent with the arguments for the theory than the negative adoption of an
"other" topical plan. I have argued that it even meets the theory proponents'
test for "difference" by recentering the subject in the debate.
Paradoxically, it has been the plan-plan advocates that have replied that
comparison focus (the essential foundation of plan-plan theory) is, in a
number of circumstances for which there are no clear guidelines, an abusive
practice...I have questioned their simultaneous inclusion of "comparison
focus" and rejection of arguments of comparison...

>Yea, well even thought the math shows the POSSIBLE flaws with the theory,
>it
>doesn't discount the theory. 

It seems to me that if it is flawed, it is, indeed, discounted. My argument
only examined the theory in one respect, namely, the exclusion of the
negative adoption of the affirmative plan. My reply was not designed to
undermine all of plan-plan theory.

Kloster used the "math" to prove that plan-plan theory (as expressed by
Kloster, _excluding_ the negative adoption of the affirmative plan) promoted
the concept of "equal ground". My point is that the math showed that his
_exclusion_ of the negative adoption of the affirmative plan is what
initially made the ground _unequal_. This simply confirmed my argument that
the _inclusion_ of the negative adoption of the affirmative plan made for
"equal ground" and demonstrated how inclusion is consistent with the "ground"
claims for plan-plan...

>I guess the aff could THEORETICALLY run the
>status quo in a round under this theory (like they can't do this without the
>theory?), but if I was on the neg, I would be sure to smash the aff into
>oblivion in the 1NC.

It is possible to lose a debate arguing a position that is distinct from the
present system as well. That isn't the point. The math was an artifice that
set equal options by _ruling_ that the affirmative could not defend present
policy. The affirmative has a defense of present policy as an option. It is
simply not appropriate to "fix" the numbers by excluding viable affirmative
options (the fact that it is problematic in "a" debate is not a reason to
reject the concept for debate-this is _your_ argument earlier in the
posting)...

>Even if this IS possible, try THIS equation: The # of possible aff cases is
>_infinite_ (well, perhaps not, but the finite number is close enough to
>infinite when it comes to possible neg pre-round prepping). The neg's
>possible plan-plan cases are also infinite (because they have a case). Now,
>you could be subtracting 1 from inifinity, but I souldn't suggest it,
>because just before your calculator exploded, you would find that YOU CAN
>SUBTRACT ANY FINITE NUMBER FROM INFINITY AND STILL HAVE >INFINITY.

As you noted, the number of cases is finite-your conclusion does not match
your representation of the topic...The issue of "equal ground" loses any
meaning in this context as well...


>>This is an interesting version of "equality". Your options for the negative
>>completely exclude the counterplan. If negative strategy includes the
>>possibilities of counterplans (not to mention other positions the negative
>>might advocate, including critiques), then there are many more than 100
>>potential advocacies for the negative. The _only_ option that succeeds in
>>establishing "equal ground" for the affirmative and the negative is the
>>negative adoption of the affirmative plan...Plan-plan theory promotes a
>>search for "equal ground" and, at the same time, excludes the possibility
of
>>"equal ground"...

>Yes, but again, possible in-round abuse should not automatically disqualify
>the neg. (See above reasons for not disqualifying theories for POSSIBLE
>abuses.) 

I have written _nothing_ about in-round abuse. My claim is that his math
conclusion re equal ground was "equal" because it excluded a number of
legitimate negative options. This means that there isn't "equal ground" in
his  formula. My point is that the negative adoption of the affirmative plan
does provide for "equal ground". My argument is that the proponents for
plan-plan theory have argued for the need for equal ground and simultaneously
rejected the tactic that provides equal ground. This is an anomaly...

>If I ever hit a neg team that decided to run my case back at me in
>a plan-plan framework, they'd better be ready to answer 8 minutes of
>abusiveness arguements.
>
>Latez.
>
>M
>
>  *******************************************************************
>  *   Matthew Hall -AKA- Matt Loch      mattloch@chiba.netxn.com    *

What? This conclusion seems to be at odds with your entire posting...

You seem to accept plan-plan theory. Negative adoption of the affirmative
plan is at the _core_ of the theory. (You agreed in the first sentence of
your posting that the theory doesn't exclude the negative adoption of the
affirmative plan). Why would you presume that such a tactic is abusive? In
fact, you claimed the opposite. You claimed that it is illegitimate to use a
 universal indictment of theory (it is only a "possible" abuse; cannot
undermine a theory re _any_ possible use)...

It is hard for me to believe that your posting is a reply to my cited
posting...I have not made any of the claims re "abuse" that you have
presumed; if anything, it is plan-plan advocates that have made these claims
re their own theory...In addition, my posting is directed specifically at the
issue of the exclusion of the negative adoption of the affirmative plan; it
is not a general indictment of plan-plan theory...

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