[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Reply re Reply to Kloster re 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
>>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...
It is excluded only for the reason of abuse. I cannot stress enough that it
IS a possible tactic, but 1) if the aff case sucks why should the neg want
to adopt it instead of running a better case, and 2) if this sort of abuse
happens in a round it should be punished IN THE ROUND.
>>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
>>IN THIS ROUND." For that, the judge can decide wether or not the T being
>>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)...
How is it the CORE of the theory? I don't think that ANY advocates of
plan-plan have EVER said this (at least to my knowledge). To me, the core of
the theory is that it takes care of abusive aff cases. And yea, it may be
alluring for the neg to run the affs plan back at them, but this runs into
several problems. 1) Any attacks the neg makes on the aff case hits them
back, with the added damage of a possible hypocracy arguement in the 2AC, 2)
unless the neg uses all 8 minutes to say how this is not only possible, but
somehow not abusive, adding that by doing this they should win the round,
they're going to eat 8 minutes of abusiveness arguements by the aff. 3) If
the aff's case is really all that good, then they should be able to fend off
this sort of attack, especially against a neg team thet tries such a flawed
approach to plan-plan.
There are several other arguements against your situation, but I'll just let
y'all mull over these for a while...
>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...
What arguements FOR the theory support the neg adopting the aff plan? It is
not "difference" because there is no differentation between the aff and neg
plan. The focus of debate is not "recentered" between the 1AC and the 1AC
since there is still only ONE case in the round (even though it may be
supported by the neg). And where do you get a "comaprison focus" when
comparing the same thing? There IS no comparison focus when you only have
ONE case in the round.
>>Yea, well even thought the math shows the POSSIBLE flaws with the theory,
>>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.
I can tell you of dozens of abusive T's I heard this year, yet T is still a
tried-and-true debate theory/practice. Once again I must say that this sort
of possible abuse is just that- possible. It should be taken care of in the
round in which it happens. To the best of my knowledge, this sort of abuse
hasn't happened yet (granted, I haven't heard too many people running
plan-plan, but those who I do know ran differrent cases than the aff in the
round). And until it does, the theory may be slightly weakened, but so many
other theories are far more abusive, yet they are in constant use.
>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...
So what? So the neg can adopt the aff case? I still don't see how this
radically effects the ground in the round. See my previous post on the math
behind "equal ground" arguements.
>>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
Where has it ever been anywhere (other than in posts by opponents of
plan-plan) that the aff can defend the status quo? I have, in the six years
I've debated, never had anyone tell me that the aff's ground includes the
status quo. The simple fact is that while it is THEORETICALLY possible for
the aff to run any case they want (including the status quo), it IS A SIMPLE
RULE THAT THE STATUS QUO IS NEG GROUND! If you can find something saying
that the aff can argue the status quo AND WIN (after all, this theory was
created to help the neg equal the judge's calculus in determining the winner
of the round), I am all ears!!!
>>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...
If you can find the finite nuber of cases possible on ANY topic (for
arguement's sake, try the Mexico one), then we will use that number, but
until you (or anyone else for that matter) finsa out that number, for all
practical reasons the possible number of aff cases might as well be
infinite. As for equal ground, I don't see how saying the neg adopting the
aff's plan (or even the aff adopting the status quo) radacally alters the
ammount of equal ground in plan-plan.
>>Yes, but again, possible in-round abuse should not automatically disqualify
>>the neg. (See above reasons for not disqualifying theories for POSSIBLE
>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...
Ok. So the ground becomes equal with the inclusion of the aff's case in the
neg's repetuare of possible pla-plans. I have never rejected the neg
adopting the aff's case. I have said that it is a possible abuse, but if the
neg has a ton of reasons of why it isn't abusive, more power to 'em. This
tacic has never been rejected, simply ignored as abusive. Just because it is
abusive does not mean that it has been rejected. I've heard several abusive
T's, yet I never responded to them by saying T as a whole should be
rejected, simply that the abusive T should be rejected.
>>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
>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)...
Again, WHO HAS EVER SAID THAT IT IS THE AT THE _CORE_ OF THE THEORY, OTHER
THAN OPPONENTS OF THE THEORY?!? Yes, again, it is a possible tacic with the
theory, but it is far from the _core_ of it.
>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...
The simple reason for the exclusion of the aff's plan in the calculus is
that those sorts of problems are not _ground_ problems, they are _abuse_
* Matthew Hall -AKA- Matt Loch firstname.lastname@example.org *
* "Get that two-cycle weedwacker of a brain humming and give as *
* good as you got. And if you get bested, go home, sharpen your *
* verbal machete, and get ready for the next thicken." *
* --Dennis Miller *
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (email@example.com)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page