[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Plan-Plan Inquiry
That still sounds a little weak. I know what happens with T in a round, and
I know some judges wont take T seriously unless you really stand behind it.
Asking the judge to weigh the round via a plan comparison and then running T
makes it sound pretty weak.
>>In current policy paradigms a cp has other standards to meet as well as
>>being non-topical. That way if the cp is ran as topical the aff still has
>>ground on which to stand without granting legitimacy. No such ground
>>would exist with p2 unless negatives assumed all roles of the aff under
>>current policy rounds including T. When I started debating CEDA one of the
>>most common comments I heard about rounds was that there was no clash. >>I
know from judging highschool rounds this is a harrowing experience for >>the
judge. Having two cases in the round with identical burdens would allow
>>for many rounds of clashless debate.
>
>That is not a problem if the teams attack the other's case so as to prove
>their's a better policy option. Even then, if the only thing that remains at
>the end of the round is two unscathed cases, the judge simply picks the case
>with the biggest/best advantage and/or the most assured solvency.
Big if. Right now under a typical policy round the negative has several
options as a means to win the round. The aff. simply has to defend itself.
If the neg assumes classical aff policy roles under p2 then each team would
have to attack and defend every option. This would be hard to keep organized
in the current time constraints. As a judge, what would you do if neg wasn't
topical and aff. couldn't solve?
Matt Kuss
U.W.F.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page