[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Presumption
On Tue, 29 Apr 1997 JimHaefele@aol.com wrote:
> is bad if the negative hasn't answered it. Here's an example: affirmative
> says racism exists and is very bad, negative loses that part of the debate.
> Negative wins that the plan won't solve, but not that the plan will make the
> problem worse, or that the plan would have any negative consequences. The
> 2AR says that I should at least roll the dice with the plan, because the lack
> of a turn/disad means there's no way they'll come up craps, and even if the
> plan does nothing, the hideous nature of the status quo demands at least an
> effort, even if fruitless; in other words, it's worse not to try. I'll buy
> that story.
..... Jim continues
> say. No cost to trying.
I am not sure why this is true. Just because the negative did not win
a disad does not mean the dice will not come up snake eyes (or a seven if
you are shooting for point). It seems to me if there is no chance of
solving there is greater risk to trying the plan then not. I am pretty
darn sure the plan will not work. I am not sure at all that the plan will
NOT cause harm (nobody talked about that). It seems to me whether its
harms based or solvency based you still stick with the status quo. And it
seems the disad is resources wasted and an inherent trade off of
resources. Just because I cannot identify specifics doesn't mean there is
not harm. If not why?
Next to tabula rasa this is my next favorite thing to complain about. Bring
back CORE MOTIVE.
Justice, Peace, and Love
Martin Che Harris, TSU Research Coordinator
"To sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards out of people"
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page