Re: Presumption

[JimHaefele@aol.com]

In a message dated 97-04-29 14:52:31 EDT, strange@andria.lacollege.edu
(Bennett Strange) writes:

<< Since we are discussing this in the blind without the benefit of a
specific
 resolution, the assumption is that the plan is the resolution.  Therefore,
 if the status quo is fouled up but the plan does not solve why shouldn't the
 ballot go against the affirmation?  They have not proven the resolution true
 and therefore have not fulfulled their responsibility--a responsiblity that
 has given to them the prefered speaking positions.
 
 To accept Haefele's position removes solvency as a stock issue which is more
 than questioning presumption.
  >>
 
Stock issue?

You are 100% correct, BUT, your explanation rests upon the assumption that I
am a "stock issues" oriented critic, which I definitively am not--I make a
decision based on the policy option which is best.  Solvency is not a
rules-based value in and of itself, but is only a critical mechanism through
which the affirmative demonstrates that their policy is the better of the
two.  I can defend this if we want to get into a big discussion of PARADIGMS,
but I'd rather watch grass grow.

Love,

Chief Wiggum

---

• Prev by Date: Topic area ballot information
• Next by Date: Re: Mike Dickman/Color-blindness
• Prev by thread: Re: Presumption
• Next by thread: word to slusher
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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