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

Re: Vermont's empty CP



On Fri, 3 Dec 1993, Marc Schatten wrote:

> 	Mr. Hernandez I don't understand how you can assert that 
> > "I do not believe that the counterplan "really" grants impairment."
> 	Hernandez's defense begins with
> > "if... the counterplan solves an impairment, then there is NO impairment at
> the end of the round."
> Question: where does the resolution ask if we can solve?
> Hernandez you have fallen in the great Debate trap, that if you use a 
> few big debate words you can remove yourself from all logic. If you were
> trying to convince a rational individual (outside of our
> skewed, deluded, demented, world) that the news media does not impair, you
> wouldn't give him ten reasons why you have this great CP that can solve the
> world within an hour and 15 minutes. You would hopefully argue (GOD FORBID)
> that the media does not impair and is actually a good source at educating 
> people.

	Well Marc, now that everyone has spoken, in defense of the
counterplan, myself, and/or "free speech", I will give you my responses to
your message

1)  I think that your comments lacked the intellectual stimulation that
debaters seek.  I do take your comments as an attack on my personality and
not on my ideas.  I refuse to do the same.  I will only refute the
arguments that have some relevance to the c/p.  Everything else, is NOT
worth my time.  I have the new topic, the GRE, and my family to worry about.
 
2)  In terms of your first argument above:
	a)	We debate for different people and the counterplan will
		NOT please everyone.  In the Mid-West, many teams ran
		plans and counterplans.  With a judge that is policy oriented,
		the counterplan may be a good idea. Remember, I was NOT trying
	 	to convince an individual outside of the debate world. I guess
		that your judging paradigm is different!      
		
	b)	The question of solvency is to be resolved in the debate
		round!  But outside the debate round, I think we have a 
		responsibility as people, citizens and leaders of tomorrow
		to offer an alternative to a problem that affects all of us
		Now, you may disagree, but I believe that a complete
		discussion should include a mechanism to solve a problem


 > 	Hernandez moves on, and tells us that:
  > > the counterplan also indicates that the impairment is NOT bad
> > because it led to the pretreatment of "bad" messages that have a
> > longlasting effect.  In this case, the counterplan proves (if won) that
> > the impairment was a good thing! 
> 	Hernandez, this poor guy on the middle of the street is going crazy,
> banging his head on the nearest mailbox. Straighten his confused mind,
> defend your assertion that the CP does not grant impairment, and dont feed
> him all this Bull Shit that the impairment is the best thing since bottled
> beer (because he really doesnt care).


Marc, I think that I am defending my "assertions" that the c/p solves.
Allow me to explain it again.

 Marc, if the c/p solves for future impairment, then the harms the NNM
caused had some worth.  
In other words, if something bad has created something that solves future
harms, can we say that those harms had some benefit?  Yes, especially if
the c/p solves for future impairment. 

 Marc, HINT: CP turns case.  It says
that the impairment of the public's understanding resulted in something
good.  This argument grant the impairment, but argues that the impairment
created a GOOD THANG!  Better Understanding.  Also, this understanding
lasts for a longtime. This means that the public can now understand things
better and for a longer period of time, by using tools of reasoning.
I hope this answers the ? you, or that poor fellow had!


MARC:  Hernandez than fires the last few bullets,
> > Third, strategically, we also argued that the resolution is not a 
> resolution of fact.  As a result, the counterplan carried more weight. 
> 	Hernandez, you just killed him!!! The absurdity of life may
> have been proven in one CP by the University of Vermont. The guy on the
> street does not care how strategic you are, he just wants you to explain
> your assertion that the Innoculation CP does not grant impairment. 
> 	Hernandez closes,
> > As a result, the counterplan carried more weight.
> 	Yes, Josh here you are right. Your CP has certainly weighted down
> debate, and has made more and people get disgruntled with poor and shallow 
> arguments. 
> 
HERNANDEZ(RICO):  Marc, is it me or is it that you have chosen NOT to
understand the c/p.

If I won the "res of fact" debate, the affirmative would need to solve.

HINT 1:  Aff does NOT have plan = AFF LOSES
HINT 2:  Neg has INOCULATION = Neg WINS!

Also, I am not arguing in front of that poor guy in the street. 
Hopefully, the person judging the debate is more open minded, and will let
the debaters debate!
 
Another thing is that your assertions do not EXPLAIN HOW my arguments are
poor, and shallow.  I do know one thing-- I have given an explanation. 
Now, you may choose not to accept it, but I have given an explanation. 
It's called DEBATE, Marc. :-)


Love to all debaters, 
and always remember that "the best way to show respect to
the activity and your team is by going to the library"
PEACE

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