Korcok/parametrics/ and plan-plan...why parametrics is still good!!

[00jegosnell@bsuvc.bsu.edu]

	There are some very critical things being ignored by mike in his "plan-
plan theory" post in regards to parametrics..

1)  the foundation of parametrics..  their exsist at the current time, at least
how i see it, two very different interpretations on parametrics..working and 
actual(see my earlier post)..korcok chooses to support the working def and dis-
regard the actual under the justification that he can't understand why the 
actual definition was ever ever writin.  i guess it now becomes necissary to
justify the actuall definition by way of a brief justification for it's 
developement.

	parametrics, as it is actually written, is the reduction of the res. to
the affirmative case level, with the abuse check allowed in the form of 
procedurals.  why is this allowed?  well, it's not one of the arbitrary rules
lacking justification that korcok is so fond of, but rather a sound rule with
important reasoning.  When we look at modern policy debate(on any level) one 
form of argumentation against plan is the most popular..that being the disad.
parametrics is really an offspring of this argumentation, and serves as ground
for uniqueness and link debate at the disad level... in other words without
the fundemental of parametrics there would be no need for unique disads as all
affs would be bound by the bigger resolutional picture.  parametrics gets them 
out of that larger picture, and in to a much smaller picture with better ground.
2) the implications of parametric theory on plan-plan..  First, i would like
to recognize that it is the fundamental right of aff's to enter into the 
parametric interpratation of the res.(for the reasons above, also to prevent
silly counterwarnts)  now in terms of what this does to plan-plan i think it's
obvious... after 1ac the affirmative, if unchecked by procedurals, modify's the
resolution to case thesis.  this means that everything other than case is to be
considered non-t ground..ie neg ground.  does this mean that all counterplans
are non-t regardless of wording..i think it does.  i also think that it means
that no comparison can be made  on the plan-plan level either, as the world
of the affirmative is condinsed to include only them.. and thus there is no 
way for a comparison under the new resolution.

	example:  under the military topic if i were to run haiti intervention
in the 1ac, and the 1nc runs a t and the topical negplan of n.korea.  2ac
can beet t and claim parametrics to get out of the plan-plan by saying the 
resolution after 1ac, assuming its topical(procedurals are the only check), is
that "us military intervention in to haiti to promote dem... " you get the idea,what that does is exclude the n.korea neg plan from being compared.

that would thus mean plan-plan would go away as a viable stradegy unless they
intervened in haiti a different way  than the aff.. then and only then could
a comparison be made.

just some thoughts.. 
eric gosnell
ball state debate..

p.s.  i realize i can't spell at all, but i hope you can all overlook that and 
consider what i'm saying.. i'm almost positive it has a little merit :):)

---

• Prev by Date: CEDA TOPIC - SPRING 1995
• Next by Date: No Subject
• Prev by thread: CEDA TOPIC - SPRING 1995
• Next by thread: No Subject
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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