[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
re: i still think it contradicts
in mikes answer to my post, i don't think that the general problem was
addressed, or maybe it was, im not sure at this late hour, but at any
rate, my original point was that if the negative has no advocacy then
even if the BAD counterplan is still in the round at the end of the
debate, the judge cannot vote FOR THE COUNTERPLAN because there is no
negative advocacy, ie the negative can't ADVOCATE anything. the judge
votes neg because the affirmative failed the negative test, namely the
counterplan, or the disad or the status qou, whatever. if the affirmative:
1)wins the permutations to the counterplan and it outweighs(considering
disads etc) the counterplan alone, then the aff wins. WHY? not because
the counterplan wasnt competitive, but because the aff got a 100% on the
negative test and the plan would be a good thing to do. who made up the
decisions for what a BAD PLAN or WORSE COUNTERPLAN is anyway... seems to
me thats decided in the round, based on the benefits, and detriments.
disads to the counterplan, only show why the negative test is bad and why
the aff should win. so if there is no advocacy under aff plan focus for
the negative, then yes it brings up all those nagging theory questions
and yes the current way of doing things aint perfect, but why throw the
baby out with the bath water?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What are we going to do tonight Brain?"
"The same thing we do every night Pinky, try to take over THE WORLD!"
michelle bailey
utsa debate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page