gosnell and parametrics

[KGSIII@aol.com]

I thought that I was going to stay out of this plan-plan debate for a little
while to see how it would develop.  But I read Eric's last couple of posts
and felt compelled to say something.

First, I think Eric, and anyone who still  believes in parametrics, needs to
start looking for some justification for the approach beyond the traditional
nonsensical and worn-out traditional agreement and practicality defenses.

At the risk of agreeing with Mike (how scary) I have to say he is right that
ther is NO SUCH THING as an affirmative right to parametrics.  As I have
metnioned before (you know where) there is simply no logical argumentative
justification for parametrics.  It does not exist!

Secondly, I must also agree with Mike (and I'm sure he'll let me know if I am
misrepresenting him) by saying that aloowing parametrics as an approach to
debate fully and completely justifies the plan-plan approach.  There is no
way that one could legitimately refues to allow negatives to run what we
traditionally call topical counterplans if one is assuming a right to
parametrics.  Parametrics is already an unjustified attempt to overlimit
negative ground.  Denying this counterplan ground to the negative as well
would be an outrageously unjustified position.

Finally (for now), the arguments regarding non-unique disads and
counterwarrants are horribly weak and underanalyzed.  First of all let's be
straight about what makes a disad non-unique.  It is an unforgivable
misconception that a disad is "non-unique" if it happens to be generic to the
resolution.  A disad is only non-unique if it is caused by or is likely to be
caused by status quo action.  If the disad is generic it is the
responsibility of the affirmative to prove that there is something unique
about their plan that will avoid the disad.  Which is easily accomplished by
a good plan.  Second, the risk of hearing or losing to a counterwarrant on a
policy topic is all but non-existent.  Counterwarrants logically fail to
disprove policy resolutions.  This is one of the primary reasons they
disappeared in NDT many years ago.  Such a fear certainly does not justify
parametrics.

Until some new literature is produced or at least a new argument is made, the
debate over parametrics is still being won by those who have argued against
it.  The same old tired justifications of practicality and affirmative right
to define are an embarassing atempt to justify an unjustifiable perspective.

Regarding the plan-plan approach to debate, if you are one of those who still
clings to the notion of parametrics you had better be prepared to lose to
some good topical counterplans unless you can find a justification for
disallowing them which has not yet been presented in this discussion.

Well, good luck to all in your oceans research.  I feel the tsunami of OTECH
ready to crash down on California in the winter.

Ken Sherwood

CSULA

"Every silver lining's got a touch of grey."

---

• Prev by Date: headers
• Next by Date: ans Ross
• Prev by thread: headers
• Next by thread: ans Ross
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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