Status Quo Me Baby.

[<@suvm.acs.syr.EDU:idcastil@mailbox.syr.edu>]

First of all, remember I am keeping my critique of SQ cases within a policy 
framework.  People seem to be missing that fact.  And now for food for 
thought:

To begin with David Hotchkin, the argument he gives is commonly known as a
minor repair.  It basically says that we only need to change the SQ a 
minute bit to solve the case harms better.  This deligitimizes the need for 
an Aff. case.  Does anyone have any opinion on these arguments, would you 
wacky judges buy them?

To further clarify my position, I still believe that a status quo case 
simply does not meet enough of the policy burdens to justify the resolution.
Independant of that, I still don't see a number of DAs that would actually 
link and outweigh case.  With such limited options, the neg is trapped into 
just running the same old procedural arguments.

My challenge to the SQ case advocates is to actually show me a DA that links
to the Macedonia or Asia case (a real link, not a cheezy asserted one) that
actually has impacts that outweighs case harms.  If you can do that I will
gladly change my opinion.  Until then I will just keep beating SQ cases on 
Topicality and Inherency presses.

Hope you have fun at our tournament.

Consider Me Gone.

Isaac.  (That's two a's)
Syracuse Debate.

---

• Prev by Date: Status Quo
• Next by Date: Status Quo Impactage
• Prev by thread: subscribe ceda-l Suzanne Cook
• Next by thread: Status Quo Impactage
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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