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

Re: inherency, take two

I am confused as to why there is so much seeming controversy over an 
issue where it seems like all parties are agreed upon a policy paradigm.
This means, to me, that when the judge votes they cast the ballot for 
whichever team solves for more problems.  In most debates this is simple 
statement is a tough issue to resolve, but it seems to me in an inherency 
debate it's pretty easy.  I agree with Matt:  If evidence says the plan 
is happening in the status quo (100%, that is) then this probably equals 
a negative ballot.  That is, if the status quo *100% solves for _ALL_ 
case harms* then the judge should vote negative.  But if not...for 
reasons of timeframe or whatever, aff still helps more people or has a 
better chance of doing so, and therefore should win.

The issue comes down to one word for me, really: _RISK_.  Even if neg can 
prove people are considering the plan, talking about the plan, might do 
the plan etc, it still doesn't answer two questions: 1)The people hurt 
in the interim by the harm...this has already been discussed enough...but 
it also doesn't answer 2) Probability comparison.  Unless the neg has a 
card saying the Plan was done yesterday, there is still no _100% 
certainty_ that the plan will be done...even if the neg proves there is a 
hypothetical possibility of the two plans (Aff plan and Status 
Quo-version of aff plan) will be done at the same time, there is no 
*certainty*.  

So if the judge votes aff, there is 100% probability of solving for the 
problem.  If the judge votes neg, if there is any less than 100%, risk 
analysis demands the judge votes aff if aff makes this answer, IMHO.  

Ethan says:

>Second, absent such a barrier, a judge should vote neg on
>presumption.  If the aff can find no good reason why this plan
>won't be done tomorrow (or rather, that the harms specified in case
>won't be solved), how do we know it won't be?

Well, perhaps we don't.  Which means the only thing we *know for sure* is 
that if the judge votes aff, it *will be*.  For me, it the question of 
certain solvency versus near-certain solvency.  Which would you choose as 
a policy-maker?

 Jeff
______________________________________________________________________
|shaw@sun.lclark.edu...Jeff Shaw, debater, rabble rouser, and fervent |
|socialist, seeking inspiration from Husker Du.  I'm not a commodity. |
|"And does she ever whisper in his ear, All Her Favorite Fruit?       |
|And all the most exotic places they are cultivated?"		      |
|Rambling and incoherence is good.  Gonna move to the city, read a    |
|lot of William Burroughs, and be depressed.  			      |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page