Re: your mail

[Earl Croasmun <croasmun@luna.cas.usf.edu>]

On Wed, 1 May 1996 mecca@asu.edu wrote:

> > It really is that simple.
> 
> bob, i understand _all_ of that!  my point is if the only reason the neg 
> plan doesa not have to compete is "thats the theory"  that is not 
> debateable.  which leads me to conclude that, if the reason is the theory 
> says so it makes more sense if you only p2 if the aff agrees.  

Good point.  If the negative answer is an authoritative-sounding "that is 
not what the theory is," then a perfectly acceptable response would be 
"that is what OUR theory is," or maybe "that is what the theory OUGHT TO BE."

Aff says the negative plan does not compete.  Neg says "we don't TRY to 
compete."  And yet the neg position is premised on the assumption that 
the aff cannot simply run A topical case but must run the BEST case that 
can fit within the topic (so that the neg can pick ANY other case and 
advocate it).  A reasonable aff response would be "we didn't TRY to run 
the best possible case.  We ran one of MANY topical cases.  Why indict us 
for doing something we clearly did not want or need to do?"  Or 
alternatively, "that is not our theory."

---

• Prev by Date: Re: limbaugh
• Next by Date: Becky is right (again)
• Prev by thread: Re: limbaugh
• Next by thread: Re: your mail
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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