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

Re: Meany's Reply to Kloster re plan-plan



On Wed, 1 May 1996, Matthew Hall wrote:

> >> Here's a though: why can't the aff just perm the neg's presentation? (How
> >> does one go about perming speaking styles?) There is no shift in advocacy,
> >> since they aren't changing their case. But what if the neg says that the
> >> change in styles is somehow an advocacy shift? I guess the "language is
> >> reality" arguments could really get anal with this situation.
> >
> >but i think your point does more to prove the _problematic nature_ of the 
> >thoery than anything else:  you are agreeing that all this is valid under 
> >p2 theory and then saying that it is a bad thing...hmmmm 8-)
> >
> 
> It _might _ be problematic if some people choose to abuse the theory. But
> again, just because abuses exist they do not invalidate the entire theory. 


but you have not defeated any of the pre-suppositions to get to the above 
example...in fact you have agrred to most of them.  

basically what you have done is say "you are right"  "yeah i guess they 
could do that"...and then say if you extend the ideas i have already 
agreed are ok under p2 wouldnt that be bad.  and my answer is yes that 
would be bad: that proves the theory is suspect.
 
> ("Beware the Dark Side. Anger, fear, aggression. The Dark Side of the Force
> is easy to follow, and those who follow are quick to join in the fight. Once
> you start down the path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you,
> it will, just as it did Obi Wan's apprentince."
> "Is the Dark Side Stronger?"
> "No, no. Quicker, easier, more seductive."
> "But how will I know the good side from the bad?"
> "You will know when you're calm, at peace, passive."
>    --Exchange between Luke Skywalker and Yoda, _Empire_Strikes_Back_ :)
> 
> >> 
> >> There is _nothing_ wrong with being pursuasive. I do, however, have a
> >> problem with people that rely _solely_ on being pursuasive. I cannot tell
> >> you how many times I have lost a debate to a team that decided that since
> >> they are losing on the flow they will try to convice the judge that they are
> >> winning by _pursuading_ them to vote against us. I was actually in a round
> >> in which the neg ran a DA saying "heg good" when that was the advantage on
> >> case comming out of 1AC! Yet somehow they managed to convince the judge that
> >> my case was still a bad idea because of the pimps they tried extending
> >> through 1AR ink.
> >
> >i _do_ know!  not often based on tthe tourneys i have seen you at!  you 
> >still dont have to insult those people!  and you wont convince them by 
> >calling them names....mike 8-)
> >
> 
> Well, if anyone has taken offense to this, 1) since I named no names, they
> are probabally feeling guilt because they have done this sort of thing, and
> 2) for the most part, the person(s) involved do NOT subscribe to the L.
> Plus, since I've already taken the loss, I can talk about the experience in
> the (somewhat) vain hopes that someone realizes something and changes their
> outlook on debate. (Hey, a guy can dream, can't he? :)

this irrelevant to p2, but my point is you wont persuade anyone they are 
doing wrong by saying "look you dumb fucking asshole, ....."  see my point?

see ya 

steve

> Latez, all.
> 
> Mattloch
> Bakersfield Renegade Debate
> 
>   *******************************************************************
>   *   Matthew Hall -AKA- Matt Loch      mattloch@chiba.netxn.com    *
>   * "Get that two-cycle weedwacker of a brain humming and give as   *
>   *  good as you got. And if you get bested, go home, sharpen your  *
>   *  verbal machete, and get ready for the next thicken."           *
>   *                                             --Dennis Miller     *
>   *******************************************************************
> 
>
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page