p(2) trust-busting?

[Gordon Mitchell <gordonm+@pitt.edu>]

the "sovereign plan" version of p(2) is advanced to rule out 
plan-inclusive/plan-plus negative plans.  problem: can't the aff now run 
the whole resolution as their plan and thus claim feudal ownership of all 
topical ground?  In this situation, is the neg forced to defend the 
status quo or some non-topical plan?  or is there some stipulation that 
the aff's plan must be topical but stop *short* of covering the entire 
resolution?  or (and i guess this is the answer) under this scenario, the 
neg would choose a plan-focus strategy and ditch p(2).  if this latter 
solution is the remedy, and i'm a mega-school coach, w/ oodles of cards and 
jack-rabbit spewmeisters, i would seriously consider defending all 
resolutional action on the aff against p(2)-prone opponents, to steer the 
debate back into a plan-focus mode.  does this accomplish the pedagogical 
aims of the p(2) proponents?

this raises another prickly issue.  in ndt, pre-round affirmative 
disclosure has become the norm.  under p(2), is/should the neg be 
expected to a) disclose that they intend to debate in the p(2) mode, and 
b) if so, disclose the plan they intend to advocate?  given the 
rhetorical emphasis on the principles of reciprocity/symmetry advanced by 
the p(2) proponents, these obligations would seem to follow where there 
is expectation of aff disclosure.  

best,
gordon mitchell
university of pittsburgh

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Team Topic Debate Tournament List 5-3
• Next by Date: cryptography (1) (fwd)
• Prev by thread: Fwd: Navy ...
• Next by thread: cryptography (1) (fwd)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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