Josh and the Solvency Problem

[FBLN51A@prodigy.com ( JOSEPH H BOYLE)]

First, the argument is reciprocal.  Rarely have I seen a disadvantage 
constructed solely from the writings of one author writing in the 
context of the link and impact (and escalation of the impact).  If 
the "one author advocate" becomes the standard for affirmatives, what 
happens when it's turned around on negatives (besides a rise in 2nr's 
going for T)?

Secondly, why I can't I be the solvency advocate?  If I research my 
harm area and *I* believe that multiple actions would solve a problem 
why can't I research those solvency mechanisms and defend the 
equivocation of those into one plan?   Rather than just reading what 
someone ELSE advocates, inventing our OWN plans to solve for some 
harm area could be more educational - I'd rather do some research and 
come up with something original rather than give a book report on 
Professor Jones' Plan To Save The Jumbo Shrimp.  Additionally, what 
about multi-plank plans that solve for multiple problems (I'm going 
to do X _AND_ Y and solve X solves for advantage 1 and Y solves for 
advantage 2).  If both are independent for solvency, but no one 
author advocates doing them both at the same time, that wouldn't 
invalidate their inclusion in one "plan" text. 

Joe

---

• Prev by Date: (no subject)Public Sphere Committee.
• Next by Date: Re:
• Prev by thread: (no subject)Public Sphere Committee.
• Next by thread: Solvency
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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