Solvency

[HAEFELE@macalstr.edu]

It is not an issue of "single-author" or nothing; rather, it is an issue of ANY
author.  If plans have no advocates, whether it's one or ten or 100, then two
things happen:
 
1.  Negatives lose ground; affirmatives can take advantage of them by creating
plans without advocates, and no literature exists about the plan itself.
2.  Affirmatives DO NOT SOLVE.  This is the basis of my belief in this
position; it's not all about ground, although it partially is.  If plans have
no advocates, there is no proof that they work, and they haven't met the burden
of proof.
 
With regard to negative responsibilities, perhaps I was unclear--I am certainly
not saying negative evidence needs no advocacy check or whatever.  I am,
however, saying that because of the burden of proof as well as presumption, the
burden is initially more important for the affirmatives.  If aff solvency is
sufficient, then they should jump all over negatives that read bad cards and
bad disads.  If, however, the affirmative has lousy solvency and the negative
has lousy disads, the affirmative is in worse shape because of presumption.  A
simple belief in the value of presumption is all that's required to see what I
mean;  both have the same need to have good evidence, but affirmative needs it
for prima facie reasons.  
 
Jim Haefele
Macalester College

---

• Prev by Date: Re: your mail
• Next by Date: Voting
• Prev by thread: Solvency
• 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