Jim and Solvency

[Scott Titsworth <LL81%Nemomus@Nemostate.edu>]

> This is a literature-based activity,
>fundamentally--research and the resultant appeal to authority are essential to
>how it works.  Without that reliance on alternate sources, the activity is
>massively, fundamentally altered (I have no desire to get into the discussion
>of how debate "needs to change"; I'm assuming it does not need to change at it
>most basic level).  Research is good, and good research is better.  I'm
> hardlydiscouraging creative thinking--rather, I'm encouraging creative
> research.
>Solvency is an issue that should never be taken lightly.
>
>Jim Haefele
>Macalester College
>

I also place strict solvency burdens on people.  However, I disagree on the
issue of the debater becoming an advocate of sorts.  A strict interpretation
of the solvency problem would require a card saying that mechanism 1, 2, and
3 would be good to be in combination with one another.  Just having solvency
cards on mechanisms 1, 2 and 3 isn't enough.

My argument is that the case is prima facie (sp?) if it has cards on 1, 2
and 3 independently.  At face value, the aff has presented evidence that
there is solvency for their case.  In my mind, the solvency problem should
be used to prevent the following scenario:

Neg says that mechanism 1 can't work.  Aff says that the neg argument
doesn't assume the combination of 1, 2 and 3.  Neg can respond by saying
that the aff has no "authority" upon which it may rest its claim.  The aff
response goes away.

I think that this scenario is a legitimate use of the solvency problem.  It
prevents abuse.  I do not see it legitimate to simply say that an inclusive
solvency card must exist for the case to be prima facie.

It seems to me that the debater may take the role of the informed citizen
and say that a combination of these ideas to solve the problem is a good
idea.  It is clearly a step for them to talk about the interaction of
solvency mechanisms without evidence however.

Jim is taking his typical passionate stand on the extreme.  He argues for
creative research.  I just don't think that it is possible.  Taken to
extreme, the solvency problem also means that the DA turns must be in
context of all solvency mechanisms, as do the perms.  By the way, you
shouldn't be able to have non-carded perms using this standard.  

And, I do see an inconsistency in saying that the aff must have consistency
or inclusiveness in evidence and not the negative.

Damnit Jim, I say fooey on you.  Go back and re-think your position or find
a relief pitcher who can.  Glen taught you better than this.

Scott

---

• Prev by Date: Solvency continued...
• Next by Date: Jim and Crystal Balls
• Prev by thread: Solvency continued...
• Next by thread: Jim and Crystal Balls
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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