Jim and Solvency-2

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

>1.  Negatives lose ground; affirmatives can take advantage of them by creating
>plans without advocates, and no literature exists about the plan itself.

Seems to me that what you are questioning is fiat and not solvency.  Does
the aff have a right to fiat sovency?  I SAY NO.  Does the aff have a right
to claim independent levels of solvency?  I SAY YES.  It seems to me that
you are arguing against un-supported uses of solvency combinations.  For
instance, you want to prevent the "we are using an optimal mix so that will
conpensate for the criticisms" response.  That is a question of what the aff
can fiat vis a vis their solvency mecanisms.  However, it dos not preclude
the fact that independent authors agree that the independent mechanisms will
work.  Or put another way, you say that the sum of the parts does not equal
the whole.  I do not think that you have clearly articulated why this is the
case.

>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.
>
>
>Jim Haefele
>Macalester College
>
>

You drastically confuse and alter the meaning of the phrase "burden of
proof" here Jim.  Burden of proof (jeez, haven't you watched the show on CNN
with Gretta?) means compelling reasonable justification.  You equivocate it
to mean absolute.  NOTHING in our society works that way (ie. Judicial,
Legislative, etc.).  You want absolute _proof_ that the combination of
mechanisms will work.  I am troubled by the fact that proof in your eyes is
a card.  Beyond that however, the aff burden of proof is just to show
reasonable justification that their solvency will work.  Having an author
for each of their mechanisms _is_ reasonable justification.

" If plans have no advocates, there is no proof that they work, and they
haven't met the burden of proof."  Wrong.  If the plan has no advocates then
there is no _absolute_ proof that it will work, however there is reasonable
justification that it will work an that is all they need to meet their real
burden of proof.  

By the way, if the above sentence adequately represents your position on
what burden of proof means, you would have a terrible career as a
prosecuting attorney.  I would just stay away from that whole line of work.
In fact, I woudn't even get close to a court room because....

Scott

---

• Prev by Date: Jim and Crystal Balls
• Next by Date: Jim on Solvency-3
• Prev by thread: Jim and Crystal Balls
• Next by thread: Jim on Solvency-3
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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