[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
The Solvency Schtick
The Solvency Problem:
Joe's Definition: A wanky
procedural argument that says if I don't have a
card that says specifically plan
will solve then I lose. Something akin to a
stock-issue/you lose argument.
Means I can't even if I don't solve but turn
a disad on perception level or
impact level or anything.
Jim's Definition: You gotta have a
card that says you'll solve; no! wait! let me
shift, you gotta have a card that
says one part of plan could solve, not ! wait!
you gotta have a card that proves
you're topical. No! Wait, err... what the hell
is the 'solvency problem' besides
the lack of a clear definition jim? Is it a
procedural issue (my main concern)
or just a solvency press (what it should be
in my opinion).
The problem with the solvency problem:
First - inductive logic is an ok
thing. If I have cards that say X is a bad thing
and plan repeals X then there is a
strong possibility I will stop the harms that
X is supposed to cause. Even if I
_DON'T_ have a card that says "we should
repeal X' there is _NO_ reason I
can't make that logical leap. However, you are
more than welcome to argue about
whether or not the harms are reversible, but
that's not a PROCEDURAL argument,
and shouldn't be. A mitigator, a press, a
pimp, two symbols on my flow,
whatever - but there's no logical justification for it
being a voting issue.
Second - if not having solvency
means you procedurally lose the round then
teams could never kick out of
solvency and go for disad turns. Secondly,
even if my solvency cards SUCK in
the 1AC there's no reason I _have_ to prove
solvency to win a round _IF_ I can
find _OTHER WAYS_ to accrue advantages.
I can still turn a disad, which
still makes implementation of plan a good thing,
which still justifies my
parametric and means I win.
Third - there's no brightline as
to how specific your solvency advocates have to
be. Jim says it doesn't have to
be word for word, but what DOES it have to be?
This abiguity alone should
prevent it from being a procedural issue. Sounds like
and easy way out for lazy judges
type of argument.
Fourth - it's reciprocal. If
reversibility of harms, advocate for the logical chain of
events, and an advocate making
SPECIFIC application of a program to a target
are logically correct ways to
prove an argument true than they apply equally to
negative disads. You're right, I
can pimp the links - but the negative can also
pimp my solvency. If the negative
wants to make solvency a procedural, then
those same standards apply to
negative links, ad infinitum. And I'll betchya I'm
going to have solvency advocates
who come a lot closer to meeting the burdens
the negative sets up than the
negative's own disads will.
Fifth - I have no idea where scott
titsworth thinks he's going with phrases in his
five or six two-sentence long
posts saying "and you can't perm without a card
under this system' but no one
listens to him anyway :)
Sixth - counter-advocates can still
be found. There will still be advocates who
says the status quo is NOT bad or
that X is not the cause of harms. It is a logical
fallacy to state that just because
Team Affirmative _doesn't_ have a card that
says "we should do X to solve for
harm Y" that cards do _not_ exist that say
"X is not the cause of harm Y" or
that "harm Y is not a harm" or
"harm Y does not exist".
Seventh - back to reciprocal burden.
Why can't I, as an affirmative, have the
expectation of finding a COUNTER-
ADVOCATE for your disad? If having a
counter-advocate is _THE_ criteria
for the solvency problem then negative's
who aren't running anything but
Rifkin cards are just hosed.
Eighth - the black footed ferret,
although a bit rambunctious at times, really can
make a great pet.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (email@example.com)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page