[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: The Solvency Schtick
First things first. Joey, get new editing software. Reading your
posts is like trying to read a poem by some new age author.
>
> 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.
Gee, doesn't this really apply to ALL procedural args in CEDA? Is T
also a wanker in the "Boyle" paradigm? Aren't nitshit affirmatives
without a single solvency advocate also possibly "wankers" themselves?
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.
>
Golly, Joey, don't those turns usually make the assumption of case
solvency? What you are really advocating is "disco" debate, where the
aff. can jettison their initial advocacy and switch to advocating
some turn that admittedly doesn't link to the specific actions of the
aff. plan. I guess that's where we part - I find that to be the
"wankiest" perspective on advocacy burdens imaginable.
> 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).
>
Why are so many in CEDA so disgusted at the simple burden of having
to have an advocate for your plan? Is this concept really that
primitive? After hearing solvency cards that are nothing more than
harm decision rules and solvency cards that didn't even mention
Mexico (the topic, dadgonnit!), I think some people should learn to
either find better cards or get a better story defending their
solvency. Simply saying that something is bad doesn't mean that
anyone would advocate it's removal. For example, none would contest
that the welfare system is full of problems, but only the most right-
wing amongst us suggest that those problems justify it's elimination.
> 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.
See above. And your leap would be an abuse of context if the authors
you do provide fail to support your personal leap of logic.
As long as CEDA maintains it's emphasis on evidentiary burdens,
evidential solvency should be required. Weren't you railing on parli
awhile back, Joey? Could you take the time to distinguish parli from
CEDA in the absence of some form of evidential requirements? Even if
I grant you the right to assert (e.g., in some special narrative
context), why shouldn't negative counter-solvency assertions then get
extra weight?
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.
>
It's a threshold issue. If there are no advocates for the affirmative
plan, then I don't believe there is anything to be minimized. There
was never any solvency to begin with. Consider it what you will, but
with no solvency proven, it only takes a pimp to win.
> Second - if not having solvency
> means you procedurally lose the round then
> teams could never kick out of
> solvency and go for disad turns.
Bingo, dingo! I watched this very thing happen several times this
year. The notion of going for turns (which always were really
solvency-based) when there is no solvency left is argumentation taken
to it's lowest level. And if re-planning (as most would agree) is
such a horrible abuse of advocacy (I think so) then affs shouldn't be
allowed to abandon their original advocacy in rebuttals. Wouldn't be
prudent in front of me.
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.
Would you at least agree that the turn you end up going for must be
linked to the aff plan? Would kicking out of the case have to take
place in constructives or would you allow 2AR's the privilige of
totally switching the direction of their advocacy? Good debaters
stick to what they advocate. Positions can be kicked out of, but not
in a way that allows either side to claim entirely new positions in
rebuttals. To allow that makes the constructives meaningless.
>
> 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.
Jeez! Why wouldn't this also de-legitimize all topicality arguments?
Brightlines are never as bright as their advocates suggest. It's
going to be different for each round dependent on how 'suasive the
debaters are. While I won't abuse Jim's arguments by defending them,
I'd advocate the following standard:
The aff should be able to produce evidence from one or more authors
suggesting that the major action taken by their plan would reduce the
specific harms elsewhere enumerated in aff. advocacy.
The specific brightline would vary round-to-round, like it does with
T. Failure to mention the topic country was a brightline that we
found extremely useful. Failure to prove that US pressure would
result in Mexican policy changes was another.
> 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.
>
Great. Neither side proves anything then. Which way would you vote?
Most can be persuaded to vote neg on presumption if both sides fail
to prove their positions. Also, turn, maybe the solvency problem will
cause negatives to look for better links. Though CEDA has improved
greatly, the level of link analysis could certainly be improved. I
can't understand how you think this reciprocity argument does
anything to take out the solvency problem.
> 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 :)
>
I have been persuaded to reject advocated perms without solvency
authors. Redlands was running this as a standard on perms over a
decade ago in NDT.
> 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.
Thanks, Joey, for your overt attempt to restrict negative case
analysis to harm mitigation. BTW, why is the stock issue of harm so
much more sacrosanct for you than the stock issue of solvency. Would
you vote for someone who only asserts their harms. Think your answers
over carefully. Also, interesting double standard. Aff doesn't need
specific advocate, but we should expect the negative to produce
counter-advocates. Thanks for establishing such novel concepts of
burden of proof and presumption.
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".
Talk about fallacies! It's really a fallacy to assume that just
because the aff proves their harm any possible solution should be
justifiable simply by assertion. If you can't agree that this is a
much more dangerous fallacy for the process of evidential debate,
then we are apt to agree on little.
>
> 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.
Negatives running nothing more than Rifkin cards probably deserve to
be hosed. And, I like Rifkin cards....
>
> Eighth - the black footed ferret,
> although a bit rambunctious at times, really can
> make a great pet.
>
Forgive my skepticism, but I wouldn't even buy your final assertion in
the absence of evidential, or reasoned, support. Many aff's approach
solvency with little more zest than your last assertion. I think
advocacy requirements are the key to making debate educational.
Asserting solvency, simply because there is harm, doesn't seem
justified by either argumentative or educational rationales. Asserted
solvency only requires the most minimal of presses to be toppled. So
call the solvency problem a pimp, but it only takes a press to beat
much of what's passing for solvency.
Bear
Michael "Bear" Bryant Internet: mbryant@central.weber.edu
Director of Forensics Home: 801-399-4253
Department of Communication Office: 801-626-7186
Weber State University Fax: 801-626-7975
Ogden, UT 84408-1605 AOL: MWBRYANT@AOL.COM
Prodigy:SRGL57A@PRODIGY.COM
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page