[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

solvancy and Terry WRe: The Solvency Schtick


On Mon, 13 May 1996, Michael Bryant wrote:

> 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.
> 

I think the issue is not whether or not it is disgusting to have someone 
advocate your plan in the literature, but that it is absurd to assume you 
should lose for "prima facia" reasons if you cannot procure such a card.  
Mr. Bryant is right--these bad solvency cards severely impair an 
affirmative's ability to win, but it shouldn't be an automatic loss.  
That is why we have the negative--to give clear, concise arguments as to 
why an affirmatives's solvency is unrealistic, or infeasible.  But to 
rely on the argument that "you don't have a card that spells out your 
plan so you lose" is a rather weak attempt at rebuttal, and simply 
removes the negative's responsibility to show why the case is flawed.  
And the welfare example that Mr. Bryant provides really doesn't prove the 
aff doesn't solve at all--just that there might me a good reason why 
nobody talks about removing the welfare system.  I have yet to read a 
cogent argument that proves why the inductive method of saying X is 
causing Y harm, and eliminating X doesn't eliminate Y as well.  He is 
right, nobody talks about banning welfare seriously because although it 
has problems, banning the system would probrably cause more.  But that 
does not mean I as an affirmative cannot advocate banning the system, 
becuase it would indeed solve for some isolated harms if welfare is their 
root cause. The only thing Mr. Bryant is making a case for in his example 
is a return to core motive attacks, which is another argument altogether, 
and probrably better left untouched. 



> 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.

I think a clearer definition of what "pimp" means would be helpful.  If 
the negative makes a concise argument as to why the lack of a solvency 
author means they don't solve (i.e., there is no reverse causality, 
banning X won't eliminate harm Y because of barrier Z, etc.) then Mr. 
Bryant is correct--they should lose because the plan has no hope of 
acheiving an advantage.  But the simple assertion that no one has said it 
before so the affirmative must be wrong IS NOT an argument.  It's okay to 
say that Joe Boyle is foolish for running an absurd case that no one in 
their right mind would advocate, but give a warrant to that claim--run a 
disad, reasearch the authors he is using and show why they assume you 
must do other things to solve, but don't give up and just insist he 
should lose with a procedural.

> 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.

All well and good.  These are cohesive arguments that belong on the 
solvency observation in the 1NC.  Now why in the world would you place 
them under the guise of a procedural arugment?  Why not just make these 
arguments and give a good, persuasive appeal to presumption?  

> 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.

The difference in affirmative advocates and negative "couter advocates" 
is that the negative ones aren't looking for a change. It is easier to 
find people who complain about the system, or talk about how good it is, 
than to find an author willing to outline a plan of action.  Which is why 
the affirmative should be given the leeway to defend their own 
creations without having someone else advocate it first.  After all, the 
negative already has a more easily defendable position.  They are already 
advocating a policy that exists now, meaning there are probrably some 
people who "advocate" its existence, or it wouldn't have been passed into 
law in the first place.


It seems that the advocates and enemies of the "solvency problem" have 
more in common than first thought.  We can all agree that if you have 
poor evidence to back up your claims, then the odds are you will lose to 
a negative team with a little common sense.  But there does not seem to 
be anyone (not even Jim) who has come up with a reason why this line of 
reasoning deserves a unique status as a procedural voting issue.  Is it 
the ground the negative loses because they can't find any evidence?  It 
seems that the earlier posts have eliminated that as an issue--it all 
comes down to whether or not an affirmative should get away with winning 
while reading bad evidence.  And they shouldn't.  But it doesn't take a 
new a priori weapon of the negative to vanquish such a threat--just a 
little bit of that thing I call, "original thought."

Steven Donald
UCO Debate
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page