[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
CP "Solvency"
Leaving the unprovoked ad-homs aside, however, my
basic question is this: Do those who advocate the need for an affirmative
solvency advocate place the same requirement on negative CP's?
I understand the claim that the aff assumes a fundamental (prima
facia) burden of proof as of the 1AC which requires that the plan be
founded upon something more than a simple leap of faith. It seems that
the neg assumes a similar burden in articulating a policy option that
necessarily COMPETES with that offered by the aff. Don't know why
consistency, let alone reciprocity, wouldn't demand that the neg present
evidenced warrants which explicitly explain the level on which a neg CP
competes with a particular aff and in turn offers its own solvency in
order to persuade a scrupulous policymaker.
If such is not demanded of the neg, that seems to feed the claims of
critics who assert that the solvency advocate position is nothing more than
a contrivance by which folks can whine at the big, bad aff. If it IS
demanded, then life becomes pretty damn tough for the neg, who would need
very specific competition ev where they might otherwise have relied upon
theoretical extrapulations from disad ev and generic CP junk to defeat
individual affs via their CP--The solvency burden would *arguably*
(bring it on) evolve to require an explicit comparison between competing
policy options for the neg to meet the initial burden it in turn assumes
when counterplanning against the 1AC. Peace.
- Derek Shaffer
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page