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

Pat is kooky

O.K. Round 2.....

1st. Pre-empts

Pat refuses to support an alternative.  First, saying my arguments are wrong
ignores the context of my arguments.  My posts are intended to support treaties
versus harm area topics....Pat suggests alternative criteria for endorsing
topic choice but does not apply them to topics generically (harm area topics)
or specifically (one of the topics on our current slate).  While this does not
damn Pat to irrelevence it does give me a leg up in convincing you which topic
to vote for.  In addition, I presume much of his criteria and suggest a
qualification that, I argue, is more important than his.  In addition, Pat
never explans why treaties does not meet the Salience, Heuristic, Activist
values mentioned or why treaties is worse compared to an alternative.  In other
words, my arguments may be problamatic but still superior to the alternatives.
I win without a fight :).

The arguments:

1. You do not read me carefully - Ditto
2. This makes more sense in reference to the Paul Hayes post - Oh please,,,
   if you want to ake an argument based in the futility of topicality please
   make it instead of constantly refering to it as if I am ignoring it.  I
   cannot disprove what I cannot see.  Also, I was responding to you responding
   to me.  Why am I responsible for answering arguments you make shadow
   refernce to?  Play or play not.
3. Words are targets but not bullsyes - Hmmmmmm......Why does this answer any
   of my arguments?  If you cannot make any target smaller than all words
   are literally equal - they all make a suggestion that need not be followed.
   If this is your position, all topics cannot a) do anything but equally
   meet your criteria (all topics are as salient, heuristic, and activist
   at the same level because they all create the same amount of target) b)
   serve a useful ground division function at all (hence my claim that you
   are supporting the words are meaningless school).  Anyway this whole part
   of the argument is a judgement call - if you think that some words mean
   more than others than choose topics that best shrink the target pick the
   topic that best shrinks the target - if you think that all words create
   an equal topic throw your ballot up in the air an shoot a shotgun.  To say
   that you can choose based on criteria dependent upon the meaning of words
   (salience, heuristic, activist) only butresses my argument.
4. The search for more determinate terms is futile - all terms create larger
   indeterminacy than indeterminacy - Judgement call - I disagree - you cannot
   prove I am wrong any more than I can prove you are wrong....No ground for
   meaningful argument here.
except:
Tub
Bathtub

which is more indeterminate?
5. No topic has ever been effectively managed - Oh but many topics have
   contained the amount of cases and possible plans.....And even if I am
   wrong why should we give up.....I think I am suggesting a semi-radical
   alternative....why should the failures of the status quo apply to my
   arguments?

6. Other purposes for a topic except for ground-division - First, it is the
   predictability of ground division that I am concerned about (different
   argument).  Second, I argue that predictability of ground division is more
   important because it helps make research manageable and helps decrease
   debater stress (you at least have a greater likelihood of having something
   to say), I coud also make the arguments for why it = better debates
   (deeper debates - read the Bile article from back in the day).  In addition,
   you offer no alternative that meets this criteria.  I would contend that
   treaties does not violate the criteria.  You make no argument for why
   treaties does violate any of these criteria.  In other words, make an
   argument and I will answer it (non-sequiter).

7. What if they ratify one article of a treaty

a). Solvency problem - better have solvency ev for both the need for
       the article  and the effectiveness of ratification of onepart of
       the treaty (both domestically and internationally).  I would suggest
       such a case suffers from a large deficit.
b). Not normal means - ratifying an article is not ratifying a treaty.
       and my guess is it would be an act of congress which is clearly not
       normal means for the topic wordings (note-I am not talking about T
       although these could also be T arguments)
c).  Still a better chance you have something to say - they affect the
       treaty I have cards against e.g. I have a chance at specific cards.
It is at least more likely than the harm area of say Mexico and
       hearing a brick kiln fires case. Also, you totally ignore my argument!
       I can accurately predict the affirmative permutations because they
       are literature based within the set of 48.  Under, for example, Mexico
       there were 500 possible actions daily between the US and Mexico - are
       you actually arguing that there are 500 possible ways to ratify 48
       treaties?  I think not....
8. Bet over 100 cases on Mexico.  I would take the bet except that my argument
   has nothing to do with case permutations.  Once again my argument is that
   predictability is a superior guide for research and it increases the odds
   that you will have applicable cards to most permutations.  If there are
   100 cases I bet I can predict them better under treaties than you can
   under any other topic option.....Want to make that bet?
9. T yes/no - Did I miss an argument here..????

I think you are cheerfully ignoring the meat of most of my arguments.......
Josh

Joshua B. Hoe


e-mail:IFJXH@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
all info will be changing soon.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page