[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Nude String! Counterplans In Ceda
In relation to my posting on policy debate in CEDA, I thought that I should
address some of the concernse raised by Todd.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org, Thu, 11 Nov 1993
>I'm not sure if CEDA really wants to start playing with counter plans. If
>we fully implimented them, we would really start merging with that other
>type of debate (they'll remain nameless).
As I mentioned in my article: Why is this a problem? By debating "value
topics" (by the way, why are policy and value seen as different
perspectives?) wouldn't that endanger us of merging with L.D.? :-)
>Also, it would really start to
>reduce case clash, and start pushing the issue to more of a solvency debate
>which is nice, but something about it just bothers me.
I do not see why it would reduce clash. First, if the issues shifted to
solvency then that is merely another type of clash (again increasing
negative ground). Second, as in the status quo, you can continue to debate
whether or not there is a problem. Third, I think that it might increase
clash -- in the status quo when I hit (as a negative) a case that I don't
have much on I run procedurals. (Todd admits this in his other posting,
when he writes, "Usually, I myself will run them if I don't have anything
really substantitve to argue." Actually, I think the problem is worse in
the status quo because many debaters run procedurals regardless of what the
case is, and never bother to do significant substantive research.) If
counter-plan ground was available then instead of running to "mires of
jurisdictionals" teams could choose to debate something more substantive
which would lead to a better clash (than clash over procedurals), at least
in my HUMBLE opinion.
>teams may end up granting case in order to prove their counterplans.
Why is this "unwittingly"? I can see many reasons where this is the
INTELLIGENT strategy? As I mention, part of the problem with the status
quo is the negative is often relegated to defending things they find
morally repugnant. (American has been especially good at making negatives
do this, i.e. "date rape good," "subjugating women good," etc.) With
counterplan debate we can have a debate where instead of having to say that
"subjugating women" is good, I could argue that they are right about the
problem, but wrong about the solution. (And for educational value we could
then discuss real solutions to real problems instead of having to argue
that something we think is a real problem doesn't exist.)
>Yet, in the big picture, I guess that one really needs to prepare them in
>certain situations. Personally, in my experience, I have seen negatives
>with real general counterplans that they thought would be applicable to all
>affirmatives, and the links were just not there (good thing for me too !).
Sounds to me like very poor counter plan debate. If the affirmative has
researched a good plan (with good specific solvency), then they are at an
incredible advantage in terms of solvency comparisons against generic
counter plans. I think this problem only exists when most teams are trying
to avoid plans and some teams want desparately to run counterplans.
>So what am I saying....Counterplans are a necessary evil, but they'd better
>be really linked to case and don't work as generics really well.
Hm. I disagree with "necessary evil" -- maybe an "excellent possiblity"
would be more my line of thinking. But, I agree that better links make
>How's that for the first day on the Internet ?
Great. Glad that you are on and willing to express your opinions.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (email@example.com)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page