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

RE: SPRING



On Thu, 18 Nov 1993, Todd A.Morth wrote:

> In Message Wed, 17 ,
>   "Adam M. Chud"  writes:
> 
>   If
> >anyone wants to discuss these ideas, I'd love to join in (Hey Helderman and
> >Berman, why can't you fiat utopia on the neg???
> 
> Fiat uptopia, sounds like you would be fiating solvency to the C/P.  If the
> affirmitive isn't allowed fiat solvency on their plan why would the negative
> be allowed to fiat absolute solvency for every 1ac ever written.  Seems like
> some sort of fiat abuse is occuring.
	What you call abuse, many think of as a legit neg position.  I
think the idea of calling them utopian cp's is pointless, because they are
not really utopian.  The point (I think) is to compare systems, not
neccessarily be granted systems.  Utopian discussion is just the
groundwork for discussion. 


> Actually what sort of Upotia are you achieveing, feminist, socialist,
> anarchist, post-modernist, or the upotia where the Aliens come and give us all
> the insights we need.  I mean if C/P is any of the first 4 your probably
> fiating through all of transition backlash postions, which is clearly a
> denial of aff ground, which would be bad.
	First of all, the ET's are not friendly.  They are dangerous and
irrational.  It is certainly not utopian!  I can see fiating to discuss
the merits of the system, but transition t/os should still be legit. 


> Actually these response probably don't answer the question on a theoretical
> level.  I mean sure why not fiat upotia, as long as the Aff gets to fiat to
> thier own Utopia as well.  You can then compare utopias in final rebutals.
> Although the concept of a "better" utopia is kind of baffling.
	Oh I don't know, Some utopias can be better than others.  



> 
> >Oh, Alex, the Cplan on the res of fact went like this: to evaluate a fact as
> > good or bad, you need to know the alternative to the fact, i.e. how that situa
> >tion would have been good if the Aff deems it bad, i.e. NNM is sexist, sao how
> >do we do something better than those impx.  As a result, the cplan tests the al
> >ternative to the implicit action taken to the aff.
> 
> I don't think this answers the question because, it making the assumption
> that facts are "good and bad".  On this last topic it was my understanding
> that from a Res-O-Fact paradigm all an aff had to was show that an
> impairment of understanding occured.  Whether or not this impairment is good,
> bad, or neutral thing is kind of irrelevent.  Case could have said media
> impairs the publics understanding of the French and this is good because if we
> ever understood the French we'd feel compelled to nuke them.  Thus, any
> C/P to solve for the misunderstanding would be bad, so the affs implict
> action is good. 
	Todd has a very valid point here.  This is why many teams argued
that the resolution had a pejorative implications, that through the
phrasing, the resolution implied that impairing people's understanding was
bad.  I think this arguement was underutilized. 

 Also I'm not sure why case needs to have an implict action
> (although I agree almost all cases do have some fairly explict, implict action).
> Again under res-O-fact paradigm you could write a case saying, "Cont I-
> media distorts the publics understanding of lima beans, cont-II the
> misunderstanding of lima beans means absolutely nothing in the real world."
>  Thus in this instance no policy is implied because in reality no cares
> enough about lima beans to do any about the  misunderstanding."   Granted
>  this example is probably non-topical maybe even a Hasty-G.  But I think it
> proves under res-O-fact framework the aff need not say anything more than
> "look an impairment we win" (as annoying as that maybe). 

This was one of the problems.  I think this is bullshit. SO I think most
teams agreed to choose a wide, debatable topic area with a positive or
negative implication.  This spurred good debate even though the resolution
did not require it.  (I also think this is a good example of debaters
ignoring the topic and having good debates.  Very healthy.)

mmm. Maxwell Ninja
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page