GOT THE MONKEY BY THE TAIL

["Jason Cruce Trice" <tricejas@student.msu.edu>]

BLIND MONKEY FOUND A BANANA--KLEMZ DOES HAVE A POINT ABOUT ABUSIVE
COUNTERPLANS--THOSE INVOLVING AGENT CHANGES--SO WHY IS SMS RUNNING A SUPREME
COURT AGENT C/P??  STOP ABUSING COUNTERPLANS BEFORE YOU COMPLAIN ABOUT OTHERS
ABUSING THEM.  HE CLAIMS THAT NON-TOPICALITY WOULD CHECK THE ABUSE OF THESE
COUNTERPLANS AND IS WRONG.  PERHAPS IT WOULD ON THIS RES, BUT A RES THAT
SPECIFIED AN AGENT, THE C/P WOULD BE NON TOPICAL.  IF THE RES DOES SPECIFY AN
AGENT, WHY ISN'T THE AFF RESPONSIBLE TO DEFEND THAT AGENT??  BUT ON THIS TOPIC,
AGENT C/P SEEM ABUSIVE FOR TWO REASONS.  1)  THE RES DOESN'T SPECIFY AN AGENT
SO WHY SHOULD THE AFF BE REQUIRED TO DEFEND IT.  IF THE PLAN SPECIFIES AN AGENT
THEY ARE BEING EXTREMELY NICE BY PROVIDING THE NEG GROUND, BUT AN ALT. AGENT
C/P SEEMS ABUSIVE.  2)  SOLVENCY BURDEN--MOST ALT AGENT C/P'S CLAIM THE AFF
SOLVENCY CARDS PROVIDE THE C/P SOLVENCY, BUT WE FAIL TO SEE HOW OUR EV THAT
SUPPORTS A CHANGE IN STATUTES SUPPORTS SOLVENCY FOR A SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT
ON A CASE.  INSTEAD OF APPLYING STRICTER PROCEDURAL BURDENS ON
COUNTERPLANS--MONKEY BOY SHOULD FOCUS ON THE APPARENT LACK OF SOLVENCY PROVIDED
BY MOST BAD C/P'S.

WHILE KLEMZ WAS "HANGIN' AROUND" COUNTERPLANS WERE EVOLVING--TO BAD THE MONKEY
MISSED THE EVOLUTIONARY LEAP:-)
MISSED THE EVOLUTIONARY LEAP :-) LOVE SEAN AND TRICE

---

Follow-Ups:

• Re: GOT THE MONKEY BY THE TAIL
• From: Klemz Aaron <aak322s@nic.smsu.edu>

---

• Prev by Date: SEE NO, HEAR NO, PERM NO EVIL
• Next by Date: sms quarters
• Prev by thread: Re: SEE NO, HEAR NO, PERM NO EVIL
• Next by thread: Re: GOT THE MONKEY BY THE TAIL
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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