[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: GOT THE MONKEY BY THE TAIL
On Mon, 10 Oct 1994, Jason Cruce Trice wrote:
> 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.
Why don't you check and see what I have run in debate rounds before you
start blindly indicting me? I have yet to run a counteragent CP in a
negative debate round and surprise...I have had no problems.
> 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.
Boy, you guys sure are insightful....my point exactly. This resolution is
unique in that it fails to specify an actor.
> WHILE KLEMZ WAS "HANGIN' AROUND" COUNTERPLANS WERE EVOLVING--TO BAD THE MONKEY
> MISSED THE EVOLUTIONARY LEAP:-)
I think that Sean and Jason have hit an evolutionary dead end...sorta
like the passenger pigeon.
Aaron Klemz
SMS
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page