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

Re: Alternate Justification

Your analysis on contradictory plans is the best argument against Alt-J 
I've heard.  However, I really think it's up to the negative to catch the 
contradiction and/or the affirmative to clearly establish a justification 
for conditionality.  


If part of the reason for Alt-J in 
1996 is to allow the Aff to do some collapse-down debate in rebuttals in 
a similar fashion to the neg, then maybe it makes sense to allow the aff 
to run conditional arguments as well.  

On the other hand, perhaps non-contradictory plans should become a 
requirement of running alt j.  (Your suggestion about tightening theory.)

In your example below, I have to be honest, I would love to be the neg in 
that round.  I guess that's what keeps us old farts around so long.  I 
could see the neg running a disad on sending contradictory (even for the 
short time from 1AC to kick out in ARs) messages to industry about 
whether they're going to be managed in a free-market or command-control 
mindset.  Those mixed messages could...  Addtionally, the neg could run a 
topicality argument on free market incentives not being regulations, the 
impact of which would be that the free market plan becomes a 
neg counterplan.  Etc. Etc.  The options seem limitless for the neg, and 
frankly much more fun than "run a disad, run a T, run a CP, and maybe a 
critique."

I guess I'd still like to see the debaters who want to run Alt J
get an opportunity to play with this.  And what I'm hearing from you 
is that you want the theoretical aspect of this to be tightened a bit.  I 
agree with that.  I hope the discussion continues.  My main aim in 
starting this thread is to open the discursive space for the debaters who 
want to try it to do so in rounds.  And I hope judges will not be 
predisposed against it.  

Anyway, I really like your analysis.  I'll be thinking about your post 
for a couple of days, and maybe I'll have something to add at that time.

Joe Corcoran,
SRJC

On Wed, 2 Oct 1996 Pacedebate@aol.com wrote:

> Joe wrote:
> >>>>
> So why does alt j mean that we will get into example wars?  Again, I  guess I
> don't see that as a necessary result of Alt J.  The only way "kicking out" of
> a plan would hurt aff is if there is an internal turn on the position, just
> as a neg kicking out of a disad with a turn could lose the debate for the
> neg.  
> What I don't understand, and I'm hoping someone can clarify it for me, is
>  why does there have to be any big theoretical implication to this.  It seems
> to me that all Alt J is (and the way I've seen it explained in any number of
> Debate Texts) a collection of more than one prima facie justification.  The
> aff could just as easily have made a choice prior to 1AC as to which of the
> two cases it would run.  Why is it any different 
> to choose prior to 1AR or 2AR?
> >>>>
> 
> To me it is all about the way the kick out happens. As I stated before a kick
> out based on T or substantive neg arguments is straightforward. But in my
> mind that isn't an AJ. It's just a plan with 2 parts to it even if they may
> be very distinct.
> If the kick out is of the "we don't want it so the DA's or turns to it go
> away" variety then it is a question of conditionality. Your description of
> the resolution being a starting point with the aff being able to pick and
> defend whichever parts of they want seems to be somewhat defensible. However,
> unless you put the theoretical foundations in a tighter web it threatens to
> unravel. For example, there are clearly bidirectional interpretations of this
> topic. Under the AJ theory that doesn't mandate a resolutional focus the
> affirmative could choose plans that are almost exact opposites. For example,
> one plan could use command and control regulations to decrease methyl
> bromide. The other plan could use free market incentives to decrease CO2.
> Adopting philosophically opposite plans would increase the ability of the
> affirmative to turn the neg's DA's. This is only problematic when the aff can
> just kick out of the plan at will. The aff could essentially turn one of
> their plans with the turns on a DA with no fear since they can always boot
> one. These are really just arguments against conditionality same as people
> would make against conditional counterplans.
> 
> Short version: AJ as resolutional focus means the neg can run generic
> objections to the resolution. AJ as conditional means the neg can run
> multiple conditional counterplans. AJ as Santa Rosa might run it
> means.........I'm not sure.
> 
> 
> Tim
>
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page