[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Alternate Justification
Thanks again for your input.
I'll give you my answers to your questions, and hopefully others will
also chime in.
1. Yes, the aff would have to answer turns before kicking out.
2. Yes, the neg would have to make some choices. However, there's no
reason that one disad couldn't link to both plans. If you're arguing an
econ disad, certainly the banning of Chlorine (Plan one) and the phase
out of all nuke power (plan two) would have econ ramifications. In that
way, the aff kick out would have less impact because they'd still have to
answer the disad.
3. You're right. The theory needs clarification. But I don't see this
as anywhere nearly as difficult as plan-plan.
4. You may be right about less case debate, but that's not my experience.
Thanks again for your feedback.
On Thu, 3 Oct 1996, Meredith Miller wrote:
> I still don't think Alt-J is a better choice than more traditional
> one-plan-per-round debates, but I do not attempt to deny anyone's right
> to run one if they wish.
> I could be alone on this, but I think most people agree that all but 2
> or 3 (if that many) of the cards in the 1AC are not expendable. This may
> or may not be true, but I would, and perhaps others as well, find it to
> be a horrible experience trying to fit one case in half the time so that
> I might run two in my constructive.
> I am not entirely clear on how Alt-J cases are advocated (their
> theoretical basis), and, from reading some of the other posts on this
> thread, maybe others in the community feel the same. I would appreciate
> it if someone could explain to me what "kicking" one of the plans
> involves: Can they be kicked, but you are required to answer any turns
> applied to them in a similar fashion as disads? or Are they advocated in
> a way similar to conditional counterplans where they can be dropped at
> any time without answering turns and revert back to the other plan? I
> don't see how it would be advantageous to run them if the first type of
> advocacy is used, but, considering the abuse claims against conditional
> counterplans, I'm sure people could have a good time proving the abuse
> the AFF creates by dodging attacks in this manner.
> I agree that the 1AR frequently provides little substance, though not
> necessarily over being forced to cover case. Still, the disadvantage to
> the negative team is obvious. They may spend half their time answering
> one case while the time is wasted when the AFF team decides they just
> don't want to advocate that any longer. I have not seen an Alt-J case
> debated nor debated one myself so I cannot speak from experience, but I
> still think giving the AFF team any easy way out of case turns and pimps
> would reduce the amount to skill required by an AFF team to win a round.
> Why not run a case which most teams might not have as much or as good
> evidence on and a case which most teams while 30-point solvency block,
> then kick the case that the 1NC spent 80% of the time cutting apart? The
> 2AC then has their entire speech to answer only a small portion of the
> NEG speech and need only spend 10 seconds to say "We kick this case,
> none of their arguments now apply." Sounds advantageous to me...
> I'm not sure how you assert this will lead to a greater amount of case
> debate. It seems to me the NEG team, knowing half their case attacks
> might not apply at any moment, would spend most of thier time reading
> generic disads, CPs, kritiks, and T that would link to both. Why waste
> most of your speech on excellent case blocks that may well lead to great
> case debate if the AFF has the option of choosing not to debate it?
> Maybe Alt-J should still be an option, but I think some of the
> theoretical basis/justification for using it should be explored further
> to prevent the kind of objections many in the community have been
> One final question, just to clarify: Are the two cases entirely
> separate and not necessarily related at all? So, essentially, the AFF
> picks to regular cases, cuts them down, and runs both? Need there be any
> sort of connection between the 2+ cases or can each be its own little
> mini-case with its own inherency, harm, solvency? ("Next case. First
> off, observation one: inherency..." Sort of thing?)
> Meredith Miller
> Birmingham Groves
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page