Jump to content

KTownLockingItDown

Member
  • Content Count

    27
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Okay

About KTownLockingItDown

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 08/24/1984
  1. 9 minutes attacking plan is the same as 9 minutes defendign status quo (i think this is self evident but since you are kind of slow on the up take i'll explain it). the affirmative says they are good compared to the status quo, thus if you attack plan you are making the status quo look comparatively better. i think it makes more sense that a judges options to start out limited to plan or not plan than for the judge to have complete agency over the entire government and sometimes ngos. i think a judge's agency comes from the resolution/the question of whether the plan should be done. so tab judges should have no burden of proof, but they should carry into the round a concept of fairness in debate? once again, i fully agree with you that negative fiat is a winnable position, i just think that the position has to be won inside the debate round with arguments like fairness. i reject p2, because i don't think the judge has full agency. <<<no one is arguing that counterplans work without fiat power.>>> i really do think that ankur is <<<<that's because, get this, fiat doesn't exist. plans don't work if the aff doesn't have fiat power, and aside from repititiona and tradition, there is really no reason that "should" gives that power in the first place remember the consequences of viewing the issue (does aff get fiat? does neg get fiat?) as a mere fairness one is that there is no no stable basis for, well anything. if there is conclusive reason to give the aff fiat on the basis of "should" that reasonign will certainly not be extensive enough to deny the negative the ability to fiat on the basis that we "should not" do the plan. >>>> assumptions(that i made): when you say fiat, you don't mean it in the ankurian sense rather the ability to tell the judge what he/she is voting for, i.e. fiating an plan in this case means a vote for the aff is a vote for the plan.(if my assumption is wrong let me know and i'll redo the response) okay the affirmative is trying to show the rez to be true right, in order to show that the usfg should yada yada, they pick an example of that resolution and say that it should be done. so really from this framework the affirmative isn't asserting that a vote for the aff is a vote for plan, what they are really asserting is that a vote for aff is an acknowledgement of the resolution's truth. now in order to show that the resolution is not true(or that the aff hasn't shown it to be true) the negative can't merely pick one scenarioit must show either a reason to reject all topical plans(this would prove the rez false) or that status quo is better than plan(this would show that the affirmative hasn't shown the rez to be true) (this is an assertation now, but i think i warrant it when i warrant whole rez framework below). <<<The alternative to this is a whole res framework, whereby the aff plan is only a jsutification for the resolution to be supported. Here, the negative would be completely justified in providing non-aff specific reasons that the resolution should be rejected. >>> i dont' think the neg would be justified in doing that here is why: lets start with an axiom, you are sick you should go see dr. phillips. it would follow that it is true that you are sick and that you need to go see a doctor, even though it is not true that you should go see dr. kavorkian(sp?) the deal is you can not show a general statement to be false, by giving an specific example of it being false. <<<<<"the negative can't justify opp cost theory without getting fiat but there's no reason the negative gets fiat" when someone says that opp cost theory IS what jsutifies fiat >>>>> this could be why you are frustrated with me. i never interpretted what you were saying "opp cost theory is what justifies fiat." maybe you could clear that up for me because i am still not seeing the connection. (i know that might seem sarcastic, but it really isn't) if what you are saying is that neg fiat is justified because without opp cost theory doesn't work and since opp cost theory=good then neg fiat must = good, then i think that is an argument that should be made in round and isn't assumption that a judge should take into a round. <<<Ironically, opportuinty costs has a lot more defensible reasons to be correct than "should" in the resolution. >>>> but as a judge thats all i have to go off of is the names of the teams and the resolution. i am sure you are really good at showing opp cost is good in round though. <<<<um, easy. Tabula rasa = blank slate. That means that arguments which are not responded to are considered true and no prejudgements, even slight ones, of truth or falsehood are imposed upon arguments. >>>> which leads to rounds like this 1ac reads a monologue 1nc gives reasons why that is bad 2ac 1nc's are bad for debate anything that was said in the 1nc should be ignored 2nc/1nr gives reasons why 1nc's are good 1ar 2nc/1nr bad for debate ignore them 2nr says why thats wrong 2ar says taht 2nrs are bad for debate and should be ignored "arguments which are not responded to are considered true" well since the aff is considerred to be true i should ignore all the neg speeches, but is a monologue good enough win the ballot? i am not judging the truth of the arguments they are making, i am refusing to intervene on the negatives behalf by impacting the argument what if in between disads the negative team chirps like a bird and the aff drops it? do i assume the chirp outweighs case? blank slates aren't really blank just blanker than most, and the writing thats on the slate is easily erasable <<<<<Hence, no negative team should have to justify behaviors that are not yet challenged by the aff.>>>>>> shit i just wasted alot of time arguing about this. i just realized that the aff would have to make a non propensity arguement and the only way what we are talking about (i guess as far as judging goes) matters would be if the neg never brought up fiat as a response to the propensity arguement(which isn't likely). but i maintain in such a highly hypothetical(so much so what i am about to claim is meaning less) world that if the aff merely claims there is no propensity and the negative never brings up negative fiat the the counterplan doesnt' matter i have now lost my passion for talking about this subject, but would probalby respond to any discussion regarding my views on the whole rez framework
  2. oh we are talking about the topic? i just voted that national service(the service not the topic) should die. i think it will be an alright topic, i think the reason it most of you think it will suck is because you think the debate will get real predictable. Militarygood/militarybad stategood/statebad. i like the predictablity because it puts a premium on creativity.
  3. you heard it here first folks, T is always a voter, its a rule of debate, don't even bother adding voters to your violations because T is a voter its has been spoken by the great (arbitrary)rule maker of debate the great coach ankur!!!!! ankur says it comes from inherency (because he says so) of course he knows this because he is old just knows such things. ankur thinks this means that the negative doesn't get to talk about the effects of the plan, since fiat means envisioning the plan keeping all other things constant. ankur thinks that one day there was a debating meeting and everyone decided that plan focus was okay since rez focus is too hard on the aff. yeah that ktown is such a dumbass, he thought fiat was merely a way to usurp the would debate and get on to the should debate, boy was he wrong it actually comes from inherency. wait a second, you said that one ankur, i can quote you if you want. wait you say it in your next paragraph aff- solves harms prevents counterplan status quo- causes harms, and prevents counterplan(unless propensity cards are read in which case this debate is moot) come on, the inherency-solvency gap doesn't matter because we are debating whether we should do the plan not whether we would do the plan. fiat solves the inherency - solvency gap, but only because it comes from the word should. i remember i used to think about fiat the same way you did ankur... back when i was a freshman/sophomore. by a show of hands(or posts), how many other people reading this thread think that if the negative doesn't have fiat power the lose the ability to evaluate the advantages/disadvantages of the plan? you have the worst interpretation of fiat i have ever heard. fiat is not the evaluation of the impacts of a fictional action, its the positing of a fictional action for evaluation. thats why the affirmative fiats the plan not the judge. oh by the way since congress doesn't have inherency-solvency gaps, do they still get to talk about what would happen if the bill passes? of course this was established in great rules of debate convention chaired by ankur. yeah its a step function right? lol i could have sworn you said the judge only has to ability to vote for the plan or the status quo. which is it? functionally, yes. or the fact that we are debating whether we should do teh plan rather than whether we would do it. here you only prove that fiat over comes the inherency-solvency gap not that it was invented for it. lol
  4. you are one to talk balonkey "binding the negative to the entire status quo and only the status quo is a bullshit division of ground" i said that in response to "the status quo being good or the counterplan being good are simply reasons that the plan is bad (different frames of reference, if you will.)" which certainly isn't an argument for negative fiat. to clear things up my position is that counterplans don't work unless the negative has fiat power, and i that the negative has the burden of showing a tab judge that they do have negative fiat power. so far we have established you think that is "bullshit division of ground" you can see how i might have a hard time arguing against such clear logic. why don't you actually back up what you have said instead of accusing me of having stock answers. i am especially interested in how you can back up the following claim that all burdens of proof dispear when there is a tab judge. "if you were a real tab judge then you clearly woudl not set arbitrary standards for what is requried to be read for certain things introduced in round."
  5. wow that was awfully long to not have any warrants in it. resolved: you should pick a jellybean, plan: pick a red one, adv: red ones are tasty. well if you prove you should pick a red one it proves that you should pick a jellybean. and who gives a fuck, this has nothing to do with anything we are talking about, all the arguments made apply plan focused or not. okay i can agree with this. the neg merely need to show there is no reason you should do the plan, not necessarily that there are reasons that the plan shouldn't be done, but the resulting conclusion the judge draws from that is the plan shouldn't be done. okay whatever call it what you want to call it. postplan whatever. i have no idea why you would say this. it totally undermines you point that there is no "after the time of fiat". if you graph time along the x axis and your fiat step function occurs at T=0 (the value is arbitrary) then "after the time of fiat" would be all T greater than 0. that being said we can still use whatever definition of fiat you want. okay we have coverred this. the negative has access to this tool we(you) call fiat but only to evaluate the plan. (this is kind of a short response because i have a lot of stuff to answer and finite time, and because i think this resolves your concern about the negatives ability to evaluate the impacts of the plan, if however your concern was that the negative shoudl get to create a policy to compare the aff plan to, just say so and i'll address that in my next post) you could simplify inherency to a playing field leveler, but i think that would be baseless. inherencey exists because in order to show that you should take an action to solve a problem you have to show the problem won't solve its self. here we are not necessarily talking about the word should in the resolution. here we are talking about the should in the question "should we do plan." if you claim that fiat just allows us to envision the world after the plan, then please tell me why we would need to envision such a world? i'll give you a hint, its not to over come inherency, its to compare postplan and statusquo so a decision of which should be done can be made. the premise of this entire discusion is that the status quo doesnt' have the ability to do counterplan (remember no propensity) so rejecting a plan inorder to get a 0% chance of the counterplan doesn't make sense. now do enlighten me, how do i eliminate teh should not statement, and how does that destroy debate?? you are inconsistent in that you claim my example is wrong because i claim the counterplan is never done. you say the neg ballot = status quo, i say status quo=no coutnerplan done, my claim is the basis of this entire discussion (no propensity) so i figure the only thing that could be changing is your claim that a negative ballot=status quo. i have responded to everythign you have said, and i ask questions because this is a discussion not a debate (and because we clearly aren't on the same page so things need clarifying). you are a pain in the ass to argue with and thats why no one is leaping (also because you make yourself out to be an authority me out to be some kid) morphing questions? here i will lay it out one more time. both the plan and the status quo prevent the counterplan, so counterplans don't matter unless the negative has the power to give the judge another option to vote for. yeah its to bad i answerred back all of these "bad positions" thats too bad i'll miss your awesome input immensely
  6. thats not very convincing. why does a judge start from negation theory position (don't get me wrong, i think negation theory can be justified in round). "all the negative has to do is prove why the affirmative plan is a bad idea." what the fuck does that even mean? things aren't bad and good they are relatively bad and good the question is relative to what? now justify why the negative gets to pick what the affirmative's goodness/badness is relative to.
  7. my bad after rereading your previous post i see that the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs were reasons for what you are saying i thought they were seperate ideas (which i think is reasonable since they are seperate paragraphs.) any way so i thought you didn't give any reasons so i responded in kind. so now i'll go back and readdress those <<<<the status quo being good or the counterplan being good are simply reasons that the plan is bad (different frames of reference, if you will.)>>>> thats a huge jump, it assumes negative fiat power (you could argue oppurtunity cost but i think i have shown that oppurtunity costs from counterplans don't work without negative fiat)(when you respond don't put your arguments for negative fiat power here we'll come to that later). and i agree in a round where the negative has fiat power a negative vote is not a vote for the status quo. <<<<<<this is part of the premise behind the idea of negation theory, which holds that all the negative has to do is prove the aff wrong.>>>>> right, but proving the affirmative wrong implies different things depending on whether the negative has fiat power or not. in a round with negative fiat the aff says they are teh best policy option(assuming they are competitive) so proving the aff wrong could entail defending a non status quo policy option. in a round in which there is no negative fiat power the aff says they are better than nothing, in which case the status quo does have to be defended. you are a fan of negation theory right? and negation theory holds that the neg merely need to prove the aff wrong, and the aff is saying that the plan is better than the status quo then yes they would have to defend the status quo by default. bullshit why? you think its bullshit that the negative has to prove that the affirmative is a bad idea? is it fair? well with modern topics probably not, but fairness is an argument you make during the round (an argument that you would win 9 times out of 10), i think that the default views we have as judges should be based on things that are not debateable(like fairness) but are solid like the fact that there is a team call the affirmative a team called the negative and a resolution that contains the word should. without a doubt. the standards are not at all arbitrary. teams still have burdens when there is a tab judge, in fact they there are more burdens since there are no pre made assumptions. certain things have to be said for things to make sense an weigh in a round. how many tab judges would vote on T without a voter? so there is a violation so what? same thing applies for a counterplan so there is a policy that is better that won't happen, who gives a shit what does that prove, unless you show me you have negative fiat power. the difference here is that tab judges still know there is a resolution and an aff team and a neg team, it follows from the word shoudl in the resolution that the affirmative team has fiat. and my default is they dont' have to be topical.
  8. >>>>>>>>>wrong. that would be a huge part to whole fallacy. the resolution is a topic limiting factor. thats it and thats all. the only instance in which the resolution is the object of analysis is in a whole rez case which has gone the way of the dodo. there are no truth claims to the resolution in modern debate.>>>>>>>>> like i said coach the rez is analyzed through the plan. how do you think the plan was invented? it was invented to show the resolution to be true. >>>>>>>>the ENTIRE conversation in debate is strictly related to the question "should the plan be done?" the affirmative states "the plan should be done." the negative states "the plan should NOT be done." your arguments happily ignore the should not.>>>>>>>> the negative need not show the plan should not be done, merely that there is no evidence the plan should be done. imagine a 1ac that doesn't say anything but a plan, a negative team may read some disads or whatever but thats just to make certain they win but its not necessary. >>>>>>furthermore, you continue to say that the plan happens but the CP doesnt. your arguments here are based on fiat regardless of how you try and disguise them.>>>>>>>>>>> in a little world we like to call postfiat the plan does happen, but in no world does the cp happen. <<<<well guess what, the plan DOESNT happen. fiat doesnt come from the word should. fiat doesnt make plan pass. fiat is a tool which helps you envision a world in which the plan exists to determine the effects of a policy which has no chance of existing in the present under current legal conditions and attitudes.>>>>>> now lets think about why we would want to envision a world in which the plan exists to determine the effects of a policy? oh, thats right to determine whether said plan should be done, thats why fiat comes from teh word should. <<<<<if the judge retains the ability to consider the option of doing something which the SQ forbids, why can that same judge not consider the CP? just because the neg doesnt have a resolution of their own?>>>>>> because the question of debate is should we do the affirmative plan, thats why the judge gets to consider the plan. you have stated plainly (and i think at this point your are trying to flip on it) it comes down to plan versus status quo and the point still remains, the counterplan doesn't make the status quo more appealing than the plan. <<<<<PS - your sample round is really quite meaningless because that assumes that only plan is done and counterplan isnt done. but thats not true.>>>>>> come on, i am just working with the assumptions you have given me ,that we are dealing with plan versus status quo, under such assumptions the counterplan isnt' done. if you want to change the assumptions just come out and say it don't dance around it, i'll only make one post making fun of you for inconsistency.
  9. a vote against the plan is a vote for doing nothing i e the status quo. like i have said in a situation that a negative vote is a vote for the counterplan everything that has been said by me or ankur is thrown out the window. but i don't understand how that paradigm woudl be justified as a default. and as a tab i think a team should at least give some neg fiat good blips before they read a counterplan.
  10. how is the cp a foregone oppurtunity if it was never an oppurtunity to start with? sure the affirmative plan prevents the cp, but the cp is already preprevented. no no this is not irrelevant because should thing only applies to the affirmative plan. you are on record as saying the judge can only pick between plan and status quo, so it does matter. so it is not a question of should we do the counterplan, its a matter of should we do the plan over the status quo, and since the counterplan is just as likely to happen in both post plan and status quo worlds then the counterplan doesn't confer a comparative advantage upon the status quo, therefore it is a wash. yeah but turkish delight is a scenario that will never ever ever happen, our agent is too afraid of it, so it is back to a decision between corn and nothing you are right about the question of debate being should we do the plan. my argument here is that a counterplan is not an effective means of showing the plan shouldn't be done. how can we determine if the plan shoudl be done? we ask the question is doign the plan better than not doing the plan. barring arguments besides the counterplan(with no propensity) the plan is always better than no plan. the question of debate is not, "is the plan the best possible option" it is, "is the plan better than not doing the plan" and here the counterplan is moot. i think you are the one falling back on BPO ideas. let us look at debate from a root objective perspective (i regret doing this because it opens up the door for more semantics that are un related to the issue at hand, so please forgive my misconceptions coach). there is a resolution. there is an affirmative team trying to prove that the resolution is true i.e. affirm it. there is a negative team trying to show that the affirmative team does not prove the resolution true. traditionally the first speech carves out the ground with the affirmative team presenting a policy that is an example of a resolutional action they attempt to prove that the policy should be done by showing its comparative advantages over the status quo, it follows that if the affirmative policy should be done the resolution is true. if at the end of the round there is still a comparative advantage that the aff policy has over the status quo then it shows the policy should be done. as i have shown a counterplan with no propensity confers no comparative advantage or disadvantage to the plan or the status quo, thus it is a wash. do you remember my last post, coach, the one where i gave you a round to judge? what was your decision? okay you agree that an aff vote is a vote for the plan, and a neg vote is a vote for the status quo right? plan and status quo are the only options right? "we should not do X because we should be doing Y because Y is better than X and it is impossible to do Y if you do X. where x is the plan and Y is the CP." you can also replace x with the status quo, which would mean we should not do the status quo, once again in terms of the counterplan, the status quo and the plan are a wash.
  11. ankur i know i said i would ignore your posts but you said somethings in a way that wouldn't allow me to let you keep on thinking you were right the key word you use here is foregone, if the status quo will not result in the counterplan then it is not foregone. but the premise of everything we are talking about is that the status quo prevents the counterplan from happening also so it is a wash. but if this scenario matches the one we are talking about in debate (that is a cp with no propensity) advisor 2 would be making his suggestion to a person who has a horrible phobia of all food (that is a status quo that will not result in either advisor 1 or advisor 2's plans of action). so undigested corn(if cleaned properly) is better than nothing. yes a better option exists, but you have said that the options are status quo and plan, the better option is not a part of either of these options (and the better option is prevented by both plan and status quo) its sad that you repeatedly ignore the fact that a counterplan that is prevented by both options the judge can choose from warrants any thought you are right that is hilarious. you know what else is funny is that i have been so starved for a responsive post, that i settled for theory shell. at least conditional kritik directly answerred something i had said. i have got an idea since you are a coach and all i bet you have a judged a round or two why don't you tell tell me which policy option is best in this situation policy1, prevents harms and prevents some awesome policy3 policy2, causes harms and prevents some awesome policy3 which one is better? 1 or 2?
  12. is anyone thinking about a case dealing with george bush's non FISA sponsorred searches?
  13. uhhh thats just more debate dogma. so what you are telling me is that your interpretation of the counterplan is the only one? i am sure many a judge with policy paradigms disagree with the fact that a negative vote is a vote for the status quo not the cp text. if the status quo prevents the CP and the plan prevents the CP then why does the CP prove the SQ better? brilliant. do you think that by randomly spouting off things about debate will make me forget you are being non responsive about the actual issue? okay i am assuming you are sticking by your previous comments that stated a vote for the neg is a vote for the status quo(i will readdress what you said if you decide to change your mind and say that a neg vote can also be for the counterplan, but i will also call you a flip flopper). based on this assumption how can a counterplan that cannot happen in either the status quo or post plan have any bearing on the round? what does having a counterplan that is superior prove? it certainly doesn't prove the status quo is more desirable since the status quo will not result in the counterplan. ankur i think you are getting pretty repetitive and falling back on semantics that focus the discussion on issues that you can talk about such as what you think mutually exclusivity is and what you think fiat is. your nonresponsiveness to the central question here, which is, "if the only options the judge can vote for are plan and SQ, neither of which will lead to the CP why does the CP enter into the decision making." has led me to believe that you don't have anything constructive to say about the issue so i am going to ignore your posts until you actually have something of substance to say. i think you are on to something i appreciate the germane reply. it is true that negative fiat can be argued for, but this brings up another question. is a counterplan a prima facia(sp?) reason to vote neg if the arguments for negative fiat are never made in round? lets say you are a tab judge, you don't bring these assumptions on neg fiat into the debate round does the negative gain access to negative fiat by default or should they have to preface their counterplan with some blip like: the negative fiat is legit for reasons of competitive equity ground and education
  14. i am not sure what you are refering to, but you have made it fairly clear how you feel regarding what a vote from a judge actually means, which borders on a paradigm. "Fourth, the mutually exclusive counterplan represents itself to be a negation of the affirmative plan by presenting reasons why to prefer the status quo over the plan - because by doing the plan, you lose the opportunity to do something better (hence opportunity cost). the counterplan is a test of the affirmative case and not a policy advocacy. when one 'wins' the counterplan, the judge is not voting to do the counterplan, the judge is voting to stick with the SQ." which begs the question once again, coach, if a if a negative vote results in the status quo and the status quo doesn't result in the counterplan why does the counterplan matter??? (notice how i didn't say fiat or any words that you could possibly bog you down in semantics, coach, so how about a straight answer)
  15. there is a difference between using the affirmatives fiat, and having negative fiat. An example of the negative using affirmative fiat would be any arguments about what would happen post plan, on the flipside negative fiat would allow the negative and i am using your language here to assume "that a specific variable is changed with all other status quo variables constant." although it can be argued for the sake of counterplaning the negative has some access to negative fiat (however under ankur's previously stated framework the negative doesn't have access) but i think it is obvious that unlimited negative fiat is unjustified. what you, ankur, are missing is why the fiat is used in the first place. it is necessary for this "what would happen if..." game we play and the game is necessary because we are debating about whether something should be done. also ankur if you would actually read my posts and maybe bother yourself to go line by line you would realize that conceptions of fiat are not at the heart of the matter here. <<<<He didn't say no one noticed; he said no one agreed with you. There is a difference.>>>> you are right that is a huge difference. since no one agrees with me i must be wrong. <<<<<Um, there are more than just a few holes in that contention. The first, and most obvious, is that the affirmative's inherency is the negative's (CP's) inherency - problem is not being solved in status quo. If there was any evidence that CP would be done in status quo, the CP would be reduced simply to an inherency argument that takes a long time to run.>>>>>> do you actually make a point here? i am the one arguing against counterplan legitimacy. remember?? and for the record your interpretation assumes a PIC is being run more generally the counterplan would become a disad saying that the status quo is heading towards X and that plan Y prevents the good things that would happen from X. <<<<<The term "opportunity cost" is, as explained so many times before, simply the statement that X prevents Y and Z from happening (and usually that Y and Z are better than X). I'm going to skip over the others for now, due to lack of time, but I'll try and come back to them later.>>>> once again do you actually make a point here? the point i have been making all along is that if the negative doesn't show that Y is going to happen how can they show that X prevents it? <<<Because SQ doesn't actually prevent something from happening. Granted, CP isn't actually happening in SQ, but A is an active prevention of B, whereas SQ would be, at worst, waiting for (or, if the judge is actually doing CP, passing) a better policy.>>> yes the status quo does prevent the counterplan from happenning, if the counterplan cannot be shown to happen in the status quo then the status quo does prevent it. if president bush is in known opposition to the counterplan than he as a status quo actor will prevent the counterplan from happening. <<<<but A is an active prevention of B, whereas SQ would be, at worst, waiting for (or, if the judge is actually doing CP, passing) a better policy>>> but A is also actually solving for the case harms while B is at best a sit around and wait for a solution that isn't even on the horizon situation. And if you think that when the judge votes neg he is doing the CP then please tell me why that is, since it justifies plan plan and generally shitty debate. <<<<No, the counterplan is an opportunity cost of the plan, and passing affplan over or alongside counterplan is disadvantageous compared to CP on its own.>>>> yeah dude we already have established what you guys think. but you never ever answer the fact that it doesn't matter if the counterplan is better if the counterplan has no chance of actually happening. here is an example and i will try to make it as black and white as possible. lets say me and you are arguing over what should be done with a dollar bill that bob just found, bob's status quo leaning is to throw it in the trash, i say bob should buy a soda since it is better than throwing the money in the trash. you say that bob should not buy a soda since it prevents him from giving the money to charity. now does the charity counterplan prove that bob shouldn't buy a soda? the answer is no because if bob doesn't buy a soda he is throwing his money in the trash. the point here is that counterplans that will not happen do not prove that the plan is bad. <<<I'm going to make my comment as detailed as (but more warranted than) yours: That was an ad hominem.>>> are you serious??? i think maybe you have a misconception of either dogma or ad hominem. ad hominem is a personal attack. dogma is An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true that is from the american heritage dictionary. so lets clear this up, i said essentially that ankurs statement was essentially without warrant and a mere assertation based on belief. i am not clear on how this amounts to a personal attack since i was actually attacking what he was saying. <<<No, that's wrong, wrong, wrong. The NBs aren't foregone by CP! CP is the source of net benefits! By passing affplan, the opportunity to do CP and still gain the net benefits is lost, thusly warranting a neg ballot.>>> okay okay let me restate this the NBs aren't forgone by the CP, but they are forgone by a negative ballot. not doing the affirmative plan will not result in NBs. this has been dropped in every single post made. <<<And the negative is entitled to fiat power of their own, because it's real-world. >>> okay i can appreciate this <<<When a married couple discusses buying a car, the wife might suggest a Ford, but if the husband doesn't like Ford he doesn't have to refuse to buy a car altogether! He can choose a Chevy instead.>>> 1. you are ignoring agency here, when we debate we arent' debating about what we should do we are debating about a third party 2. in your scenario the chevy is the status quo 3. in your scenario the ballot would say choose one plan1 plan2 or nothing. the real world scenario that more closely resembles the language and ballot of a debate round is a legislative scenario in which its a yay nay vote. democrats could argue against a bipartisanly supported budget allocation away from the war on the grounds that it could be allocated somewhere else, but if the alternate allocation won't gain support of the republican majority it is not a reason to vote against the original allocation. 4. neg fiat regresses to plan plan which i think is arguably bad. <<<< On a side note, if the must provide alternatives for Kritiks, then the neg should be allowed to provide alternatives for policy options.>>>> this is where agency matters because the kritik doesn't suggest an alternative policy, the kritik suggest an alternative mindset/ontology/whatever over which everyone the new mindset/ontology/whaterver is suggest to has full agency
×
×
  • Create New...