…I was thinking about this last night, and it could just be that it was a ‘drifting-off-to-sleep’ thought that makes no sense…lol….but what do you think about this:
When we are aff, negative usually runs both solvency and disadvantages.
Solvency argues the plan won’t work.
Disadvantages assume the plan will work and point out why the plan is a bad idea.
When negative runs both solvency and disadvantages, they implicitly contradict themselves on the basis of the assumptions that form the root of solvency and disadvantage arguments.
Thus, we as aff could reasonably disregard whichever argument [solvency or disad] we didn’t feel like addressing, cross-apply all the neg arguments from one argument to the other argument and then pile on our own additional responses.
The reason why I think this is legit can be seen in an analogy of a court of law: If a lawyer was defending his client, he could not say both, “my client was not at such-and-such a place at such-and-such a time,” and in the next sentence say, “if you don’t believe my argument that my client wasn’t there…he WAS there, but did not commit the crime of which he is accused.” The laws of logic blatantly protest against argumentation like ^^, and we could apply that analogy to negative arguments under both solvency and disadvantages.
What do you think about that? Valid? Invalid?
—
“Before God can fill us with Himself, we must first be emptied of ourselves”
~AW Tozer
