When we are aff, neg can’t run both solvency and disads?
|Peter Voell <aliteralist@********.com>
||Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 9:37 AM
|To: “Mrs. A” Isaiah <isaiah.mcpeak@********.com>
…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”
|Isaiah McPeak <isaiah.mcpeak@********.com>
||Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 9:44 AM
|To: Peter Voell <aliteralist@********.com>Cc: “Mrs. A”
Yes there is often implicit contradiction. However, that is exactly what happens in a court of law. Additionally, the positions can be more nuanced and solvency can often assist DAs also (which is the best way to run the two). For example, your plan WON’T get India to negotiate (Sol) and since your leverage is cancel the nuclear deal, that = the following DA to U.S. econ.So sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn’t. The key to catching any contradiction is the warrants. WHY are they saying you aren’t solvent. If their arguments are actually contradictory, then they will present evidence (logic, quotations, examples, rationale, whatever) for WHY solvency that contradicts their similar evidence for WHY disadvantage. Now that’s a contradiction.Finally, realize that that is simply ONE point you need to make in response. It’s metadebate “they contradicted themselves.” But that doesn’t always make you win, so you need to refute their arguments with other responses as well.