ROFL. Don't we stay "we stand resolved that [the rez is true]" at the very beginning? Does that mean anything to you?
Actually it does matter. Because neg was lazy and stole from the rez that they were supposed to negate. That, sir, is a fail.
1. If it's AFF ground, then the AFF, which has had months to prepare their case, should be able to whoop any NEG up side the head based on the merits of their case alone. Saying "NEG shouldn't be able to run T CP's" is like a football team crying foul when the visiting team beat them on their own home field.
2. Your response only makes sense if the negative team has the burden to negate the resolution. With a real world standard based on a clash of ideas framework, that assumption doesn't make sense.
Dude, I already addressed that. And our "sexy theory" doesn't contradict reality. I'm....seriously, have you been reading the posts? Yes, this debate is circular.
:toning down sarcasm:
Let me explicitly address what you said.
Look at the marriage scenario Daniel posted: Should I get married? That's a rez. The plan follows. If the neg wants to do their job and negate the rez then they cannot merely focus on the plan (Marry Ms. Scarlet)-- they have to keep in mind that it's part of a bigger idea (getting married).
Why? Why does neg have the job to negate the rez? Why does aff have the burden to affirm the rez? That brings us back to MSD's question.
Why is plan-vs-plan debate inherently superior to should-we-reform debate?
Let me reverse that. Why is should-we-reform debate superior to plan-vs-plan debate? Neither position gets the benefit of presumption, so there is no default answer. Is the decision left to personal preference? It doesn't have to be.R2P -
To provide some solid ground to this discussion, let me restate the framework: Debate exists to teach and facilitate the exchange of Ideas. That's the bottom line. Even when the resolution enters the equation, that's still the bottom line. Plan-vs-plan debate theory should be preferred because it better facilitates the exchange of ideas. (I don't think this was refuted yet. Correct me if I'm wrong.)In Should-We-Reform World -
Even if should-we-reform debate is the way to go, then AFF probably doesn't fulfill their burden to prove the resolution true. It is possible to inductively prove a statement true, but inductive reason deals in probabilities. To inductively demonstrate a statement, like the resolution, AFF needs to provide several instances/examples where the rez is true. If neg can provide more valid instances where the rez is false than AFF provides valid instances where the rez is true, then according to inductive logic, the rez has been proven false. If you think that it's unfair for NEG to bring up examples of bad reforms that have nothing to do with AFF's plan, then AFF's shouldn't be required to prove the resolution true and NEG's shouldn't be required to prove it false. (this sounds like parametric theory, but it isn't really)
You will probably respond by saying, "AFF only has to prove one instance of the resolution true to affirm the resolution." However, this still ignores the argument I just made. Is it reasonable to say that all Eljer toilets are good because my Eljer toilet is? No. Likewise, it's illogical to say the resolution is universally true because it's true in one instance. When AFF tries to defend the resolution, by the dictates of semantics, they must be prepared to defend the whole thing. Unfortunately, AFF doesn't have enough examples to prove the resolution true inductively.
Yes, that was a complicated argument. Before you jump on me for it, remember that the complicated argument lives in the should-we-reform world.