[eDebate] ans Neal

[Paul Strait]

Neal says:

"What is this jurisdictional claim? Of course in the real world I
cannot have my neighbor buy the Prius instead, but as you explicate
in this latest post we are engaged in a game that goes beyond the
literature to one where our critics hold an authority that is not
real world. In the back of the room I am the USFG whereas no other
solitary person can claim that. The rules of choice and options have
already been abandoned, wanting to reign them in does not mean they
are reigned in."

This just seems to beg the question.  Korcok's argument is that we shouldn't 
conceive of the judge as a universal decision maker because that doesnt 
correlate to the way anyone actually makes decisions, and Neal's response 
effectively is "but thats the way the judge is." Why is it a good idea for 
someone to judge debates as if they are the USFG?  That judges permit agent 
counterplans is not really germane to the question of whether or not they 
should.