[eDebate] Quick thoughts on "only"...

[William J Repko]

... have to make this fast -- in the middle of normal camp distractions. 

1. This was not the centerpiece of ErMo's post, and (in fairness) that needs 
to be said up-front. 

But, I wanted to say that I think permutations carry no topicality burdens 
(and this question of whether perms can be "anti-topical" comes-up 
surprisingly often in topic discussions/committee meetings). 

The *Plan* needs to *only* extend certain forms of engagement, the *perm* 
can extend the additional engagement extended via the cplan. 

Specifically, if the neg ran a cplan do more constructive engagement than 
the topic allowed I think incredibly-few judges would deem the perm to be 
illegit b/c it severed the word "only". In fact, I think no affs would place 
"only" in their plan. 

2. I will begrudgingly concede that on most normal topics, around 10-20% of 
the judges d/n allow perms to be anti-topical. I don;t share this 
theoretical disposition (as I think it makes for bad cplans), but I can 
acknowledege that it is out there. After all, I suppose a few people think 
the Aff consult perms are not "resolved". 

However, I think that number of people in this camp would rapidly plummet in 
a world where the neg was abusing the word "only". The mere capacity of the 
Aff to draw on the "potential for plan-plus cplans" would get the job done. 

3. If you are moved by the notion that "only" overlimits the Aff lit base 
for constructive engagement, so be it. It seems as though Scott and ErMo 
share that opinion, and nothing in this post is desgined to refute that. In 
fact, I am largely in the dark about the topics myself. 

But, for the select few that are really on the fence about voting, I would 
not freak out about Neg getting too many wins on "only"-related cplans. I 
honestly think that's close to a non-starter. And, more importantly, I 
encourage readers to think about where their dispositions fall on whether 
perms need to be (at all) topical. 

Back to camp, 

Shakira