Re: cp and dispositionality

[dls10@cornell.edu (Derek Shaffer)]

 - Derek Shaffer
   Cornell Debate


>hey Derek, Ken is right.
>
>the assumption you make is that showing that the counterplan is better
>than the plan is an element of competition.  of course it isn't.
>
>it is true that folks misunderstand "net benefits" to mean that, but it
>doesn't.  it only means cp>p+cp, NOT cp>p.  now if cp>p that doesn't
>mean cp>cp+p and just because cp>cp+p doesn't mean that cp>p.
>
>the "relevance" test is cp>cp+p. so "straight turning" a counterplan
>probably shows that cp isn't better than cp+p.  but as Ken argues, there
>may be OTHER claims about competition besides net benefits, like mx or
>philosophy, or whatever.  also, "straight turning" may show p>cp, but
>that is not a COMPETITION issue.
>
>it's true that a successful permutation or net benefits combination is
>supposed to give us a result that says BOTH that cp is NOT > cp+p AND cp
>is NOT > p.  and they fail at doing so, but again, this ain't a
>conditionality/dispositionality issue.
>
>now, if only Ken were as percipient on other issues...
>michael korcok

---

• Prev by Date: ans Heidt
• Next by Date: Re: Shafter and Dispositionality
• Prev by thread: cp and dispositionality
• Next by thread: ans Meany & Glass
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page