[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: Mike's re to ans Michelle

	If my resopnse to Mike's defense of the noncompetitional 
counterplan (I'll call it a non-com) seems to be a little bit frayed, 
bouncy, and non-sensical, oh well.

	Mike's first response to Michelle is something along the lines of 
(the aff plan is bad) + (a little bit of good they perm out of the 
Non-Com) = a whole bunch of bad.  Well, if the Aff plan is so horrid in 
the first place that it is unnacceptbale, since the DA's outweich the 
Advs, then why even bother with the trouble of a non-com.  It seems to 
me, although my rommate says that might be due to my puny little brain, 
that if a plan is so bad that it causes nothing but trouble, then all the 
neg should have to do is point that out.  I think it's pretty clear that 
if a plan causes more harm than it solves, then it would not be good to 
put into effect... in other words, the judge isn't likely to put in a 
plan that's going to be worse than the status quo into effect.
	
	He then goes on to this thing about how the Aff miseducates the 
judge by linking unreal things and pretending that things compete with 
one another when they don't.  To show this he says that raising taxes 
doesn't compete with things like cutting a hangnail.  Well, duh, to put it 
simply.  Most people however, when they talk about competition are 
talking about a situation where one of two things happens...
	1) There is a finite amount of a resource:
	There isn't enough of something to go around.  if a plan and a cp 
both need to have a resource and there isn't enough to give it to both 
teams, then they are going to be competitive.  That's what a lot of 
debaters mean when they say they compete.  They both need the thing, and 
since they can't both have it, the judge has to decide which one of them 
is going to get it.  If there is anyone who thinks that there is no such 
thing as a limited resource so that way nothing can ever truly compete, 
that's up to them top believe, but most people recognize that there is 
not an infiniete amount of everything in the universe.  OR
	2) The two plans are mutually exclusive.  The thing where they 
cannot both exist because they essentially ban one another.  For example, 
VT banned all punichment in their CP.  My plan said we have to punish.  
They compete because the simple fact of the matter is that they exclude 
each other so the judge is forced to make a choice between them.

	The next bit is about the idea that a FORCED CHOICE does not 
exist.  See the above, and you'll see that in some cases, it does.

	The next part is saying something along the lines that if a plan 
eats more DA's than the SQ, then it has to be discarded, even if the 
negative non-com eats even more DA's. What??????????  If the neg causes 
bigger problems than the aff does, then why do we end up rejecting the 
aff again?  It seems that if the neg causes bigger problems than the aff, 
then it is the one that should be rejected.  I find it difficult to 
believe that anyone says that we should go with a team that causes more 
harm than it's opposition... unless we're assembling a roller-derby 
team.  The only way out of this would be to use conditionality in args, 
which is the next point that I'll adress.

	The next part is a 4 point block on why non-com should be allowed 
in debate and why none of the above is going to make it lose... even if 
it will cause gargantuan problems for the world, whereas the aff doesn't, 
but the SQ, which the neg really doesn't want to have to defend 
whole-heartedly, doesn't, so we're going to go with the SQ, even though 
it would mean getting rid of the non-com, and it wasn't the defense that 
we were going to use, but since you might not buy the non-com, we want to 
be able to sever either without having to lose anything substantial, but 
it's not abusive to shift our advocacies all over the place, even though 
we won't tell you what we really wanted you to listen to until the last 
30 seconds of our last rebuttal.  (sorry about that tirade, but I think 
that's what this new kind of CP is going to lead to in rounds.)

	His 1 is that The neg will conditionally defend the SQ.  The 
condition here being that iuf you don't buy the non-com, then we wqant 
this to fall back on.  Well, quite simply, conditionality stinks.  If 
you're going to go with an argumnent, go with it all the way.  Make a 
choice.  Either the SQ is just fine and we want to stay withit OR the SQ 
is bad, but here's what we want you to do to fix it.  Either the SQ's 
broke or it ain't.  If it ain't broke don't fix it, and if it is broke, 
fix it.  There is no middle ground.  
	A shifting negative advocacy of the PS which occassionally says 
the SQ is bad has a few problems in it.  Don't use this kind of an 
argument.  Putting an argument out on conditions is a sure sign that 
-you don't belive your own argument
-you think your argument is weak
-you can't make up your mind how you want to argue
-your judge has been napping in the round, and you don't know what it flowed
-all of the above.
in any case, conditionality is not a good style of debate.  Go with 
something and stick with it, don't shift about.

	His 2 is that there are reasons to reject the aff plan, so 
therefore you will take the neg's con-com.  well, this part ignores the 
whole idea that the neg non-com might just have EVEN MORE PROBLEMS.  If 
the neg has bigger reasons to reject it, then why would you take it over 
a plan that has fewer reasons to scrap it.  You could go back to the 1 
pint, but that's a bad idea.  If a cp of any kind has more flaws to it 
then the plan, you go with the plan because the cp has bigger flaws.  
You'll go with the AFF opportunity b/c it has less of a cost (which will 
bew fully adressed later when I get to opportunity/cost).

	His 3 is that we can't understand his reasons because it relies 
on a huge "technical theory" that "i won't explain this here."  Well, 
give us the whole theory so that we can all understand it to it's 
fullest.  Maybe if the whole theory gets put out, he can pull a few of us 
sceptics over to his side.  However, if we are all still in the dark 
about the theory, how can we fully argue it to his (and everyone's) 
expecatations?

	His 4 is about what the Aff can do.

	The first hing he daoes is admit that non-coms can be permed.  
Well, if that's true, then how is it a different advocacy if the aff can 
swallow it whole?  Interesting.
	His next is that if the aff tries to perm one of two things will
happen:
	1) they can't perm it.  Why the hell not?  It's not a competitive 
issue, both things can be done at once so WHY NOT DO BOTH???  THEY DON'T 
EXCLUDE EACH OTHER SO THERE'S NO REASON WHY IT CAN'T BE DONE.  This 
hasn't been explained to anyone's fullest satisfaction.
	2) They'll get the DA's of both.  Well, that's true with any 
perm, but so what.  They'll also get the advantages of both.  If they get 
enough advantages to outweigh the harm, why should that make them lose.  
Just seems to be another reason to go aff.

	If the aff doesn't perm (which would be foolish of them to not 
try to do) they'll go to direct comparison where the aff will have to 
defend it's plan fropm two attacks.  They'll haver to deal with the SQ 
being better and the non-com being better (both allegedly better of 
copurse).  Well, why do they ahve to argue against a 2 front wat while 
the neg can choose which one to fight.  Seems to be a tad abusive to the 
aff to have to deal with shiftiness and, essentially, two negative rounds.

	On opportunity cost not being important if we reject non-coms, I 
don't buy this argument.  The whole idea of opportunity/cost will 
survive.  Aff puts out a plan, judge has the opportunity to put it into 
effect, neg points out the cost.  No matter what happens ind ebate, there 
will always be this scenario.  Aff plans, judge has opportunity, neg 
popints out cost, that's the theory of opportunity/cost in a sentence, 
and it will always survive.

BENJAMIN R. BATES I		(The I exists even though I don't have kids)
UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND		(Where I go to school)
BATESBANJ@URVAX.URICH.EDU	(My adress)
The 4 of Diamonds		(The solution to Professor Doodles' comic 
				 strip on December 11)
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page