Re: terminology: "net benefits competitive"

[MWBRYANT@aol.com]

Korcok,

I don't mean to return to our past "hit-n-run" style of discourse, but I
found your post disturbingly confusing. While I should just be happy that
your attention has returned to more "normal" conceptualizations of
counterplan theory, the chain of logic from which your victory dance derives
seems tortured, to say the least.

First, Lichtman, Rohrer, and/or Kaplow had the disadvantage of writing their
theory articles before introduction of the theoretical construct we call a
permutation. Permutations first started showing up in 1982-83. 

Second, don't make the same fallacy of false authority that you always seem
to pin on community consensus. In actuality, counterplans were rare creatures
up until the very late seventies and theoretical complexity was not in a very
advanced state. These early counterplan theorists had some great foresight,
but community conceptualizations and theoretical refinement have properly
advanced over the past twenty years. Your observation that more recent
theorists "re-interpret" the writings of earlier theorists in the context of
subsequent community movement toward consensus is not unique to the forensic
community. Check out some writings from any epistemology of science course. 

Finally, and most critically, after reading your post at least five times I
just really don't understand your central "victory" point. Maybe it's because
I missed your earlier posts with Smith and Nexon. It just wasn't clear in
your single post. Your foundation position from the early theorists says that
net benefits competition is established when the counterplan is preferable to
simultaneous adoption of the plan and counterplan. Right?
Then you reject Parcher's attempt (NB = counterplan better than perms) to
re-define  competition. I know you got an answer (you always do!), but why
aren't perms just our more modern way of expressing the test of "simultaneous
adoption" implied by the early theorists. Thus, the early theorists say
"counterplan must be better than simultaneous adoption". Parcher says
"counterplan must be better than perms (our test of simultaneous adoption).
Now, for the life of me I can't understand what your point is. Can you sum it
up. again, Mike? Perhaps I am blinded by my own past theoretical moorings,
but I really do respect your thoughts enough to want to try to understand
your position.

How's the opportunity cost research going?

Lifting my own "tankard" to the Big Krispy K,

Bear 
Weber St

---

• Prev by Date: hey Bryant!
• Next by Date: ans Bryant
• Prev by thread: terminology: "net benefits competitive"
• Next by thread: Re: terminology: "net benefits competitive"
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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