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

Artificial Counterplans - Definitions from the respondants

O.K. Here are the definitions that I recieved (some are meant to be funny):

1. A hypothetically suggested counterplan -- The affirmative construction
   denies our ability to run X counterplan (Dallas Perkins)
2. The system defended as the alternative system when running a critique...
   if you are willing to defend an alternative (Dallas Perkins)
3. Counterplan introduced with many intentional flaws that make it an
   impossibilityto enact.  Introduced purely with the intention of
   frustrating the affirmative (Dallas Perkins)
4. Counterplan creates an artificial world that begs the question of the
   need for the affirmative or the topic -- ban renewable energy, ban
   Southeast Asia, feed the hungry only if the plan is not enacted etc.
   (Dallas Perkins).
5. Ban the Affirmative - or ban all uniqueness problems for your disadvantages
   (Eric Slusher).
6. Counterplan in things that are improbable politically -- World Government,
   Socialism (Terry West).
7. Do everything but X in the plan counterplans (Terry West).


O.K.  Each of these has different value.......Can anyone justify theoretically
a world in which these counterplans should fail consideration purely on the
basis of their artificial natures????

For example -- it seems to me that most of these encounter a solvency deficit
rather than they aquire the baggage or title of ARTIFICIAL.  I can find
little justification for the thing (artificial counterplans) being either
a describable or identifiable unified theoretical phenomona or why
such an argument is a relevent consideration in deciding around.

Ban the plan -- plan becomes a disadvantage to the status quo minus the
counterplan.  If you cannot beat the disad with the case or answers to the
disad you should lose for not being prepapred.  In addition, these
counterplans almost always beg the question of uniqueness.  There are two
uniqueness questions - 1) Did something happen that should have ignited
the link to brink chain and 2) Will something in the future ignite the link
to brink chain.....The counterplan only deals with uniqueness questions of
the second type while doing nothing to answer the emperically disproven
question.  Also, and I am not sure I want to get into this too much, given
the contemporary conception of fiat why is this an illigitimate negative
action?  I have zero idea.....It makes the disad suffer a credibility gap...
illigitimate???? Why?????

Do all of the plan but X - If the case is written in such a way that the X
part of the plan is not essential to attaining an advantage...I think the
negative has preformed a service to you in pointing it out to you.  Why is
this counterplan illigitimate???? What is theoretically wrong with it (trust
me I have wrestled with this question before).The counterplan either suffers
a solvency deficit or you turn the net benefit or you run a disadvantage to the
counterplan that outweighs the net benefit etc.  Why is it theoretically
illigitimate?????

Ban the topical preconditions - This makes some sense to me.  I think it
has multiple legitimate theoretical problems......and I think the plan
could easily become a disadvantage to the counterplan depending on the
situation....Ban the harm counterplans also seem to be theoretically bankrupt
for the same reson -- they beg the question of the game literally.

Any other thaughts.  I have heard of this thing "ARTIFICIAL COMPETITON" since
I was in early high school.....heck I have even made the argument.....Can
anyone make a coherent meaningful position out of it?????  Josh

Joshua B. Hoe


e-mail:IFJXH@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
all info will be changing soon.
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page