[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Exclusivity and competition
The artificial debate that Josh has started on Counterplans has been
very thought-provoking and much needed...I have a question that I would
love an answer to....
How do exclusionary counterplans compete on a holistic level? If you
do all the Affirmative but X, than the only real choice that the "policy
maker" has to make between the two competing policies is a world
with X and a world without X. The exclusion competes, but does the
"do the rest of the Affirmative" part of the counterplan compete???
For example...Negative runs a counterplan against a decrease indoor
air pollution case that says do the Affirmative mandates with the
exception of don't decrease HCFCs. The net benefit is HCFCs contribute
significantly to global warming, which we need to stop an ice age.
Now, the part of the counterplan that competes is the HCFCs exclusion,
but does the "do the Affirmative mandates" compete? Their is no
CHOICE involved since that part of the counterplan and plan are the
same. If this is true, that only the part of the HCFCs competes, than
the Negative gains nothing -- they could run the HCFCs net benefit as
a disad. Why does the Negative have the legitimate right to capture
Affirmative advantages ("do the Affirmative mandates") when that
part of the exclusionary counterplan does not compete?
The only legitimate answer that I can think of and that has ever been offered
to me is that you cannot separate the two parts of the counterplan -- it
is all one policy -- "do the Affirmative but X", not "(1) do the Affirmative
and (2) "but X"...If you look at the CP as one mandate, than the exclusion
makes the entire mandate competitive. However, I am not convinced that
the mandate is inseparable...
If anyone can make sense of this and has an answer, I'd love to hear
it....
Tara
ESU
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page