[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Artificial Counterplans - Definitions from the respondants
Didn't see your second email concerning this when I sent my response.
This has always been my understanding of artifical competition, and I
think many of the examples you gave could be construed as artifically
competitive, but I don't think the theoretical reasons are there. Very
simply: Artifical counterplans have one or more action included that are
not necessary for solvency or any net benefit that are there only to
provide competition. Example: Aff plan recognizes Taiwan. Counterplan
is World Government. There is a plan "plank" that bans all unilateral
action, thus banning the affirmative. In this scenario we will assume
that the neg has no evidence indicating that one additional unilateral
action hurts wolrd government or makes the transition more difficult.
This counterplan is artifically competitive because the one plan plank
that provides competition (the ban) could be severed without affected the
net benefits debate.
Another example with the same affirmative could be to place a U.S. naval
base in Taiwan. We will assume that the primary aff advantage is to stop
a Sino/Taiwan war. The neg counterplan text says "continue with current
U.S. diplomatic relations with taiwan and begin a permanent naval
stationing relationship." The first plan action would be artifically
competitive. We could sever it with no impact on CP solvency, but if we
were to sever it, the counterplan is no longer be competitive.
Mike Ross
Marshall
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page