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

Larry the liquidator

There is too much confusion in your statements for me to answer it  straight up
.I do not mean that in an insulting way just that you have alot to say and
are not seperating it out....so I will try to.....

1. Theory is the antithesis of rules.  Rules may have a logic but one not
   necessary to ponder to understand.  Theory attempts to make the logic of
   the argument overwhelm the need for rules.  You are throwing both at me.
   There is no logic for saying that artificial counterplans (whatever that
   means) should be outlawed regardlessof the justification (rules) for the
   practice.
2. You answer very little of my arguments against yours you just say "Josh
   is just wrong."  The answer to your questions (almost all of them) is if
   the counterplan passes the test of competition (the essential elements
   are mutually eroding) than it competes regardless of how those elements
   exist.  If I ban aid and part of your plan is aid you are right in saying
   that the perm is not beneficial and therefore the counterplan competes.
   Now the aid part of the advantage structure forms a natural disadvantage
   to the net benefit which is evaluated but that is hardly a reason to reject
   the counterplan.  In fact, what reason do you give for why it should be.
   The counterplan argues aid bad and you argue aid good.  If you are not
   ready to defend that part of the plan is that the negatives fault?  Why
   in the world is it in your plan if you are not reaqdy to defend it?  What
   is the theoretical defense of why you should not have to defend that part
   of your plan?  In other words, why am I "flat wrong?"
3. Mike is right in saying in his anti-counterplan posts that competition is
   not the end of the debate.  The reason you think you are right is because
   you assume you lose if the counterplan competes.  FALSE!!!! All competition
   is is a template.  It means the essential elements of the two proposals
   are mutually eroding.  Once you have determined that the elements of
   the two proposals compete you use a method of evaluation to negotiate the
   dispute.  In most cases it is opportunity costs or cost benefits analysis
   in some it is deontology etc. That is why the elements of competition are
   only the first part of the debate.  It is true that a permutation frequently
   attempts to capture the opportunities avoided by the plan but not the
   counterplan (unless you are crazy).  In other words, the perm presumes
   the manner of evaluating the opportunity costs.  However, some counterplans
   do compete which means that a permutation will be unsuccessful 100% of the
   time.  To assume that the only FAIR counterplans are ones that can be
   successfully permuted is to assume that no counterplan is fair that
   actually competes.  This is why this traditional appeal to authority
   known as "artificiality" makes zero sense logically.  It is an appeal
   to fairness which presumes unfairness based on faulty logic.  If the
   part of the counterplan that is being tested competes and the evaluation
   of the opportunity costs is favorable to the negative you lose.  That is
   not unfair.....You wrote the plan, you included the elements, and
   therefore you should have to defend the elements you include.
4. Larry wins a round on the counterplan being artificial - Yup, I address
   this in my post from earlier today....Saying the words "artificial
   competition" create the great cosmic get out of jail free card.  We
   have had the term and its resulting rules based appeal bashed into our
   heads from debate birth.  Suprise, like so many other things it MAKES
   NO SENSE!!!!!!!  It MAKES NO SENSE at all!!!!!! It is an appeal to
   tradition and authority that works because it collected in the great
   bowl of debate unconcious not because it made sense.....BECAUSE WE
   THINK IT IS A RULE.  For rules to have a purpose they must serve a
   functional purpose.....Prove to me that it serves a valid ground, fairness,
   competition function and I will give up.....BUT IT DOES NOT.

The brilliant folk who evolved the theory of competition and counterplan
theory in general dealt with all your concerns:

Ground and Fairness: Its your plan, you included the elements, if you cannot
defend them as intrinsic to the need for the plan you deserve to lose.  Your
ground is not violated, you had plenty of time to prepare.  The plan is
the only fair ground the negative has to test.  You say what you do we test
the assumptions of what you do.

Competition: If the permutation fails to defeat the premise that the elements
are mutually eroding the counterplan competes and you still have a slew of
available  options.  1) Use the advantage intrinsic to the excluded part as
a disadvantage to the net benefits of the counterplan 2) Turn the net benefit
3) Run disadvantages to the parts of the counterplan that do not encompass the
plan  4) Play up the solvency deficit....See you have plenty of ground even
if the counterplan does compete.

Some explination for those new to the discussion:

I break up counterplan theory differently than most.....Competition is the
template put over the plan and counterplan.  The template is a question --
do the essential elements of the plan and counterplan mutually erode.  The
affirmative has many options to answer this question:

The permutation: The permutation both tests the existence of the relationship
and also the opportunity costs of doing one (counterplan) vs. both (c.p. plus
entire plan).

If the template proves that no mutually eroding relationship exists the
counterplan did not compete and does not test the opportunity costs of the
enaction of the plan (in other words, it has no link)

If the template proves that a mutually eroding relationship does exist you
then move to the evaluation of the benefits of doing the one (counterplan) vs
doing the plan or plan plus parts of counterplan etc.

The important thing to remember is that the second part is as important as the
first.  You, as an affirmative can use the case, your answers to the disad
(absent uniqueness questions which the counterplan may make irrelevent), the
elements of the counterplan itself (links for disadvantages just like against
a plan) as ground for winning the second battle once you have determined that
the counterplan competes.

The second thing to remember is that it is rediculous to say that all
counterplans have to be permutable.  If that were true.....No counterplan
would compete and negatives would only run them in the Dalls Perkins strategic
example of trying to frustrate the affirmative team.

Many teach that counterplans are about the means of competition.  I teach that
you seperate the idea of competition (mutually eroding relationship) from the
means of evaluating opportunity costs.  It all ends at the same place but I
think my wasy makes for much less comfusion about how all the elements work.

Thanks to Korcok for the opportunity costs language, Tuna Snyder for the
term mutually eroding, Bill DeForeest for getting it through my thick head that
you cannot steal the affirmative plan and that the plan is the basis for
negative ground not the exclusive domain of the affirmative and getting me to
turn to using non-policy thinking as a counter to exclusion c.p.s.....I
mention these namesonly because theory is always in constant evolution.
To think that theory has become RULES everlastiung and unchanging is to admit
that debate is dead or dying. If the typing was sloppy it is two a.m. and
I do not type that well to begin with.

Finally, I respect the heck out of Larry....Not trying to be harsh....Just
my own sarcastic way of answering things.  Later....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