[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Larry Answering Josh
I am sorry if there is a formating problem- I cant figure out how to correct
There is too much confusion in your statements for me to answer it straight
.I do not mean that in an insulting way just that you have a lot to say and
are not separating it out....so I will try to.....
Sorry, I am new at this..
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 regardless of the justification (rules) for the
You are right, but here is the reason that there is a supposed “rule”
against artificially competitive counterplans is that the nature of beast is
unique that it, at least theoretically, removes the possibility of the
permutation as a test of its competition and makes the Affirmative debate
nothing but the net-benefits. At first you would want to say, so, that
sounds like good ground. But it is not good ground for the affirmative the
negative dis-ads become enhanced on one major level. Uniqueness- this is
what I have been saying that no one has had a good answer for. Magically all
negative dis-ads become unique. A new example maybe to make my point. UMKC
says mitigation banking is inevitable and we make it better. Negative says
counterplan- Ban all mitigation banking. Is that fair, most people say yes.
I, the defender of the Affirmatives rights say, heck no. If mitigation
banning is coming than you need to find a unique reason why your disads are
specific to my changes. You just don't get to ban it all and BINGO, your
dis-ads are unique.
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
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 ready 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?"
I think that you may be missing my point. I agree with most of what you say
here. But it does not answer the question that I think I am going to boil
down to most if this post. The ban gives uniqueness to the dis-ad, which
skews the perception of how “great” the counterplan is. Because the
negative can claim that it solves all the risk of the dis-ad, and the
negative is supposed to be defending the status quo (I know that counterplans
change that but for the sake of argument it proves this point) , which makes
the counterplan look more net-beneficial than it really is because the
affirmative is not causing the harm that the counterplan is solving for. In
other words, the net-benefit that the counterplan accrues is that it revives
the uniqueness to the dis-ad which is a good thing in and of itself, but it
is abusive because it is not the affirmative that is making the dis-ad
non-unique it is the status quo. When I say the dis-ad is on unique, I
simply mean that bad things will happen in the status quo that are not the
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
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
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
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.
Ok- you make an excellent and 100% correct point about not being able to win
the round on the competition that the permutation achieves, but here is why I
think in the end you are wrong. Does it mean that the counter plan competes
if it bans the plan. The answer IS YES. I agree. It is just an abusive
form of competition because of its effects on the uniqueness of the dis-ad.
Affirmatives have 2 options 1. Beat the net-benefit or 2. Perm the
counterplan. IF they have to battle against the net-benefit it is unfair
because of the artificial uniqueness the counterplan creates for the dis-ad,
if they have to win the perm, they have to a. prove that they can
theoretically do it because of the ban, and b., find literature to support
the combination of a total bad with the exception of the plan. And as I
wrote in my other post, that is impossible because no literature congers up
the same scenarios that we as debaters do.
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 unconscious 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,
competition function and I will give up.....BUT IT DOES NOT.
I think for the most part you are right. Most people who win this debate
don’t know what the heck they are talking about, but I think that the
arguments above are pretty compelling, so I don’t think it is a Free get out
of jail free card.
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.
Nope unfair- I don’t have to defend the status quo. Thats what you ask me to
do when you run a counterplan that gives uniqueness to your dis-ads that I
capitalize on to beat all your dis-ads back. When you run the counterplan I
have to go back and say that the status quo was good and that your change is
bad, even though the net-benefits you claim (solving for the unique problem
your dis-ads have) don’t link to my plan. You steel my uniqueness ground by
banning other things than the plan!!!!!
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
plan 4) Play up the solvency deficit....See you have plenty of ground even
if the counterplan does compete.
I answer this above.
Josh, this has been a great discussion. Thanks for putting so much time and
thought into your answers.
There is a lot that we all can learn from your unique method of teaching
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (email@example.com)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page