[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Counterplan Threads
I've been watching, although not reading everything closely.
Two comments.
First, the problems of opportunity cost identified by the Bear have always
seemed to me to be quite troubling; I have yet to see any very clear
response.
Second, I agree that much of what Larry says about "artificial
competitiveness" is true, but it seems to go a bit far. He appeals to
the fact that the CPs can fiat uniqueness of disads. True. However, this
is just one instance of a more general state of affairs. ALL FIAT raises
the assumed probability of some possible future state of affairs to the
level of certainty. That's what we assume about affirmative fiat--why not
negative fiat as well? And if that IS the very nature of fiat, then isn't
it all similarly suspect? How is it different to wish away the fact that
the status quo is not going to make the disad unique, compared to wishing
away the fact that the status quo is not going to solve the case harm?
My Point: Larry's argument seems to support the total abolition of
counterplan fiat. Others have lent their support to that very conclusion.
I get the feeling that perhaps Larry is reluctant to go so far. And as a
matter of practical debate reality, reliance on an argument that there is
absolutely no negative fiat may be a tough sell for a lot of judges. Yet
if one were inclined to seek some sort of middle ground, where the
"artificially competitive" counterplans were excluded, but the really
interesting and relevant counterplans were allowed, DISTINCTIONS would
have to be made. I don't see how Larry's arguments could permit of that.
dp
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page