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

RE: Perms & Opportunity cost

Okay... Here is my ONLY post on this thread. (I promise)

(No, really.. it is!)

I think there are two premises in this post that are potentially dangerous 
to opportunity cost counterplans, and I'll address each in turn.  The first 
is that opportunity cost theory should directly follow the economic model. 
 The second is the practical requirement for propensity in an opp cost 
counterplan.

First, the economic model.  Economics deals with money and investments, not 
public policy.  Opportunity cost may have a lot in common between policies 
and investments, but we need to realize that a theory developed in the 
economic field may not apply as well to policy.  As a separate example, and 
I claim to be no expert in economic theory when I say this, posts in our 
previous opp cost thread implied that economic theories of opp cost apply 
only to competition for resources.  Should we impose this same limitation 
on debate?  I don't think so, because we already know there are more forms 
of competition.  I am not saying that we should transplant a piece of the 
theory to debate and forget the rest.  I am saying that we need to apply 
the theory to debate using our own rationality and intellect.  That really 
doesn't involve discarding the ideas of propensity and time frame, but 
rather considering how they fit into a debate round.

Second, the need for propensity as a practical matter of decision calculus. 
 Of course that propensity is needed as a part of the theory, but it is 
also there, to the degree that it needs to be.  Now for my roles thing.  I 
don't mean to propose this as an end-all of the thread, but rather as my 
position which, unless I lost my mail sometime, no one has really 
adequately responded to on the list except to say it is "interesting, but 
incorrect."  I apologize to someone (Korcock, I believe) who referred me to 
some articles in JAFA that I can't get a copy of, but I would appreciate 
seing the arguments on the list.  The fiat in a round doesn't come in as an 
"affirmative right" or a "negative right" but rather as a property of the 
policy-making role assumed by the judge.  The only difference between 
advocating a cp and claiming opportunity cost is that in the latter, we 
need no magic way of linking a negative ballot to a counterplan going into 
effect.  Negative does not advocate an opp cost counterplan.  The fiat 
still exists in the role to enact the counterplan if desired.  And that 
role (even if not the judge who assumed it) continues to have the power to 
enact the counterplan... or an even more beneficial option.  The only thing 
that is required in the round is for negative to show that the specific 
role of the judge would be justified in rejecting the aff plan.  The opp 
cost counterplan does this without the magic of negative advocacy.

So that is my position.  I am exercising restraint this time because I 
pissed off a lot of people with list traffic in the previous thread on this 
subject and I have a lot more to do now than then.  So if any of you out 
there have a comment that you want a response to, backchannel me or ask for 
a response and I will respond.  Otherwise, I'll hope that someone out there 
actually understands what I'm talking about, despite my underdeveloped 
communication skills...

Bye,

Chris Smith
University of Oklahoma (and hopefully OU debate)

"Love is apparently killed by time, only because it transcends time; and 
its spiritual and infinite essence cannot be contained with the limitations 
of a material and finite world."
	- Caroline Spurgeon, on Shakespeare's philosophy of love
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page