[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
for <CEDA-L@cornell.edu>; Fri, 13 Jun 1997 04:16:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by email.ir.miami.edu id AA04032
(5.65c+/IDA-1.4.4 for CEDA-L@cornell.edu); Fri, 13 Jun 1997 04:16:41 -0400
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 1997 04:16:39 -0400 (EDT)
X-PH: V4.firstname.lastname@example.org (Cornell Modified)
From: "Larry J. Wulkan" <Larry.J.Wulkan@students.Miami.EDU>
Subject: Re: Ans. Paul
To: Paul G Xenakis <email@example.com>
Cc: Larry.J.Wulkan@students.Miami.EDU, CEDA-L@cornell.edu
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
On Thu, 12 Jun 1997, Paul G Xenakis wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 1997 14:00:23 -0400 (EDT) "Larry J. Wulkan"
> <Larry.J.Wulkan@students.Miami.EDU> writes:
> >Paul- if there is a forced choice between a counterplan and the plan
> >the counterplan solves for more harms than the plan does, in this case
> >all of the actions that make the net ben. unique, is there a reason to
> >reject the plan if there is not unique action that it takes that
> >causes a
> I certainly think so. I f there is a forced choice, why should you pick
> the option that is less beneficial? Why do you only reject a policy if
> it causes a harm? There is some harm in the fact that you pass up a
> better policy if you vote aff. the reason to reject the plan is because
> it isn't the best policy and there is a forced choice. Does this
> paradigm that you propose assume that if I prove any harm to the aff then
> i win. I hope not. Would a c/p then be legit if I ran turns that
> applied to plan and c/p, but the c/p was less bad. The action causes a
> harm so can it then be rejected?
Normally I would agree with you. But in the case of the artificially
competive counterplan, the forced choice only exist because the negative
has chosen to ban the affirmative. What the heck is the forced choice
between providing aid to the homeless and dis-arming? Nada. Just
because I can think of a million different programs to fund instead of
your plan does not mean squat unless you have some cards thats say that
the alternative program is being funded now and the affirmative trades
off with such funding. Then there might be a legit claim for funding the
alternative. if not, the topic becomes meaningless because all that
would happen is that negatives would steal affirmative funding and fund
something else with a bigger impact. This is in the 1st post that I give
absurd examples to illustrate my point.
> > Just because a counterplan is better than the plan is not a
> >to reject the plan..
> Why not?? Sounds logical to me. So how does a c/p win a round??
Because there is no forced choice between the 2 unless the negative bans
> >if this was the case I would run use all the the
> >affirmative funding for dis-arm efforts. You would have to debate
> >every round, or for that matter any program that I chose to cut.
> I don't understand why this is competetive. Why couldn't I allocate
> funding to one program then reallocate it to another area like dis-arm.
> This still doesn't argue why *exclusive* c/p's are bad or why you
> shouldn't evaluate a c/p debate by determining which is the most
> beneficial policy.
Seems like one an intrinsic perm, which is not good.(I don't want to get
into that discussion) and two, why do I need the perm to win the
counterplan is not competive, I do not believe the only way to win a
competition argument is to win a perm.
> > I
> >really don't understand what you were arguing about the counterplan
> >can "turn the link to the Disad."
> You know, I'm not real sure what this is either. The point of the post
> was to prove that uniqueness c/p's don't just magically make a disad
> unique. It may have the same effect, but because it is no different than
> any other c/p argumentation, there is no reason to reject it as abusive.
> > but I do know that these
> >allow me to create link to many interesting positions that can become
> >infinitely regresive. Like print the affirmative on red paper instead
> >white because red paper is cheaper. Larry
> The ground for negative counterplans may be made huge, but these
> arguments aren't unbeatable. No one is claiming that a c/p should win
> because it is "artificial" but rather because it is net beneficial and
> competetive. A neg must still meet other burdens. You assume that if
> artificial c/p's are acceptable then all of them are sure to win every
> round that they are run in. That simply isn't the case. You are using
> bad examples of c/p's to prove why good c/p's are abusive. Your above
> c/p could be run but wouldn't necessarily win. Is that absive?? If a
> plan doesn't specify what paper the plan is printed on then why is an
> ammendment competitive. Was the original constitution mutually exclusive
> with the current one. Of course not, even though the first one didn't
> give the right to women to vote and ours does. unless a plan plank
> specifies color paper, such a c/p would merely be an "ammendment" and
> cokpletely non-competetive.
I think you prove my point here. "The ground for negative counterplans
may be made huge." That is the destroy the topic argument I have been
making the entire time. Of course they are not unbeatable, but who the
hell wants to research everything in the world BUT the topic. That is
bad debate. The potential to define normal means as printing on white
paper would not be difficult. Hence counterplan- print the plan on red
paper because it is more pleasing. Whatever. I have heard a lot of
reasons why my arguments against artificially competitive counterplans are
bad, but not one argument of why the artificially competive counterplan
is good for debate. So my mind is not changed.
Respect to all involved. Larry
> Paul Xenakis
> Kempsville High School
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page