Re: Bahm and perm solvency

[Gregory Alan Achten <achten@ksu.ksu.edu>]

Greg Achten

On Fri, 17 May 1996, Josh wrote:

>   I rarely disagree with Ken but never say never.  Most space counterplans
> base the competition not around the case as much as around tangentially
> related issues like sovereignty e.g. the case upholds sovereignty which has the
> effect of stopping the move to space.  The solvency evidence will say
> destroying sovereignty allows good space (which encompasses the theoretical
> construct of the case and the action of the counterplan).  It is certainly
> possible to read cards that say sovereignty is key to good space while
> advocating the perm do the plan and move to space.... This would allow the
> net benefits debate to occur at the level of the best solvency evidence.
>   Another example.  We run disarm on the Mexico topic UMKC runs anarchy.
> States get to space - space is bad.  The net benefit revolves around the
> construct of the actor in the resolution (the United States) and its
> relation to space which means at a theoretical level the counterplan solvency
> states stop anarchy and space encompasses the whole plan.  As the affirmative
> it is certainly possible to defeat the counterplan by questioning the solvency
> evidence of the counterplan with counter-evidence that argues 1) bigger state
> = revs for anarchy 2) state destroys space exploration.  Although this is not
> a perm it shows that it is possible to turn the solvency debate on systemic
> counterplans.
>   This is also a strange example.  Most of the time you are very unlikely to
> perm such counterplans because they are, for the most part theoretically
> mutually exclusive.  Most debates will occur at the level of the turns not the
> permutations.
>   A last example.  We run disarm one of the advantages is accidents (both in
> the silos and accidental launch).  Someone runs a systemic counterplan (abolish
> the state that exists now).  We would permute abolish the state and allow the
> military experts to dismantle the weapons in the status quo.  We would read
> evidence for the solvency of the perm - that disarm is dangerous and only
> experts can stop accidents in disposal.  It is a perm because it combines the
> disarm mechanism of the plan with the rest of the counterplan.  The net
> benefit to the perm is preventing accidents in disposal (e.g. explosion of
> a nuclar device).  It has solvency evidence for the net benefit but not for
> anarchy - meaning that it potentially does not solve for the counterplan
> advantage and therefore has a solvency deficit.  It is certainly possible
> to weigh the solvency for the plan/counterplan vs the benefits of the
> counterplan alone (case impact - counterplan impact).  Does this answer your
> question? Josh
>  
> Joshua B. Hoe
> Asst. Dir. Forensics
> Arizona State University
> e-mail:IFJXH@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
> (602) 965-5578
>

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Bulls, Bulls, Bulls
• Next by Date: Re: for constructivist solvency
• Prev by thread: Wilt's 20,000 "points"
• Next by thread: Re: THE MAGIC IN 6
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page