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

CFR and Negative possibilities


Justin Skizzarb wrote:
> first, why should the negative be required to do that?  why shouldn't the 
> negative be able to know that no matter what the affirmative is going to 
> have to decrease or increase something but not either, or, or both.  that 
> is my only dislike about the topic...it allows for too much 
> multidirectionality for the affirmative.   i am all for getting deep on 
> arguments and researching for three months before the season...but if 
> there are too many case possibilities...then the negative can't be 
> properly prepared.
> 
Understandable concerns, but easily compensated for.  First, there is the 
framing of the resolution.  We could offer all areas of reform and 
provide limits by inserting "either or" into it, such as "res:the usfg 
should implement a comprehensive reform of campaign financing through one 
and only one of the following:restricting donations, increasing allowances 
for donations; disclosure of donations, etc.  This way, the affirmative 
plan can only go one way, and the negative just has to get ready for each 
of them....no problem. (note, this isn't my ideal resolution, it's off 
the top of my head...the point to to show that cfr isn't INHERENTLY 
unlimiting).  

Second, if aff's are allowed combinations, it just makes your 
exclusionary c/p ground that much easier.  For example, if they raise 
allowances for individual donors and decrease corporate allowances, then 
you can exclude one and claim an unpermutable net benefit.  Also, the 
more they do, the more disad links you have.

Third, why is it unpredictable?  Even if they can do more than one thing, 
each direction must be upon a different area.....its like saying if the 
affirmative ran two planks in their plan that are non-contradictory that 
would be abusive.  Example:  No affirmative will be able to raise the 
limits one way for corporations, then lower them the same way.  The case 
would have to raise for corps, lower for pacs, and raise for individuals, 
at the most.  Let's face it--no topic is immune to this phenomenon, since 
one could ban california's prop 209, but also reinstate a ban on aff 
action in another state, then claim each area has unique reasons why 
affirmative action is good or bad.

Fourth, plan advocates must exist, and trust me, no one will write a 
coherent case that combines tens of different directions in tens of 
different areas, because it wouldn't make sense.  CFR, as discussed in 
the literature, basically shunts reform into two different categories, 
even though the money amount differs. They can be thought of as "pro 
business," and a case would raise corporate spending and lower PAC or 
individual contributions, and "anti-business," lowering corporate limits 
and raising the PAC's and individual---many in the literature say 
tradeoffs exist either way, both politically and financially.  The point is 
each plan will still tailor it's mandates to go a certain unidirection, so 
you will always have links, depending on whether it's pro-corporate or not.
(Disclosure is the wildcard, facilitating both of the camps agendas).

Fifth, there are still more limits to this topic, more avenues for the 
negative.  Remember the points I made earlier about counterplan ground 
and topicality freedom, which don't exist on the other leading topics.

> second, Steve and others have used the argument that there are many 
> possibilites for the affirmative as a reason to vote for the topic.  
> however, they also say that the topic would make it harder for the 
> affirmative to win.  i just don't understand how these two arguments can 
> coexisit.  if there are many cases to choose from...the negative has to 
> be able to debate all avenues...thats hard as this years topic 
> illustrates.  
> 
The apparent contradiction only exists to show that if we desire, 
through the framing of the resolution, we can hurt or help affirmatives.  
Also, even with a topic allowing so called "multidirectionality," the 
five reasons above demonstrate why the negative is in no way 
disadvantaged, and gets special benefits from T, c/ps, and excellent 
political disad stories, as well as a clean economy debate.  

> finally, i 
think that all of the other avenues should be negative 
> counterplan ground.  if the affirmative is limited to one core direction 
> the negative has all of the ground going the other direction.  but if the 
> affirmative can choose from all directions the negative has no core 
> counterplan or case turn ground that they can fall back on.

You may be right, but see above.  Even if the aff does more than one, 
you could could always do less than two, and your counterplan still exists.  
Plus, resolutions can be limited to suit your needs.

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