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

Re: CFR and Negative possibilities



On Thu, 1 May 1997, Steven Donald wrote:

> 
> 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).  

However, the use of "either/or" still alows for too much affirmative 
ground.  In the example that Steve gives the affirmative can increase, 
decrease, or just tinker.  He is correct that you could only do one, but 
that misses my point that allowing for so many options hurts the 
negative.  If the topic only went one way such as rectricting donations 
then fine but if not you should see my arguments below...

> 
> 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.

Steve is correct that you have a ton of counterplan ground if the 
resolution is multidirectional and even more if the plan can do multiple 
things at once.  But what if they don't.  Team one says that donations 
should be restricted while team two says we should make donations public, 
and team three says that we should allow for more donations.  Three 
different cases and you don't ever have the same negative strategy.   
(well maybe clinton...but...)Now I like a good case debate more than 
anyone but I think a topic that gives the affirmative so many directions 
really disadvantages the negative.  There are lots of counterplans that 
they can run but only the michigan states of the world will be able to 
cover them all.

> 
> 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.
> 

You are correct but am missing my point.  I am not concerned that people 
coudl increase x and at the same time decrease y in the plan.  My concern 
is that the affirmative has too many options.  Much like the immigration 
topic in high school.  Teams could increas, decrease or just tinker the 
regulation of immigration.  A ton of cases that can't be covered.  Make 
the affirmative do one thing such as decrease the amount of allowable 
donations and this is the best topic...

> 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).

The links might be out there...but each case can take a different 
approach to the topic and take its own unique "unidirection".  That 
limits the counterplan ground for the negative unless they research both 
the affirmative and negative to every case that may exist.  Why not just 
limit it in the topic, force the affirmative to know what they are 
talking about, allow the negative a REAL chance to win, and get some REAL 
DEEP debates.

> 
> 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.
> 

I think that i have addressed this earlier...

> > 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.  
> 
I don't see the advantage the negative gets from T...every thing is 
topical...counterplans only if you are michigan state, disad 
stories...maybe...


> > 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...

But your counterplan ground is never the same...Steve misinterperates my 
argument here...I am going to stop though...I realize that i have been 
very redundant...sorry...

> Steven
> UCO
> 
Justin
ASU

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