[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: ans Upton re anticounters
Well, i've thought about this notion of anti-counterplan more for
several days now and each time it flies through my synapses it seems
more credible and useful. It seems that the anti-counterplan employs
tactics which are seemingly accepted by a large portion of the judging
community for negative counterplans in order to demonstrate emphatically
their silliness. The anti-counterplan can function to anti-CP away
non-intrinsic net benefits retaining the net benefit of the origional
affirmative position or the anti-CP can function to create disadvantages
to the negative CP eliminating the requirement of Net Benefits leaving
the affirmative plan as the net beneficial option.
i think that sean's replies are largely predictable and can be addressed
fairly easily by debaters off the top of their heads in rounds probably
creating better than i will create here. but i will jab through them
without having thought about them seriously just to see where he is at.
if i know anything from previous threads Sean will be back ! :)
Sean Upton wrote:
> Anti-counter-somethings: Long post in which I defend that there's not FIAT
> for these monsterous things, that they are infinitely regressive, and
> that they don't address the question of the debate and the ballot. Read
> on if you aren't swamped with other stuff...
> On Sun, 18 May 1997, Michael Miroslav Korcok wrote:
> > anticounterplans are unique to the plan-counterplan comparison.
> > remember that they compete with the counterplan and do not compete with
> > the plan. so, if plan action were taken the anticounterplan action
> > could also be taken but if counterplan action were taken, the
> > anticounterplan action could not be taken. the anticounterplan is a
> > UNIQUE opportunity cost of the counterplan in comparison to the plan.
> I guess that I'm not particularly clear on how the anti-cp actually goes
> about either disproving competitiveness of the counterplan to some
> particular 1AC policy option; for example:
> 1AC: USFG Expands Federal Aid to foreign country X
> 1NC: Ban all US AID
> 2AC anti-cp: Double Foreign Aid Everywhere
> The 2AC option is certainly an "exclusive" option with the 1nc
> counterplan. But to prove that doubling foreign aid everywhereis the
> best policy doesn't necessarily tackle the question of aid to foreign
> country X. It certainly could be that giving AID to all nations is good,
> but it could also be that (let's get to the specifics here) giving AID to
> country X is STILL worse off than the counterplan.
> My 2NC response: Perm Ban All US Aid to country X and Double Foreign Aid
> everywhere else.
it seems to me that the anti-cp would not work particularly well in this
situation. but also the initial cp would be silly - the net benefits
debate for your permutation requires evidence to defeat the affirmative
plan "straight up". if you have those cards, go for it in the first
if you're running the cp b/c you have some specifics but aren't deep, my
hunch is the intelligent 1AR would grant the perm to the anti-cp
shifting the debate back to the affirmative's ground and reading a ton
of cards against your net benefits claim and in favor or their claim.
if the 1AR takes the whining route that pathway seems to lead to a silly
and needless affirmative loss.
1AR responds by whining "SEVER!" 2NR responds "sorry,
> dude, but your magical plan amendment sans FIAT sort of made us... And
> secondly, you never disprove that Banning All aid is not better than what
> you are defending in the 1AC. To compare only the 1NC and the 2AC minus
> any mention of the 1AC is tantamount to a rhetorical sever, or at least a
> major change in advocacy."
> Just what exactly does the anti-cp test?
It seems that it tests the cp's net benefits. it can do this by
anti-cp'ing away non-intrinsic cp net benefits OR anti-cp'ing in disads
to the cp forcing the net benefits evaluation to slide affirmative.
If it's testing the competition
> of the counterplan _TO_ the 1AC plan (as it should), I'm EXTREMELY unclear
> on why it does that?
i think and i'm unclear about why you're unclear that your perception of
competitiveness doesn't consider ultimate net benefits questions
involved in such evaluations.
> A and B are two options: 1AC and cp. C is that anti-cp.
> C is compatible with A (It isn't competitive with the original position).
> B is Not compatible with C. (The CP and anti-cp are mutually exclusive).
> Just because C might be better than B doesn't magically make A any better
> in comparison to B.
why does the negative get to shift the comparison from SQ to B and the
affirmative can't supplement A with the test of C? If the negative gets
to magically create a test for the A, option C merely employs the same
tactic (in the words of Ken Kesey) BACKATCHA.
I may be young, but thinking back to the historical
> roots of counterplan theory, it seems that counterplans were (if
> competitive) tests of the veracity (truth-value / desirability) of the
> affirmative. Assuming that there was competition, the most desirable
> policy got the ballot (Because a competitive, beneficial counterplan
> would be a DISPROOF of the affirmative, who has the burnden of proof,
> n'est ce pas?) I don't see how the desirability of an anti-cp either: by
> some magic transitive logic, grants the benefits of C to A, or even
> speaks to the competition of the first two options. In this case it is a
> test of a test of an affirmative. Similar in regards to a perm, but not
> a perm in the sense that it tests B, throws A overboard, and trashes on B
> without even recognizing that B is not so much the question in as much as
> the RELATION BETWEEN B AND A.
> > true, anticounterplans are not disads to the counterplan because they
> > have no propensity, but then counterplans are not disads to the plan:
> > they have no propensity either. both counterplans and anticounterplans
> > are opportunity costs rather than direct costs.
it seems that it would be something along these lines (though i'm still
fleshing this out a bit)
A +/- (portions or all of B) +/- C vs B +/- (portions or all of C)
[the use of minus assumes the possibility of dispensing with the tests
as non-advocated in the round]
this seems a fairly reasonable net benefits comparison. The question is
what types of counterplans would the anti-cp option eliminate that are
particularly wonderful for policy discussions. it seems so far that
only negative "gimmick" counterplans are eliminated.
> Perhaps my view of competition theory differs. It certainly seems that
> the only justification for 1NC fiat is to test the affirmative's claims
> of "good policy." The material acceptance of competition as a construct
> that determines whether or not this is actually being tested has paved
> the road for practicing the counterplan as an "actual" policy option,
> only if it directly makes invalid the claims of the 1NC. It certainly
> seems that in terms of "opportunity cost," the anti-cp would only be useful
> if it spoke of the valor of the 1AC policy in regards to the counterplan,
> or somehow invalidated the competitiveness that is found BTEWEEN the
> first two presented in-round policies.
the notion of fiat is (or probably should be considered) equivalent for
both cp and anti-cp.
> > for example:
> > plan: the USFG increases enforcement of the Clean Air Act.
> > counterplan: the USFG dissolves itself now.
> > disad: the USFG will soon nuke N. Korea.
> > competition: mutually exclusive because of existence of the USFG and
> > the disad is a net benefit to the counterplan.
> > the aff can "turn" the counterplan by running disads to it, but the USFG
> > isn't planning to do anything good and, well, it sucks.
but the requirement of uniqueness and propensity evidence for the
affirmative disad to the cp seems an unrealistic burden since the
negative has been able to "create" a world which alters existing factual
considerations concerning factual matters ... if the negative is allowed
these toys the affirmative should be able to play in the same sandbox.
the negative does not HAVE to counterplan. but if they choose that
toybox it seems that the affirmative should be able to create
sandcastles of their own.
> > anticounterplan: the USFG will not nuke N. Korea and will send food aid
> > to Mayanmar.
> > competition with the counterplan: mutually exclusive because of
> > existence of the USFG and the disad is gone and 1AC advantages.
> > non-competition with the plan: plan and anti-counterplan coexist nicely.
> > in the example, the anticounterplan presents a "unique" opportunity cost
> > of the counterplan in comparison to the plan.
> Uh, back in my high school days, I remember this being called
> "non-intrinsicness." I haven't seen that specter raised since then, but
> it certainly seems to be the same thing, but perhaps with a different
> ontological justification: to test the counterplan.
the negative uses non-intrinsicness ALL THE TIME. They say the
affirmative net benefits over the SQ aren't intrinsic ... Counterplan
tinker with Lopez and states act and blah blah blah and then they're off
to the races. the limit is that the redundancy competition test
associated with non-intrinsic has seemed to fade and net benefits are
expected. this seems, as i understand it so far, one of the major
differences between "intrinsicness perms" and anti-cp's. a net benefits
test is the constraint.
But honestly, I
> don't see how any advantages achieved above and beyond the 1AC plan's
> effects can be used to reject a test of that 1AC option. And I'm still
> wondering how if the test doesn't address that, why it gets FIAT as a
> construct anyways...
well, presumably if the negative kicks the counterplan - the anti-cp as
a counter-test would no longer be relevant and the affirmative would
still be forced to justify their case vs. the status quo.
> Hypothetical Example:
> Plan: Sean Uses His E-Mail
> CP: Ban The NDT-L E-Mail - Net benefits: Sean's mail is bad and nasty...
> Anti-cp: Prof. Korcok uses his e-mail on the NDT-L
> The anti-counterplan allows for me to still use my mail, and it is a
> proposal which might just be mutually exclusive with the counterplan, and
> perhaps even more beneficial than the counterplan, but Sean's e-mail is
> still horrible and in comparison to the counterplan. Korcok's mail being
> good or exclusive doesn't really help out Sean, who's doomed to make the
> NDT-L inhospitible... :)
i thought that example clearly showed the precise reason why this is a
good test. it forces the neg to cplan with ban sean from the L or if
they run the more general cp be prepared to debate the anti-cp. with
the more specific negative cp, the anti-cp fails miserably the Korcok
mail would obviously be permuted. maybe i missed something there.
> ...In other words, it seems that we are lacking any reason to accept the
> anti-cp as a reason to reject the (counterplan in respect to the
> affirmative) even though there may be a reason (if you put duct tape over
> your 1AC flow) to reject the counterplan alone.
simple net benefits analysis. the affirmative advantage is still
there. if the negative has turned it or something similar, they win the
debate without all the cp goo. maybe i'm missing something here as
> > 2) the credibility of the comparison between 1AC and 1NC
> > the 1NC says don't vote aff because the opportunity cost of doing so is
> > the value of counterplan action. the 2AC says don't reject plan
> > adoption because of the counterplan: the opportunity costs of
> > counterplan action are huge -- you'd have to forego the anticounterplan
> > which would not have to be foregone if plan action were taken.
> OK, so I forego the anticounterplan. It doesn't make the 1AC any better
> in comparison to my 1NC counterplan position.
but when you shift from the SQ to B why should affirmative be limited to
A in the net benefits comparison. it seems a cake and eat it too kind
of thinking as well as the mixed metaphors of toybox and sandbox up
If it was true that if
> anytime you did the cp, it traded off with the anti-cp, it would be a
> (surprise) turn and/or disad. Otherwise it is a PLAN Amendment, which is
> going to take a lot of explaining as to why that's OK...
no more of a plan amendment than the CP is a SQ amendment. surprise???
i don't get that one either....
> > plan: eat the apple.
> > counterplan: eat the ice cream cone.
> > competition: both causes tummy ache and the ice cream cone is better.
> > anticounterplan: Sean eats the ice cream cone.
> > competition with the counterplan: one ice cream cone only so gotta
> > choose if you or Sean eats it.
> > non-competition with the plan: you can eat the apple while Sean eats the
> > ice cream cone.
this seems to demonstrate the artificial nature of the original negative
position. but if you win the net benefit of ice cream cone better
specific to sean you'd win the debate it seems to me despite the
> If you could change your plan or add a few things here and there whenever
> you felt like it, you certainly could make the overall "affirmative"
> landscape look prettier than the counterplan.
well the affirmative creates a case in comparison to the SQ and the
negative counterplans always create a landscape prettier than the SQ.
this is more of the don't play in my toybox - it's mine!! it's mine !!
it's mine !! thinking.
I doubt that this provides
> a reason to reject the counterplan as presented as an option ONLY in
> comparison t the 1AC plan.
why is this the only level of comparison. the CP changes the playing
field why can't the affirmative do so as well?
TO say that because this provides a way of
> making a better policy as a justification for it's FIAT is to refer to
> itself as a source of justification. Purely circular logic.
the justification for fiat is the same as the justification for the cp
fiat. not circular logic but reciprocical logic.
> > 3) the ontological justification for anticounterplan fiat
> > fiat is just the assumption that posited action occurs. the
> > anticounterplan is posited action.
> Uh, so does that mean that I if I can imaagine for a moment that it could
> be done, than it gets FIAT? Or even better, what about the new 2NR
> counterplan that Utah's writing for the civil rights topic that we expect
> to pull out in break rounds against teams running anti-counterplans? Or
> how 'bout this: 2NC goes one up on the 2AC and has their own new
> anti-anti-counterplan? Why not? It tests the test of the test of the
> test; but it falls short of referring back to that original comparison
> that we like to call the competitiveness debate. (Hint: infinte
the notion of argumentation is theoretically infinitely regressive. i
rarely see debaters who are able to think infinitely. infinity is quite
a long ways off you know. the community seems to set limits on these
notions concerning lines between constructives and rebuttals just as
with notions of new arguments. in addition, the anti-counterplan is a
reaction to negative net benefit claims. if the negative makes new net
benefits in rebuttal they would presumably not be accepted b/c of new
arguments considerations. but if the community chose to begin accepting
new net benefits in rebuttals then it seems that anti-cps would be
reasonable at addressing them.
i find rebuttals to become less and less infinitely regressive and more
and more repetitive so i'm not certain this is a danger with significant
> > an anticounterplan has no "unique" fiat problems in comparison to a
> > counterplan. anticounterplans do not treat "fiat" any differently than
> > permutations do.
> Uh, I think that this doesn't answer the concern. Perhaps it's more of a
> normative concern than an ontological one (though a bit of both): what
> gives the anti-counterplan a "right" to exist?
the same as what gives a cp the "right" to exist.
Or more precisely, a
> "right" to be evaluated?
the same as what gives a cp and its net benefits a "right" to be
Remember the negative doesn't HAVE TO COUNTERPLAN. Absent a negative
counterplan, the anti-counterplan option is not possible. Many of your
concerns are of the self-inflicted wound sort brought about by running a
rather silly cp in the first place.
Perhaps if it tested the relation of the first
> two options in a vaccum without looking to non-sequiturs first it would
> have a raison d'etre, but I don't see extra advantages accrued from one
> comparison translating into benefits for a plan that doesn't cause them;
> call me crazy...
you seem to forget once again, that the negative in cp'ing jumps out of
the original negative ground (sandbox) and jumps into another of their
own creation. the affirmative is initially constrained by the reality
of a comparison with the status quo. the negative is the one which
creates the vacuum that is potentially divorced from reality in the
introduction of the cp with net benefits that aren't necessarily
connected to the affirmative plan. from this position of a fictional
reality and no requirement of connections it is the negative that is
living in the vacuum. the anti-cp is a reciprocal measure which either
forces the focus back to the affirmative plan or provides an equitable
well sam cooke just finished with the day is going to come. and he died
after singing that so i think i'll send this and hide out for awhile.
> > lastly, an "offensive" argument here. counterplan fiat is a notoriously
> > ugly issue. rather than "whining" about whether a negative takes too
> > much or inappropriate fiat for their counterplan, anticounterplans allow
> > the affirmative to return the abuse. what's a negative going to say,
> > "we get utopian fiat to test the plan but you don't get utopian fiat to
> > test the counterplan?"
> Uh, utopian FIAT is sort of uncommon in my realm of debate experience. I
> mean, I think that the affirmative needs to make concrete arguments why
> utopian FIAT is abusive and why the things FIATed under that sort of FIAT
> are not usually competitive. I think that perhaps there are differences
> between the traditionally CEDA and NDT communities about these issues. On
> the "NDT" side of the fence, I haven't had the chance to hear a "utopian"
> counterplan outside of CEU's anarchy position at a traditionally "CEDA"
> tournament. I'm guessing from your concerns that perhaps it's more common
> of the "CEDA" side of the fence. I think I saw these differences Judging
> the Final Round of a very competitive high school tournament. I sat on
> the bottom of a 3-2 decision in which the debate was a discussion about
> the wonderous virtues of world government and the net benefits were
> "philisophyically competitive." These arguments are usually Jive in light
> of decent permuation arguments or "how the fuck do you FIAT that?"
> arguments (I speak from my background). I voted Affirmative on these
> arguments, with three debaters with a CEDA or High School only background
> voting Negative on Philisophical competition. I guess that perhaps you
> could chalk it up to community differences - I didn't see a perm argument
> as a "whine" -- i don't know. But it seems that to seek a solution to
> this by piling on more "let's fiat one more thing" arguments until we are
> neck deep in policies doesn't seem to be the right (or for that matter
> justified) solution.
> > 4) Ivory Tower
> > well. the "concrete experiential nature of content of comparative
> > debate" is what you make it or make of it. probably not much.
> Sure, but nonetheless, contrary to popular opinion (in light of Utah's
> objectivity negative goo), I'm interested in spending most of my
> constructives talking about the debate topic in content, rather than mere
> form. Theory goo is useful, up to a certain extent; it should inform our
> debates, because it is central to the way we participate in the activity
> of "policy debate." However, there is a risk of creating a hegemony of
> theory over content, just as there is a risk of privileging theory over
> practice (with over-emphasis on theory being also just as threatening as
> the rigidity of uncompromising rules, such as ADA rules). I believe that
> we can address counterplans without the notion of anti-counterplans,
> counter-permuations and other miscellaneous devices that seem to only
> swamp us in a mire of ambiguity and confusion.
> > thank you for reading,
> > michael korcok
> Now on to my academic pursuits at 1:45 AM,
> Sean Upton
> Utah Debate
> "I cannot do otherwise than to find myself before words; we cannot get
> rid of them, they are there...So there is nothing to be done, except to
> shake them like apple trees, all the time"
> - Helene Cixous, "Extreme Fidelity"
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page