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

RE: Neg Fiat

OOPS, SENT BEFORE RESPONDING....... PLEASE EXCUSE!!!

At 09:14 PM 5/20/97 -0500, Isaac N West wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>
In regards to the reason that negative should get fiat since the affirmative
does, Chris says that we are in debate to evaluate the desirability of the
affirmative plan and not the world that is created by the counterplan.  Not
really.  Debate is about solving problems even if it is just hypothetically.
The aff talks about a problem and the neg either tries to solve the problem
better with a net benefit or counterplans to avoid a trade-off/disad created
by the plan. 
>>>>>>>>>>

Somewhat, but not exactly. In a plan focus debate, we are ultimately only
deciding if the plan is good enough to warrant the ballot. The counterplan
is simply a way of saying that IF something exists which is better than the
plan, and IF that something would have to be foregone in order to vote for
the plan, then the plan would NOT warrant the ballot. The c/plan only tests
the opp cost of the plan. You do not vote FOR the c/plan, you use it as an
evaluative means to reject the plan.

>>>>>>>>>>
We are involved in a policy-making activity where we try to find the best
plan. Why should the negative be forced to just debate to aff policy if
there are better options.  In any forum, one would chose the best policy.
>>>>>>>>>>

Hmmmm, coming over to the plan/plan side of the force Luke????? This is what
you would claim if you were defending P2, not plan focus.

>>>>>>>>>>
Most of those people I think fail to understand the cp completely.  
>>>>>>>>>>

I think that you are more correct than you may realize.

>>>>>>>>>>
On the other hand, plan-plan has failed miserably.  I am unsure if you even
understand the theoretical bankruptcy of its underpinnings.  
>>>>>>>>>>

This is funny as heck considering how you make the case for plan/plan above.
You say, and I quote:

"We are involved in a policy-making activity where we try to find the best
plan. Why should the negative be forced to just debate to aff policy if
there are better options.  In any forum, one would chose the best policy."

This is what P2 does, it asks the judge to vote for the best policy, the one
advocated by the aff or the one advocated by the neg (remember, neither team
advocated both).

>>>>>>>>>>
Look, I do not know what your argument is. 
>>>>>>>>>>

His argument is that since traditional c/plans are simply tests of the
opprtunity cost of the plan, they do not need to be "fiated". The only time
negative would have to have fiat is if they were advocated ass in a
plan/plan debate.

Wait til I tell Sue that Issac is a closet P2 lover.


Peace,

Bob Lechtreck
Bakersfield College
PUTTING OUT FIRES, AND DAMN GOOD DEBATERS
db8coach@lightspeed.net
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page