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

anti-counterplan issues

howdy.  three comments.

first, they aren't permutations of any sort.

a permutation tests the "link" between the plan and parts of a
counterplan.  if part or all of a counterplan doesn't "compete" with a
plan, then it is simply non-sequiter in assessing whether or not a plan
ought to be adopted.  permutations need to be whole plan plus one or
more parts of a counterplan.  neither "partial-plan permutations" nor
"intrinsicness permutations" test the competitiveness of part or all of
a counterplan and are thus pointless.

but just because a counterplan "competes" with a plan doesn't mean that
the plan is not adopted.  lots of counterplans "compete" with a given
plan: many of these are insufficient reasons to reject plan adoption. 
given that a part or all of a counterplan competes with a plan, there is
still an outstanding question: which is better?

this subsequent question gets forgotten again and again for 2 reasons: 
the first is the effect of successful permutations and the second is the
label "net beneficial".

a successful permutation establishes BOTH that part of the counterplan
is not competitive AND that the plan is better than the competitive
portion of the counterplan.  there remain 2 distinct questions
nonetheless: competition and preference.  a counterplan can compete but
not be preferable AND a counterplan can not compete and be preferable
AND a counterplan can compete and be preferable AND a counterplan can
not compete and not be preferable.

just because a counterplan is "net beneficially competitive" does NOT
mean that it is BETTER THAN a plan.  it only means that the counterplan
is better than the plan plus one or more parts of the counterplan.  a
counterplan can be the worst idea ever but be "net beneficially
competitive" with a plan.  that's because the multiple nuclear
extravaganzas caused by the counterplan are irrelevant to the question
of "competition" between the plan and the counterplan.

an anticounterplan is a device which addresses whether the plan or the
counterplan is better.  it does not address competition.  that is why
anticounterplans are not intrinsicness permutations or any other form of
permutation or any sort of test of competition.

second, they aren't intrinsicness tests of any sort

intrinsicness tests of plans or counterplans have a sordid history and
their bad reputation is generally well-deserved.  the introduction of
"well we could also do x" to get rid of disad links, advantages, and
counterplan competition without constraint is generally without
foundation.  attempting to ascertain what is or is not an "intrinsic"
feature or consequence of an action is likely hopeless and very likely a
foundational mistake about the nature of causality.

anticounterplans don't "test counterplan intrinsicness" whatever that
is.  a competitive counterplan addresses the question of whether to
adopt the plan because it presents a potential opportunity cost of plan
action.  the subsequent question to ask is "is the counterplan better
than the plan?":  if it is, then the plan ought not to be adopted and if
it is not, then the opportunity cost represented by the competitive
counterplan is less than the benefits of plan adoption.  but,
counterplans ALSO have opportunity costs attached to them - actions
which could be undertaken absent counterplan action but which would have
to be foregone if counterplan action is taken.  some of those potential
opportunity costs will be UNIQUE to the comparison with plan action. 
anticounterplans are those potentially uniques opportunity costs of
counterplan in comparison to the plan.  "intrinsicness" has NOTHING to
do with it.  nada. zilch.

i think that there is some confusion here because anticounterplans
introduce into a debate action which is neither part of the plan nor
part of the counterplan.  and that and only that is responsible for the
"intrinsicness" similarity:  after all, "intrinsicness permutations"
introduce action which is neither part of the plan nor the counterplan.
there the similarity ends.

anticounterplans aren't intrinsicness tests because they must COMPETE
with the counterplan and NOT COMPETE with the plan.  another way to
understand this is that the difference between anticounterplans and
intrinsicness tests of the counterplan is the SAME DIFFERENCE as the
difference between counterplans and intrinsicness tests of the plan.

third, minimize intervention.

it marks you as silly.  you don't have the Truth, the pedagogical value
of debate largely resides in debaters examining and creating knowledge
and understanding in the interaction between themselves, and it is a
less destructive power trip to just go kick a puppy.

thanks for reading,
michael korcok
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page