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

RE: anti-counterplan issues

> What!!!! Give me an example of a Net Beneficial counterplan that is not
> superior to the plan.  In my view such an example cannot exist as matter 
of
> definition.

Sorry, no one can give an example of a net beneficial counterplan that is 
not superior to plan.  That is, of course an oxymoron.

On the other hand, it is entirely possible to have a net beneficially 
competitive counterplan that is not superior to plan.  A counterplan is net 
beneficially competitive when the counterplan is superior to the perm. 
 This can happen even when plan is better than counterplan.  Example:

Plan: arrest anyone who uses coal
Counterplan: remove any legal sanctions against use of coal
Perm: remove legal sanctions, but have police keep arresting people anyway

Assume aff wins the on-case debate on benefits of arresting anyone using 
coal over removing sanctions, and neg wins that arresting people who 
haven't violated the law violates a D-Rule and should be rejected at face 
value.

Now the counterplan is net beneficially competitive because counterplan is 
better than perm (obviously).  However, neg has lost the debate over the 
general net benefits of the counterplan.  Therefore, we vote aff because 
aff plan is superior.  (Obviously, this is only true if aff doesn't 
advocate the perm)

> As to whether you are advocating intrinsicness arguments clearly you are. 
> An intrinsiness argument is an idea not included in the plan or 
counterplan
> that tests the value of the plan or counterplan.  Seems to me this is
> EXACTLY what you are saying.  Who cares if the anticounterplan is
> competitive or not.  Maybe it is written on blue paper that doesn't 
change
> the fact that it ain't the plan or any portion of the counterplan and 
thus
> proves something entirely irrelevant.

I would disagree that anything which tests value of plan or cp by something 
not in plan or cp is an intrinsicness argument.  An intrinsicness argument 
simply says "benefits aren't intrinsic to the action advocated because they 
could also be gained by..."  This is far from an anti-counter.  The 
anti-counter doesn't have to claim the same advantages as the aff plan, and 
probably shouldn't.  Instead, it shows an opportunity cost of the 
counterplan which REMAINS AN OPPORTUNITY, not necessarily happens, under 
the affirmative plan.  The difference is night and day.

Next you criticize the standard of competition.  The competition (and 
non-competition) standards for the anti-counter are clearly needed to prove 
an opportunity cost of the counterplan.  I don't see a warrant for ignoring 
competition and looking at the anti-counter as some completely new 
advocacy.  You may as well disregard the counterplan because it isn't the 
plan, so it proves something entirely irrelevant.  After all, under aff 
plan focus we only debate the merits of the plan and whether it warrants 
the ballot.

> The seperation between competition and preference is meaningless.
> Competition asks the question:  Does the counterplan provide a reason to
> reject the plan.  If the counterplan is NOT superior to the plan then it
> doesn't.  Period. Comparing the counterplan to entirely seperate ideas 
only
> proves that the plan finishes third and some idea not originally proposed
> by the affirmative wins.

Competition doesn't ask if the counterplan provides a reason to reject the 
plan, but whether adoption of the counterplan warrants rejection of the 
plan.  At this point, rejection of plan is still contingent upon whether we 
actually adopt the counterplan.  That last question is answered by net 
benefits (plan vs. cp), which is *not* to be confused with net benefits 
competition (perm vs. cp).  They are two entirely different concepts.

You also prove here that you have no concept of the justification for the 
anti-counter.  The anti-counter doesn't *just* prove that plan comes in 
third.  It also proves (by definition) that some option that we should 
definitely adopt is competitive with the cp but not the plan.  Therefore, 
adopting the cp does definite unique harm over adoption of the plan.  This 
disproves the counterplan's claim to net benefits (plan vs. cp), and 
therefore the counterplan doesn't warrant rejection of plan.

> As for intervention - what are you talking about????   If someone came up
> with a single warranted argument for your theory I would gladly vote for
> it.  So far I can't even distinguish a warrant which points in your
> direction.

I wish I could say something besides just try harder.  There have been a 
couple posts (this one included) in which the complete justification for 
the anti-counter has been articulated.  If you don't understand something 
about any of them, please ask.

> BTW - you are confusing competition with mutual exclusivity - they are 
not
> the same thing.

Actually, I think it's more likely that you are confusing net benefits with 
net benefits competition.  They are not the same thing either.

Chris Smith
Woodland Park HS Debate

"Love is apparently killed by time, only because it transcends time; and 
its spiritual and infinite essence cannot be contained with the limitations 
of a material and finite world."
	- Caroline Spurgeon, on Shakespeare's philosophy of love

-----Original Message-----
From:	parcherj [SMTP:parcherj@mci2000.com]
Sent:	Thursday, May 22, 1997 12:28 PM
To:	Issues concerning CEDA Debate
Subject:	Re: anti-counterplan issues

> just because a counterplan is "net beneficially competitive" does NOT
> mean that it is BETTER THAN a plan.

What!!!! Give me an example of a Net Beneficial counterplan that is not
superior to the plan.  In my view such an example cannot exist as matter of
definition.

As to whether you are advocating intrinsicness arguments clearly you are.
An intrinsiness argument is an idea not included in the plan or counterplan
that tests the value of the plan or counterplan.  Seems to me this is
EXACTLY what you are saying.  Who cares if the anticounterplan is
competitive or not.  Maybe it is written on blue paper that doesn't change
the fact that it ain't the plan or any portion of the counterplan and thus
proves something entirely irrelevant.

The seperation between competition and preference is meaningless.
Competition asks the question:  Does the counterplan provide a reason to
reject the plan.  If the counterplan is NOT superior to the plan then it
doesn't.  Period. Comparing the counterplan to entirely seperate ideas only
proves that the plan finishes third and some idea not originally proposed
by the affirmative wins.

As for intervention - what are you talking about????   If someone came up
with a single warranted argument for your theory I would gladly vote for
it.  So far I can't even distinguish a warrant which points in your
direction.

Creativity is wonderful but bad arguments are bad arguments.

BTW - you are confusing competition with mutual exclusivity - they are not
the same thing.

JP


----------
> From: Michael Korcok <mk48@CORNELL.EDU>
> To: Multiple recipients of list NDT-L <NDT-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
> Subject: anti-counterplan issues
> Date: Thursday, May 22, 1997 1:49 PM
>
> 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.
>
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
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page