[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Net Benefits
I still find the notion of anti-cp as a very intriguing notion. it
seems, however, that it is time to re-teach some very basic counterplan
theory questions before introducing this new notion.
Net benefits analysis has been an incredibly simple concept for me ever
since i heard Cheshier explain it and read his essay on it. I don't
mean to pick on Chris Smith but it seems that there is a general
confusion over counterplan theory which involves the fusion of notions
concerning counterplans which pre-date "debating for boys (1919)" with
notions which post-date the Winter 89 JAFA issue.
Chris Smith wrote:
>
> 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
>
this one just hit one of those nerve-endings on the left side of my
neck. it seems to be a common kind of 2AC one-liner which seems
non-sequiter. On what authority would the police arrest folks for
taking legal action?
> Actually, I think it's more likely that you are confusing net benefits with
> net benefits competition. They are not the same thing either.
>
this language is incredibly confusing. it seems to me that what you
call net benefits (as opposed to net benefits competition) is simple
risk analysis. i might be wrong but it seems needless to use the net
benefits terminology outside of the question of competition. within the
question of competition, net benefits is the same CONCEPT whether in
comparing plan vs. counterplan or permutation vs. counterplan. it is
merely a question of different content of comparison within this
conceptual formula.
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page