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

ans Parcher

Parcher doesn't understand counterplans but has no difficulty announcing
that he will intervene against anticounterplans.  as near as i can
figure, that is because he doesn't understand them either.

there are object lessons here for all of us about the connection between
Posing and Truth.

in order:

1) Parcher doesn't understand counterplans

"
> 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.
"

well, no, this is wrong and silly.  i mentioned that there are two
reasons folks make this mistake, getting fooled by permutations and the
label "net beneficially competitive."  not sure why Parcher doesn't get
it.  

i'll give you four of them with not a whiff of mutual exclusivity:

a) the apple and the orange

plan: Jeff Parcher eats this apple.
counterplan: Jeff Parcher eats this orange.

counterplan is net benefits competitive: if Jeff Parcher eats BOTH the
apple and the orange, he will get a big embarrassing tummyache.

even though it may well be the case that eating BOTH is WORSE than just
doing the counterplan of eating the orange, it may quite easily be the
case that the plan of eating the apple is better than the counterplan.

b) the feds and the states

plan: the USFG will increase enforcement of the CAA.
counterplan: the 50 states will increase enforcement of the CAA.

the plan links to a federal spending disad which results in one (1)
nuclear war (plan bad).  the counterplan is turned by a federalism bad
disad which results in two (2) nuclear wars (counterplan very bad).

counterplan is net beneficially competitive because plan + counterplan
equals three (3) nuclear wars while counterplan by itself results in
only two (2) nuclear wars.  but, unshockingly and entirely unremarkably,
the plan is better than the counterplan.

c) the states and the feds (another version)

plan: the USFG will increase enforcement of the CAA.
counterplan: the 50 states will increase enforcement of the CAA.

counterplan is net beneficially competitive because having BOTH the feds
and the states increasing enforcement of the CAA will mean closer
cooperation between Clinton and the governors which means he will ignore
Congress and nuke North Korea.  that's bad.  very bad.

of course, again, the plan is better than the counterplan.

d) a Georgetown favorite - the delegation counterplan

plan: Congress will authorize and the EPA will outlaw workplace smoking.
counterplan: the Congress will outlaw workplace smoking without
delegation to the EPA.

the negative wins their delegation is bad disad but with only shreds of
uniqueness from some random Schoenbrod card. no big impact but the
counterplan gets all affirmative advantages.  the affirmative wins a
disad to the counterplan with huge impacts.

the counterplan is net beneficially competitive with the plan:  the
counterplan is better than the plan plus the counterplan (big disad and
case advantages versus tiny delegation bad disad and big disad and case
advantages).  but VOILA! the plan is better than the counterplan (tiny
delegation bad disad and case advantages versus big disad and case
advantages).

2) the ranting-on about intrinsicness

please attempt to make sense.  

it is simply not the case that "An intrinsiness argument is an idea not
included in the plan or counterplan that tests the value of the plan or
counterplan."  an "intrinsicness permutation" is a "permutation" which
includes components which are not present in either plan or counterplan
- they are irrelevant to counterplan competition.  other than that, an
"intrinsicness argument" is merely an argument that some causal claim is
"not intrinsic or inherent" to the plan (or counterplan), whatever THAT
means.  anticounterplans are no more intrinsicness arguments than
counterplans are and they are certainly NOT "intrinsicness perms."

the rest of the "argument" about anticounterplans "proving something
entirely irrelevant" is a claim without a warrant.

3) the "meaningless" separation between competition and preference

hardly and bluster isn't argument.  Parcher opines that:
"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."

i see, then a turned counterplan doesn't compete? eh?  even if it is
mutually exclusive?  even if aff grants COMPETITION?  naahhhhh.

competition asks the question: must the critic CHOOSE between the plan
and the counterplan?  Period.  and i think Parcher doesn't really
understand what is meant by "provide a reason to reject the plan" -- you
know, like a disad which LINKS "provides a reason to reject the plan"
but whether or not that is a SUFFICIENT reason depends on all sorts of
other stuff like impacts.

and that's why mutual exclusivity is a form of competition:  gotta
choose because CANNOT do both.  and that's why net benefits is a form of
competition:  gotta choose because OUGHT NOT do both.

4) the plan finishes third

well, this is BRILLIANT stuff now: three actions means the plan finishes
third. yeah, we're thinkin' now, kiddos. yessirrreeee.

okay, baby steps everyone ...

a disad is a reason not to take plan action - it is a direct cost of
plan action.  

a competitive counterplan is also a reason not to take plan action - it
is an opportunity cost of plan action.  

a disad unique to a counterplan with respect to the plan is a reason why
the counterplan is less of a reason not to take plan action - it is a
unique direct cost of taking counterplan action. 

an anticounterplan is ALSO a reason why the counterplan is less of a
reason not to take plan action - it is a unique opportunity cost of
taking counterplan action.

now, what, exactly, was the brilliant logic that resulted in "the plan
finishes third"?

5) a single warranted argument

okeedokee.  no, i am not confusing competition with mutual exclusivity.
although i certainly agree that "bad arguments are bad arguments," a
claim without a warrant is not any sort of "argument" at all.

bye,
Michael Korcok
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page