i always screw that up on this listserv. Much easier to do the backchannels on this one than over on Celtics or Burke or Hesse or Beat Generation.
-- BEGIN included message
- To: Michael Korcok <mk48@CORNELL.EDU>
- Subject: Re: ans Parcher
- From: RACE --- <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 23 May 1997 01:35:56 -0500
- References: <199705230505.AAA19437@services.midusa.net>I think we can all brush up on this stuff. I only have a few quibbles 1) Some counterplans are intrinsicness arguments with an additional net benefit. Example: Plan: Mike should eat an apple it has the advantage of fulfilling the fruit food group. CP: Mike should eat an orange " not intrinsic " " plus apples are bad b/c they have worms, the apple pickers are abused, blah blah blah. It seems realistic that some anti-counterplans would function in this way as well. 2) Competition is an ought question. It is not merely a possible choice but an choice based on ought. Mutual Exclusivity is merely a class of net benefits. Mutual exclusivity fulfills the necessity of choice but the remaining net benefits debate puts the "ought" in it. 3) this is a real tiny quibble. it seems folks are awfully into Saint Toulmin's model of argument. It is becoming something like a formal logic notion which seems a bit from the origional. Some warrants can be implied if fairly easy to gain from context. interestingly the data portion of the model along with qualifiers and backing seem to have not made it along for the cannonization. Not saying you weren't right there just that you might not always be right on the warrant matter. hopefully someone can understand that one better and explain what i meant or i'll try again post-insomnia. take care, david rhaesa Michael Korcok wrote: > > 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
-- END included message