[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: ans Parcher----HELP!!
Everytime this discussion happens I get really confused about one thing. I will
try and make sense...but I'm really just trying to get a better understanding of
This part of Korcok's post is where I get lost to a certain degree....
>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.
Okay...here's my first area of confusion. If I were to concede exclusivity
I am saying that the c-plan competes, yes? I've heard others say this too. I
know I had trouble when Ken Broda-Bahm pointed this out to me. He says a clever
2AC would concede exclusivity and then straight turn a CONDITIONAL counterplan
thereby making it a liability for the negative(in essence making it
DISPOSITIONAL) In this way the negative can't concede the turns and say they
prove that the counterplan DOESN'T compete...they're stuck. Seems you say the
same thing. However, this confuses me when it comes to the idea of the
opportunity-cost theory and it's relation to how we (should) view competition.
What is the difference?
This problem for me is illustrated by this part of your post......
>competition asks the question: must the critic CHOOSE between the plan
>and the counterplan? Period.
Then you say.....
>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.
What I am asking is how can the counterplan COMPETE yet fail the opportunity-
cost comparison at the same time? How do I make the two concepts distinct?
That's why I am having trouble understanding.
This brings up another question I have on how to conceptualize c-plans from the
opportunity cost perspective. Where I have trouble is the permutation. Seems
that the role of the permutation is important with this theory. The comparison
seems to be c-plan vs. the combination not neccessarily c-plan vs. the plan.
I don't understand how to do this comparison when there is no permutation.
If the c-plan is straight turned yet exclusivity has been granted by the 2AC
you seem to conclude that the c-plan competes but that it may possibly fail it's
opportunity cost comparison(determined by a debate over the turns). In this
instance there would be no permutation. What exactly is the breakdown here?
Am I way off base?
This is where I find myself thinking I'm missing something.....
>a disad is a reason not to take plan action - it is a direct cost of
>a competitive counterplan is also a reason not to take plan action - it
>is an opportunity cost of plan action.
Yeah, but if this competitve counterplan(based on granted exclusivity) is
straight turned with no permutation what is the deal?
>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.
Exactly....I'm there with you on this. This really answers my question above,
right? I just don't see the difference between the competition and the
opportunity cost. That's why the question still persists for me and I can't
really see how this gets past what I am asking above.
Hoping Korcok or somebody can help me out on this. I've been struggling with
these questions since I first read the whole opportunity cost post way back
when. I guess I just don't understand counterplans like I ought to, either.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page