[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: ans Parcher
All right here are my final answers on this subject. This thread has
turned too vitriolic for me. Perhaps some benefit can come from exploring
where the differences between our positions develops:
1. My definition of net benefits and I believe the one the debate community
largely operates on is this: A counterplan is net beneficial when adopting
the counterplan results in greater advanatges (or fewer disadvanatges) than
voting for EITHER the plan alone or some legitmate combination of both the
plan and counterplan (do both or permutation). In the examples given by
Korcok the counterplan is not net beneficially competitive because the plan
is a superior option. Korcok is the first person I have ever heard take
the "either" out of the statement and call a counterplan net beneficial
which
is not superior to the plan alone.
2. Mutual exclusivity in a policy debate never exists. Atleast let me say
that I have never seen an example of mutual exclusivity. Even in the case
where the CP does the opposite of the plan it is possible for both laws to
be adopted simaltaneously. The legislature can clearly pass a law that
bans something and legalizes it at the same time("We hereby both ban and
legalize......."). There are in fact real examples of supposedly mutually
exclusive laws being passed if one looks in conflict of laws literature.
This fundamental reality is why many coaches are fond of saying that net
benefits is the only true standard of competition. So whenever Korcok
equates competition with mutual exclusivity such as in the statement "i
see, then a turned counterplan doesn't compete? eh?" we are simply not
speaking the same language. And for the record my answer to his question
is: Correct it does not.
3. The problem of the straight turned counterplan. It is impossible in
theory for the affirmative to properly both grant competition and straight
turn the counterplan. Anyone that has heard extensive dispositionality
debates knows that this is the case. Dispositionality ultimately breaks
down into conditionality because when the negative says that the CP is
dipositional on competition they know that it in reality deprives the
affirmative of the option of straight turning the counterplan since by
definition the counterplan ceases to be competitive in that case. The only
case where this ever happens is one pointed out by Korcok with fervor - if
the negative mistakingly agrees or claims that the counterplan is mutually
exclusive. Circumstances create a competitive straight turned counterplan.
The most advanced negative teams have long realized this and effectively
make their
counterplan conditional by claiming dispositionality and net benefits
without a hint of mutual exclusivity.
However, please note that such an outcome is simply a function of the
negative agreeing to theoretically unsound propositions. In the case
created by Korcok the negative has agreed that the counterplan is
competitive when it obviously is not - assuming the fairly well worn
proposition that true mutual exclusivity does not exist.
It is also increasingly popular for the negative to avoid the appearance of
conditionality by saying that they are stuck with the CP if it is straight
turned and regadless of what competition means. This does not create a
theoretically sound position on dispositionality but it does seem to give
the affirmative a fair means of avoiding the dilemma.
4. I believe my definition of an intrinsicness argument more accurately
represents its use in modern debate. But however it is defined the point
is that the
anitcp is subject to the same theoretical objections as the intrinsiness
argument and has similar properties. If it is legitimate to seize some form
of fiat (hypothetical, test, whatever claimed) to test the value of the
counterplan to determine if it represents a reason to reject the plan then
how could it not be legitimate for the affirmative utilize fiat in the same
way against disads? The counterplan and the disad are very similar in the
sense that they point out the costs of the affirmative plan (cp cost comes
in lost opportunity strengthned by the use of fiat). The anticp and
intrinsincness argument seem exactly similar to me in form and effect.
They appear to both create problems of moving targets and ground loss.
They also seem to eliminate legitmate negative arguments that would
otherwise provide a reason to reject the plan through the use of fiat.
This is a
concept most people reject because it unfairly handicaps the negative by
distorting the world in which they must operate.
Seems to me that if the affirmative wants to show an opportunity cost to
the CP they ought to undergo the burden of demonstatating proponesity etc.
Allowing them to fiat a disad to the counterplan goes to far. We allow the
negative to do this for reciprocity reasons - and subject the CP to very
demanding tests. I fail to see a problem out there so big the affimative
needs to be granted anticps.
5. When I say that a affirmative has little or no chance of winning anticp
theory with me that is not the same as saying I would intervene against it.
It merely means the arguments presented so far seem so weak and in some
cases incomprehensible (perhaps because of lack of common definitions) that
I can't imagine voting for it in debate. I mean this in the same way that
arguments about how topicality is not a voting issue are so terrible that
even the slightest negative answer is sufficient to persuade me against the
position. Very little new ground is broken in theory debates (atleast the
ones I hear). Regardless of the actual theory being debated, judges hear
similar rationals - ground, fairness, time tradeoff, depth vs. breadth etc,
etc. Most judges know from experience how those comparisons are going to
come out. It seems to me that it makes sense for them to share those
propensities with the the debaters. It is my stong belief that such
propensities are inevitable. It is better for them to be in open than to
be hidden (either from yourself or the debaters).
BTW - I don't think Korcok knows nothing about CPs or competition. I just
disagree with the claims he has presented atleast in part because we adopt
differing assumptions. I also still fail to see any warrant for utilizing
or allowing anticps.
JP
PS - no one ever won a disad against the non-delegation CP so your example
is unrealistic.
----------
> From: Michael Korcok <mk48@CORNELL.EDU>
> To: Multiple recipients of list NDT-L <NDT-L@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU>
> Subject: ans Parcher
> Date: Friday, May 23, 1997 1:01 AM
>
> 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."
>
>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
----------
> From: Michael Korcok <mk48@cornell.edu>
> To: Issues concerning CEDA Debate <CEDA-L@cornell.edu>
> Subject: ans Parcher
> Date: Friday, May 23, 1997 1:01 AM
>
> 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
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page