[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: ans Parcher----HELP!!
On Fri, 23 May 1997 09:34:44 -0400 (EDT) lucius K <email@example.com>
>However, if the Negative wins that
>their counterplan is only an opportunity cost of the aff plan, then I
>claim that Broda-Bahm's strategy is destine to fail. The whole
>thread on anti-counterplans gave overwhelming arguments for assuming
>counterplans to be an opportunity cost.
Actually, this stategy would best work against a team that claimed the
c/p as an opp. cost. The point of the stategy would be that the c/p would really be an opportunity benefit. Yes the aff would prevent a
different opportunity from happening but if they can prove that the opportunity is bad and grant competitiveness then they have a new advantage.
They stop something BAD from going in to effect. Sounds like a good
srategy to me.
>You can turn a counterplan, but that turn is not grounded in reality,
>reality being the SQ. In otherwords, a turn on a disad says that the
>will actually react in a _beneficial_ way to the plan. A turn to a
>counterplan can't say anything about the SQ, rather it says that the
>counterplan is no longer an opportunity cost of the plan.
You give no warrant as to why a turn "must be grounded in reality" or what the hell that's supposed to mean, but it doesn't matter because a turn
can still benefit the aff, even if against a c/p. You are right in that
a turn to a c/p proves there isn't an opp cost, however you fail to
realize that it would become an opportunity benefit.
>doesn't become the SQ. The SQ COULD still be better than both the
>counterplan and plan.
> The counterplan turn would only benefit the affirmative as a
>reason to reject the counterplan, not necessarially a reason to vote
Wrong, if the aff stops a good plan from going in to effect (an opp cost
c/p) and can lose a round because of it, then if they stop a bad plan (a
turned opp cost c/p) from going in to effect then they should win the
round becuse of it. A turn on a DA not only proves the DA to be true,
but get this: it becomes an advantage for the aff. Same with an opp
>So if the benefit of running counterplan turns and disads is that the
>counterplan is rejected, then why not let the Neg cut their losses and
>away with it anways?
Because it becomes an oportunity benefit.
> Other reasons why the counterplan is dispostional. Aside from
>being an opportunity cost, it also allows perms. If counterplans were
>advocated like the aff plan, then aff perms would be illegitmate
>they would make the Aff a moving target.
I never understood this. If I run a permutation as a means of proving a
lack of competition, then who are you to say its an advocacy shift.
Since when does the neg. determine what the aff advocates and what they
don't. There may be some confusion if someone argued the benefits of a
permutation over the c/p but this would be an effective way to disprove
competition. As stated by Korok in the Parcher thread, competition asks
the question--Do you have to choose between aff and c/p? Regardless of
the type of c/p, a permutation that answers this question with a NO is legitimate. It doesn't have to be an advocacy shift.
>I believe that if we force the negative to advocate the counterplan,
>we open the door to plan-plan debates. After all, if the counterplan
>becomes just another policy option and the judge must choose between
>paths, then why not allow two topical plans in-round and have a debate
>about which gets the biggest advantages.
This is not a good reason to reject neg fiat. Just like anything else,
there are certain extremes to which something is accepted. Neg fiat is
limited in c/p debates by the burden of copetition. P2, while neg fiat,
neglects copetition. Yes, if neg fiat was illegit, then so would P2, but
that really isn't needed. If we really want to be safe why not get rid of off case arguments. Hell, lets get rid of the negative side all
together. I bet there won't be any plan-plan debates then.
> lucius K
> George Mason U.
Kempsville High School
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page