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

Re: opportunity benefits


On Sat, 24 May 1997 16:45:37 -0400 (EDT) lucius K <lkahng@osf1.gmu.edu> writes:
>On Sat, 24 May 1997, Domenic M Battistella wrote:
>
>> 
>> On Fri, 23 May 1997 23:29:18 -0600 Chris Smith 
><cdsmith@BRAIN.UCCS.EDU>
>> writes:
>> >There is definitely a defendable justification for considering 
>> >opportunity
>> >costs, and I have defended it on the list.  
>> 
>> Please, refresh my memory.  I can't seem to recall any 
>justification.
>> 
>> >You really haven't given 
>> >any
>> >justification for opportunity benefits except some vague concept of
>> >reciprocity.  
>> 
>> Sure. If you can claim that by stoping the opportunity for a more
>benificial policy to exist is the result of fiating the plan, no mater 
>how
>> rediculous the odds of this option passing are, is a warrant for
>> rejecting the plan then why can't I claim that fiating the plan 
>would
>> stop the opportunity for a detrimental policy to exist, no matter 
>how
>> rediculous the odds of the status quo passing this option are, is a
>> warrant for accepting the plan. 
>
>You criticize opportunity cost counterplans by viewing them not as
>opportunity costs but as direct costs! To say that opportunity is lost 
>no
>matter how improbable is to equate the counterplan as nothing more 
>than a
>barely non-unique disad. 

Which is exactly what an opportunity cost counterplan.  At least with a
disad the negative has the burden to prove the inevitability of a benifit.  A opportunity cost counterplan abdicates this responsibility and should be rejected on that merrit alone.  Only fiat solves this delimna.

>Take anarchy. Anarchy is not going to happen 
>in
>the US for a _long_ time. To say the Aff plan may some day prevent 
>anarchy
>is to run it as a direct cost disad.

Probably never, which is my point.  By running anarchy as on opportunity cost of plan you only prove how rediculous the concept actually is.  Only
fiating anarchy, however you plan to do that, can prove the opportunity
is lost.
 
>To say the Aff plan prevents the opportunity to do the Anarchy 
>counterplan
>now is an opportunity cost. Neg. doesn't argue propensity of anarchy 
>to
>make it unique, the negative uses fiat to make it a unique opportunity
>right now. 

Right, the opportunity cost of anarchy in the future is no reason to
reject the affirmative today.  Only a direct cost warrants such
rejection.

>Neg gets fiat, (at the very least to prevent the shoul/would fallacy) 
>Neg.
>doesn't get same advocacy burden of Aff.

Why not?  Recprical power of fiat comes with the recprical burden of
advocacy.
 
>> >If this is true, I ask you to take my last justification 
>> >for
>> >considering opp cost and apply it the other direction.  
>> 
>> Which is?
>> 
>> >The best you 
>> >get is
>> >a vague non-unique advantage that one less bad choice exists for 
>> >policy
>> >makers, but so many bad choices exist anyway that it probably 
>doesn't 
>> >make
>> >a bit of difference.
>> 
>> Which is all you get with an opportunity cost counterplan.
>
>	?
>
>> 
>> 
>> >Chris Smith
>> >Woodland Park HS Debate
>> 
>> 
>> 					Dom Battistella
>> 					ODU Debate
>> 
>
>						Lucius K
>						George Mason U.
>
>


					Dom Battistella
					   again
Follow-Ups: References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page