Re: Competition and Lechtreck

[Bob Lechtreck <db8coach@lightspeed.net>]

At 03:52 PM 5/23/97 -0700, slusher@lexis-nexismail.com wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>
I found another thing I am confused about.  In the examples given of the 
anti-counterplan it seems that it would almost HAVE TO compete with the plan. 
>>>>>>>>>>

Well, the examples have been messed with to the point where they are no
longer what Mike originally wrote. However, it is not surprising that the
anti-counter is NOT an easy thing to come up with. To compete with the
c/plan but not the plan will require MUCH more thought processes than simply
competing with the plan (in the case of the c/plan).

>>>>>>>>>>
but couldn't the 2NC just concede the anticounterplan and turn it back at
the plan.  
>>>>>>>>>>

If it competes with the plan, then yes. If there is no forced choice between
the anti-counter and the plan, then it could not be an offensive attack
against plan.

>>>>>>>>>>
If the 2NC can't say sov. good, or transition bad, etc...why couldn't they
just grant the world gov't anticounterplan since it beats the counterplan of
Anarchy....anarchy goes away and world gov't competes with the
plan....blammo!  How does the theory preclude this?
>>>>>>>>>>

Because the anti-counter doesn't compete with plan, only with c/plan.


Peace,

Bob Lechtreck
Bakersfield College
PUTTING OUT FIRES, AND DAMN GOOD DEBATERS
db8coach@lightspeed.net

---

• Prev by Date: Re: opportunity benefits
• Next by Date: Re: ans Parcher competition
• Prev by thread: RE: Competition and Lechtreck
• Next by thread: ans Parcher competition
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page