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

Re: ans Parcher competition

At 09:15 PM 5/23/97 PST, Domenic M Battistella wrote:

There are a few very simple mistakes being made. I will address them here.

1) Several people seem to be assuming that net benefits refers to the c/plan
being better than the plan. It does not refer to that, but rather whether or
not there is a forced choice.

2) There is also a problem with the definition of competition. Some seem to
feel that competition shows that the c/plan is better than the perm OR the
plan. Well, they are half right.


In order:

1) I think people are confusing the term "net beneficial" with advantageous.
They are not the same. A c/plan which is net beneficial is only better than
the permutation, not the plan. It simply means that it would be better to do
the c/plan alone than to do the c/plan AND the plan. Hence the word "net" in
the name. What people sometimes mean when they say "net beneficial" in
reference to the c/plan being better than the plan is actually advantageous.
If the c/plan is better than the plan, it is more advantageous, but it
doesn't necessarily mean that it is net beneficial. 

As Mike explained, net benefits shows the RELEVENCE to the plan. It is up to
the advantages to show that the c/plan is BETTER than the plan.

>>>>>>>>>>
Whet Jeff means is that if a counterplan is mutually exclusive it still
is not competative with the plan if the counterplan is less net
benificial than the plan
>>>>>>>>>>

I doubt that this is what Jeff was saying since a c/plan cannot be "less net
beneficial" than a plan. It can be less advantages than the plan, but the
net benefits refers to the permutation, not the plan.


2) There is also a misunderstanding going around that competition (net
benefits) is a comparison of the c/plan to the perm OR the plan. Nope, it is
just a comparison of c/plan to the perm. As my friend (well, sometimes at
least) David Brashears posits, competition is mathmatically defined as: cp> cp+p

>>>>>>>>>>
The only way the counterplan can compete is by being better than the plan
or perm. If it isn't then it doesn't and you lose.
>>>>>>>>>>

This is an example of what I was saying. Many c/plans are better than the
plan, but this certainly doesn't mean they compete. 

For all those that are confused about these 2 problems, I suggest going back
and rereading Mike's earlier post dealing with c/plans which are better than
the perm but not better than the plan. They compete (are relevent), but are
not a reason to reject the plan.


Peace,

Bob Lechtreck
Bakersfield College
PUTTING OUT FIRES, AND DAMN GOOD DEBATERS
db8coach@lightspeed.net
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page