[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: opportunity benefits
Addendum.
I guess you can run opportunity cost analysis with no negative fiat (as
long as the should/would fallacy is some how spiked out) If this model is
accepted, it would do well to elliminate utopian and abusive counterplans.
All counterplans lack a great deal of propensity. After all, if they
didn't they would have allready been policies. But then, all plans lack
propensity as well, since they could be non-inherent if not. Dom has
sighted opp cost model is flawed by using the Anarchy counterplan. Anarchy
may never occur (no propensity) so it really isn't an opp. cost. Aff wins.
Is that so bad? Aff has just got out of a pretty offensive counterplan.
But now say the counterplan is states. Using opp cost. model, the Neg can
succesfully argue that the counterplan has symmetrical propensity. What I
mean by this is that if the Aff wants to argue States has no propensity,
then Neg can argue that Aff plan has the same problem with low propensity.
Instead of saying, "Fiating 50 states to all act at once is abusive" You
can say, "The all 50 states have never passed a regulation at the same
time. Prove that this can be done and has propensity."
Of course, not allowing Neg. Fiat lets the Aff always claim that their
plan will be guaranteed to pass post aff ballot, but post Neg. ballot, the
counterplan is at best, probalistic. (Even if it has great propensity)
Lucius K
George Mason U.
Follow-Ups:
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page