[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 Sun, 25 May 1997 11:10:01 -0400 (EDT) lucius K <lkahng@osf1.gmu.edu> writes:
>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.

True.

>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.

That is exactly why fiat is needed--for both the aff and neg.

> 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.

I think Dom is saying that the c/p is even more rediculous  (I know; you
ask how could that be?) Well, you and I both know that anarchy has no
propensity, and without fiat is an obsurd argument.

>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.

The aff has tremendous propensity if using fiat.  The neg would have the
same if it used fiat.  The problem arises when the neg doesn't use fiat.
 While statesmay have more propensity than anarchy, it still isn't as
trong as a fiated position.

>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."

This is a problem area for opp cost without fiat. Not a problem WITH
fiat.

>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)

Exactly why opp cost without fiat is a bad idea.

>
>
>						Lucius K
>						George Mason U.

Paul Xenakis
Kempsville High School
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page