Re: Anti-Battistella: PART ONE

[mattbatt@juno.com (Domenic M Battistella)]

Cute.  I'll respond while trying to ignore the ad homs.

On Sun, 25 May 1997 14:40:17 -0400 (EDT) lucius K <lkahng@osf1.gmu.edu> writes:
>The long awaited, highly anticipated,
>
>	The Anti-Battistella: PART ONE
>
>
>
>In this post I will outline Dom Battistellas main arguments. I will 
>then
>answer Dom's main arguments against the opp cost model. In part two I 
>will
>answer his second argument against dispositionality. 
>
>Dom makes the following arguments...
>
>
>PART ONE: Opportunity cost analysis is a flawed model
>
>	A. Aff is allowed to turn opportunity costs into opp benefits
>	B. Opportunity benefit is an abusive concept.
>	C. Without Neg. fiat, opportunity cost is flawed.
>	D. Without negative advocacy of c/plan, opp cost is flawed.

You missed one.  Fiat does not mean the plan is passed and is enforced
forever and ever.  A convenient omission considering that analysis
proves that the opportunity is never really lost if the plan is fiated
now.


>PART TWO: Counterplan is not dispositional.
>
>	A. Logical justifications for
>	B. Pragmatic justifications for.
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's dispositional only if you say so in the 1NC, after that you cant
just claim it goes away whenever you say so.




>Let the the debating begin!
>
>
>1. OPPORTUNITY COST ANALYSIS IS A FLAWED MODEL:
>	"This brings me to a much larger point, opportunity cost seems 
>
>	like a bad way of evaluating counterplan debate"

O.K.
Let's deal with part C. first.  That makes everything else much easier to
follow.

>C. WITHOUT NEGATIVE FIAT, OPP. COST IS FLAWED:
>
>	"Probably never, which is my point.  By running anarchy as on 
>	opportunity cost of plan you only prove how ridiculous the 
>concept
>	actually is.  Only fiating anarchy, however you plan to do 
>that,
>	can prove the opportunity is lost."
>
>Dom makes the assumption that Negative gets no fiat under opportunity 
>cost
>model. I've never argued this and have yet to see his justifications 
>for
>this assumption. Opportunity cost would use fiat, thus it solves as a
>model for counterplans, so it would seem that Dom and I agree here.

You concede that the negative must take up a position af advocacy.  This
means:
1.  A counterplan is not dispositional unless it is presented as such in the 1NC and the conditions of its dispositionality are clearly spelled
out by the negative.
2.  Reverting to the status quo is a double shift of advocacy and is
extremely abusive.


>A. AFF IS ALLOWED TO TURN OPPORTUNITY COST INTO OPPORTUNITY BENEFIT:
>
>	"If opportunity cost argument is true then it seems to me that 
>
>	turning the counterplan still be an advantageous affirmative
>	strategy.  My understanding of opportunity cost is that by 
>fiating
>	the affirmative plan, the opportunity to pass a more 
>beneficial
>	counter option to the affirmative is lost.  If this is a good
>	reason to vote negative, even if the negative could never 
>prove
>	the counter option will ever be passed, then wouldnt it hold 
>true
>	that by fiating the affirmative plan, the opportunity to pass 
>a
>	less beneficial counter option (e.g. above said turned 
>	counterplan) is lost, even if the affirmative could never 
>prove 
>	that the counter option would ever be passed.  It seems to me 
>	this would provide a good reason to vote affirmative." 
>
>Opportunity benefits are used implicitly in debate. By the Aff proving
>they are the best plan of action, then they prove that they utilize 
>the
>best opportunity to solve the SQ. The aff argues this any way they 
>can,
>whether theres a counterplan or not. If there is a counterplan and the 
>Aff
>successfully turns or links greater disads to it, then the Aff is 
>trying
>to convince the judge they are the BETTER opportunity to solve. 

When a negative presents a counterplan and fiats it, you concede you do,
then the debate is no longer plan vs. status quo, it becomes plan vs.
counterplan.  I will expound on this later.  The negative cant have their cake and eat it too.  How could the affirmative ever expect to win if
they had to argue vs. status quo and counterplan?  Answer: They can't. 
This is one reason why it is commonly accepted that an affirmative no
longer has to prove it is superior to the status quo when a counterplan is introduced, only that it is better than the counterplan.

>That 
>in no
>way translate to the BEST opportunity or BETTER than the SQ or even 
>BETTER
>then what it was in the 1AC. By winning that the c/p is not the best
>opportunity does not magically translate to the Aff plan being better.

Yep, but shifting back to the status quo allows the negative to have a
second chance at advocating the status quo.  Sounds pretty suspect to me.

>EXAMPLE ONE:
>Old Dominion University (AFF) says that we should decrease pollutants 
>and
>offers a topical plan. George Mason University (NEG) is attempting to
>negate the resolution by presenting opportunity costs to the plan. To 
>do
>so, GMU offers a counterplan which says decrease pollutants through 
>market
>incentives. But by doing this both universities accept that the SQ is
>undesirable. By offering an opportunity cost counterplan, in essence 
>GMU
>is arguing, "I agree that the SQ is not so desirable, but neither is 
>the
>Aff plan. If I prove in this round that the affirmative is not 
>desirable,
>then I win that the resolution is false. 

Yeah, but if i prove the plan is more net benificial than the
counterplan, you have already conceded that the status quo is
undesireable, does that mean you get to change your mind about that
also?

>Following this round we will
>forever keep on having debates on other types of resolutions/plans 
>till
>eventually we can solve the SQ. 

Wrong forum.  We could never argue that in the hour and a half given for
speach time.  Your analysis only proves the infinately regressive nature
of the opportunity cost counterplan.  Aside from that, if you fiat the counterplan then the judge votes for the counterplan, not simply agianst the affirmative.
 
>However, if the judge votes for ODUs 
>plan,
>then this would be the last round on the subject. That means the Aff 
>is
>desirable and as far as we can see, there are no better alternatives." 

No, it just means it is the best plan presented, not the best policy. 
See nature of fiat.


>ODU wins turns and disads to GMUs counterplan. To gain an opportunity
>benefit from this, ODU would basically be saying that to vote for the
>plan, you prevent policy makers from taking a less beneficial 
>counterplan.
>FALSE. If that were so, then the counterplan is really a disad, and 
>the
>turn would be another reason to vote aff. But Dom forgets that the 
>policy
>maker is the judge. In order for ODU to win opp. benefits they would 
>have
>to prove that their plan will prevent the judge from taking a worse
>alternative. 

It does, it removes any opportunity.

>But to do that, they must prove that the judge was going 
>to
>vote for the counterplan, that negative fiat is going to be carried 
>over,
>and that the judge's hands are tied and that she/he is not allowed to 
>vote
>for the SQ or any other alternative to the plan and the counterplan. 

So the affirmative has to prove the inevitability and the negative does
not.  Somehow that doesnt soom fair.  Beside, once you fiat the
counterplan, that action is inevitable.  This proves an opportunity
benifit exists.

>That
>is illogical, and can result in the Judge being forced to affirm the
>resolution when in fact it is not desirable!

It would be desireable versus the counterplan.  When you concede fiat,
that's what you get.  It is also more desireable than all the other 'bad
plans' the affirmative prevents the judge the opportunity to vote on.

>It is illogical to keep the counterplan in rounds as proof of plans
>desirability. GMU granted that the SQ is not desirable, but by arguing 
>a
>counterplan, they are not conceding the affirmative plan is better 
>than
>the SQ. 

Why not.  If both sides concede that the status quo is bad then the only
debate is over which plan is better, plan or counterplan.

>So if the aff wins that the counterplan is not net-beneficial,
>then the Negative is forced to defending the SQ. This should'nt be a 
>death
>sentence, but a change of strategy.

I see the flaw.  You think that in a world of fiat you get to change your
advocacy, well you don't.  If the aff wins that the plan is more net
benificial than the counterplan then you can look at the results in two
ways:
1.  The negative advocates a plan less benificial than the affirmative
advocated plan
	Result: Neg loses
2.  The negative advocates nothing.
	Result: Neg loses

>
>EXAMPLE TWO: 
>The Aff plan saves 100 lives but because of Neg's disad, kills 300 
>people.
>The net-effect is that Aff kills 200 people. The Counterplan saves 200
>lives, but b/c of Aff DA it kills 500 people. Net-Effect is that the
>counterplan kills 300 people. So to sum up this round, SQ only kills 
>100
>people. Aff plan, in second place, kills 200 people. In third is the
>counterplan which kills 300 people. Under the fallacy that 
>counterplans
>arent dispositional then the judge would have to affirm the resolution 
>is
>true even though it is not. 

I didn't say counterplans are never dispositional.  They are only
dispositional when the intent for dispositionality is made clear at the
time when the counterplan is presented.  If this intent is not made
clear then the counterplan is unconditional, meaning that it is the
negative advocacy position regardless if it is competative or not. 
There is no automatic assumption that the counterplan is dispositional. 
Because of this your analysis is flawed.  Both teams give up advocating
the status quo which means you can only compare the plan to the
counterplan.

>This is the reasoning that the Negative is now the counterplan and 
>only
>the counterplan. Wrong, this role playing only applies to the Aff, 
>they
>have to be topical and only topical. The negative role is to present 
>any
>reason possible to disprove the resolution. 

Watch yourself.  You are getting dangeriously close to justifying
counterwarrants.  Beside, once you fiat a counterplan you get to be the
counterplan and only the counterplan.

>This doesnt allow the Neg 
>to
>be inconsistent, but allows the Negative to switch form affirming the 
>SQ
>to affirming a counterplan, just as long as the negative negates the
>resolution.

Only in your mind.  That's why it sucks to double turn yourself out of
the 1NC.  Although there may be two reasons why the resolution is bad,
these two reasons can't exist in the same world, just as the status quo and counterplan can't exist together.

>Affirmative does gain a benefit from turning the counterplan. (May not
>exactly be an opportunity benefit) It's that the counterplan is 
>rejected
>from the round. Part two will further explain this.

Why not.  It prevents a less benificial or detrimental policy from being passed.

>Further, it would seem Dom's logic is based on recipricalness. That if 
>the
>the negative wins turns and/or disads to the Aff plan, they win. If 
>the
>Aff wins turns and/or disads to the counterplan, shouldnt they win? 
>NO!
>Because Negatives turns of the plan proves the resolution false. Turns 
>to
>the counterplan doesnt prove the negatives resolution to be false 
>because
>they dont represent an a priori resolution. They represent all 
>possible
>non-topical worlds (within the confounds of legitimate fiat, 
>relevance,
>competition, etc.) including non-topical counterplans and the SQ. 

Counterwarrants rear their ugly head again.  Look, as long as you fiat
the counterplan then that is the ONLY negative position of advocacy.  If
the negative position is wrong, or less benificial than the affirmative
then the nevative advocacy is rejected.  This leaves the negative with
NOTHING.  The only position left in the round becomes the affirmative. 
Translation:  Aff wins.


>The only way the counterplan would stay in the debate, post turns and
>disads, would be if the Aff wins that the counterplan is a unique 
>direct
>cost beyond the Negative fiat, thus no longer an opportunity cost but 
>a
>direct cost. (Under opp cost model of analysis)

Negative fiat proves it is a direct cost.  Fiat = cp inevitability.  cp
is bad.  Aff fiat prevents bad cp.

>B. OPPORTUNITY BENEFIT IS AN ABUSIVE CONCEPT.
>
>	"How would the negative ever be able to debate if all the 
>	affirmative had to do to win a debate is find a bunch of 
>obscure,
>	detrimental policies that could exist, claim that these 
>policies 
>	are bad, then claim that by fiating the affirmative these 
>policies
>	could never exist and hence the affirmative wins because these 
>bad
>	policies could never have the opportunity to exist."
>
>This scenario wouldnt happen since the counterplan is dispostional and
>that the only benefit you get would be that the counterplan is 
>dropped.
>(Which is a big advantage to the Aff, see PART TWO)

Not when you concede fiat is necessary.

>This scenario sounds like counterwarrents arguments. This has already 
>been
>rejected by the debate community because of its abuse. 

Which proves most of your arguments above are equally abusive.

>Negative forces 
>the
>Aff to defend all possible topical worlds. Because of parametrics, the 
>Aff
>plan becomes the resolution in-rounds. This spikes out 
>counterwarrents. 

Actually, opportunity benifits are more along the lines of hypo testing. 
The way you describe negative abilities and responsibilities it sounds as
if you are the one advocating counterwarrants.

>Also, in a sense, this is already what the affirmative does. The 
>negative
>is responsible for the SQ (if they choose) Thus the affirmative can 
>pick
>any obscure, topical action to justify the resolution. 

Fine.

>For the scenario to work, the Aff has to be able to carry over 
>negative
>fiat to the counterplan. Otherwise the scenario would be confusing 
>direct
>costs with opportunity costs. Explain how that can legitimately be 
>done.

They become the same thing when you throw in fiat.

>D. WITHOUT NEGATIVE ADVOCACY OF C/PLAN, OPP. COST IS FLAWED:
>
>	"At the same time why is it O.K. for the negative to be able 
>to 
>	provide an opportunity cost (counterplan) to the plan withoul
>	actually advocating the opportunity.  This is where 
>inevitability
>	becomes a question.  If the opportunity is inevitable then why 
>
>	run a counterplan.  This argument seems better suited as an
>	inherency attack and case turn."
>
>This is were Dom is confusing advocacy with fiat. With negative fiat, 
>the
>counterplan is a viable opportunity cost. Dom also seems to be 
>confused
>with the difference between opp. cost and direct cost. 

Uh, when you fiat the counterplan, it exists.  The negative must advocate
it for it is the only position in the round save the affirmative.

>Korcok's explanation:
>
>"A disadvantage is a grounded negative device because it is a reason 
>NOT
>to undertake the plan action. More particularly, disadvantages are the
>direct costs of undertaking plan actions: they represent the worth of 
>the
>plan in comparison to the uniqueness actions which WILL be undertaken 
>if
>the plan action is not done. Now, is a comparison between plan action 
>and
>the uniqueness actions which WILL be done in the absence of the plan 
>the
>correct way to assess the value of plan actions? The perhaps 
>surprising
>and certainly troubling answer of economists and policy analysts is 
>that
>it is not correct. Opportunity cost is the REAL value of undertaking 
>any
>action. Roughly put, the opportunity cost of an action is the value of 
>the
>best course of action which must necessarily be foregone if an action 
>is
>undertaken. Counterplans seek to present the opportunity costs of 
>taking
>plan actions. The competition requirement on counterplans is just the
>requirement that it be shown by the negative that the counterplan 
>action
>must be foregone if the plan action is taken. To summarize thus far,
>counterplans are grounded because they present the opportunity costs 
>of
>undertaking plan action and their worth functions as a reason NOT to
>undertake plan action."

But if the opportunity is not inevitabel then there is no lost
opportunity.  The only way to gaurentee inevitability is negative fiat. 
In the case where the negative uses fiat, the negative also advocates the
counterplan.

>So by using counterplans as an argument that the Aff denies an 
>inevitable
>as well as superior alternative, then the Negative is really arguing a
>unique disad that is a direct cost of doing the plan. 

Right, fiat makes it unique.  The only thi\ng is that it is not unique in
the status quo.  The negative needs to fiat policy makers to create the
unique situation.  Thes leaves the negatives with advocacy.

>Like last years 
>EPA
>trade-off disad. Say the aff runs EJ. Neg. can run a disad saying the 
>Aff
>uses the EPA and trades off with the EPAs Right to Know program which 
>will
>solve EJ even better. This is unique because inevitably the EPA will 
>use
>the program to solve environmental racism. Dom's example is like 
>taking
>the Disad and making it a counterplan, saying that the Aff plan 
>prevents
>the opportunity for the EPA to solve, which inevitably they will do. 
>So
>when Dom criticizes the the counterplan under the opportunity cost 
>model,
>he is really criticizing a disad under the false name of counterplan. 

The disad has the burden of uniqueness.  That disad was unique.  You
don't even have to fiat the epa to do anything, they were already doing
it.  In the case of the opportunity cost counterplan, though, the negative abdicates its responsibility to prove uniqueness.  Either read me a
uniqueness card and make the argument a disad or fiat the action and let's debate a counterplan.  I don't even want to debate things which don't
exist.

>Because the resolution is the center of the debate and because the Aff
>must win the resolution to win the round, the Aff has advocacy burden 
>of
>their plan. The negative does have advocacy burdens. They must prove 
>the
>resolution false. But this burden doesnt translate to having to 
>advocate
>their counterplans. That is because their counterplan is not affirming 
>any
>resolution. Thus negative advocacy burdens is not symmetrical to Aff
>advocacy burdens.

If you are right then you would also advocate multiple counterplans. 
Seems like more counterwarrants.  One final thing: fiat is advocacy. 
Otherwise you advocate nothing.  In that case, why debate?


>						Thanks for reading!
>
>
>						lucius K
>						George Mason U.
>
>P.S. Look out for PART TWO!


						Dom Battistella
						ODU Debate

P.S.  Looking forward to part two.

---

References:

• Anti-Battistella: PART ONE
• From: lucius K <lkahng@osf1.gmu.edu>

---

• Prev by Date: RE: Anti-Battistella: PART ONE
• Next by Date: Re: Anti-Battistella: PART TWO
• Prev by thread: OPPORTUNITY: PART TWO
• Next by thread: RE: Anti-Battistella: PART ONE
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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