[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Anti-Battistella: PART TWO
On Sun, 25 May 1997 16:28:34 -0400 (EDT) lucius K <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> The Anti-Battistella: PART TWO
>In this post I will first answer the following arguments made by Dom.
>PART TWO: Counterplan is not dispositional.
> A. Logical justifications for
> B. Pragmatic justifications for.
>Before I begin, I wanted to point out that ADA rules mandates that
>counterplans are dispositional, and since Im from an ADA school which
>debates mostly ADA tournaments and mostly ADA teams, Ive always sort
>assumed Counterplans to be dispositional. But with Dom's arguments
>dispositionality, I had an educational experience justifying the
>which before I merely assumed.
Yeah, I know. ADA rules were created to protect us dinosaurs from the
evolution of debate.
>> = my post.
>The quotes are Dom's responses
>PART TWO: Counterplan is not dispositional.
>A. LOGICAL JUSTIFICATIONS FOR DISPOSITIONALITY
> >The counterplan turn would only benefit the affirmative as a
> >reason to reject the counterplan, not necessarily a reason to
> "Opportunity benifit (above again.)"
> >I say the aff had their expectations set
> >too high. An aff's effort should only be expected to give
> >rejection of the counterplan. Nothing more.
> "Why? Doesn't rejection of the counterplan mean rejection of
> negative as well?"
>1.) C/plan is dispositional because competition is a procedural for
Uh, no. Competition determines who wins, but this is covered in a
>2.) C/plan must be relevant. By the Aff winning turns and/or disads to
>counterplan, in essence they are really arguing that that the
>is not relevant to the resolutional question because it is not a
No, the aff is arguing that the negative's advocated position is bad. Once this proves that the cp is not competative then the aff wins. See above.
>3.) A. = the affirmative plan. B. = the negative plan. C. = the SQ. If
>Aff wins that B. is not net beneficial, then they win that A. is
>than B. The result is that B. is rejected as a competitor. Yet, by
>claiming that this then magically results in A better than C. is
>illogical. The two were never compared.
True, but there was a mutual consensus that the status quo is bad and
must be changed. You don't now get to say the status quo is good.
>4.) EXAMPLE TWO: (from part one) Plan saves 100 lives, but b/c of DA
>300 people. Net effect = Aff is undesirable because it kills 200
>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 WORSE
>the SQ. Just as long as its better than 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
>to be topical and only topical. The negative role is to present any
>possible to disprove the resolution, as long as not inconsistent.
Again, you justify counterwarrants.
>5.) Counterplan is not a counter-resolution. To win turns to Aff plan
>to win that the resolution, which the Aff represents, is false. For
>Aff to win turns to the Negative counterplan proves the negatives plan
>false. This doesnt prove a negative resolution false. Remember, the
>purpose of the round is the resolutional focus created by the 1AC. So,
>even if you accept the idea that the counterplan is a
>it is merely one of many possible that is non-topical. Thus even if
>Aff disproves the desirability of a negative resolution, it doesnt
>the undesirability of the negative. If the Negative proves the
>undesirability of the Aff plan, then it proves the undesirability of
>Aff resolution (b/c of parametrics) Therefore answering the only
>that needs to be answered Is the Affirmatives resolution true? (save
I feel like a broken record. Look, when you fiat something it exists. Only the terminally high believe they can activally function in two worlds
at one time. Even then, while the drug user thinks he/ or she is doing
just fine, to the rest of the world thinks them a fool. This is the
same thing that happens when you fiat something to exist while trying to
have the ability to keep one leg in the world of the status quo. You
>B. PRAGMATIC JUSTIFICATIONS FOR DISPOSITIONALITY
> >So if the benefit of running counterplan turns and disads is
> >that the counterplan is rejected, then why not let the Neg
> >their losses and do away with it anways?
> "Uh, fairness, amongst other reasons."
> >Of course there can be arguments (whines?) by the aff that
> >they made an investment of time answering the counterplan,
> >for it to go away means all their effort is washed away.
> "Let's see, time constraints, fairness, abuse. These seem
> pretty big "whines" to me. Arent these traditionally three of
> traditionally accepted reasons why topicality is a voting
> Nah, couldn't be."
>My five arguments above justifyed dispostionality as logical.But even
>logical, pragmatic concerns can outweigh logical justification. Dom
>out that dispostionality is illegitimate for pragmatic reasons. My
Only when your intent to kick the counterplan based on dispositionality
is not clearly conveyed when the counterplan is presented. If the
counterplan is presented as dispositional then I have no room to
>1.) Pragmatically, dispisitionality is permissible. To lose the
>counterplan, a valuable tool of the Neg, is to suffer a significant
>loss to justify the Affs time spent on it. Counterplans (at least
>arent times suck like T.
Decker would kill you if he heard you say that. Beside, topicality is only a time suck if you don't go for it. Look, if the entire round is spent comparing the counterplan to the plan and you arbitrarialy decide to
kick it then the debate is a lost cause. The positions developed were never a comparisson of plan to status quo but or plan to counterplan. To
assume that by kicking the counterplan you have the right to advicate
the status quo creates big problems including:
1. Time constraints. It's hard enough to compare plan to counterplan or plan to status quo but to have to do both in the same round, withouw
warning seems like an abusive skew of time.
2. Fosters Horrible debate. Debaters work hard during constructives to
create detailed scenatios for the judge to evaluate the debate by. By
making such a drastic shift in positions in the last speech makes the
rest of the debate irrelivent. The only thing judgy can look at is
wheterver is left after the debate crumbles in the last two speeches.
>It is a major investment upon the Negatives
>Further, counterplan usually involves admitting that the Aff plan does
>have a level of desirability. (whether more so than SQ is not always
Which is a contradiction.
>2.) Even if not pragmatically permissible, logical justification for
>dispositionality preempts because they outweigh. Eliminating
>dispostionality could illogically force a judge to vote on a plan when
>is not more desirable than SQ. (see above, #4) Thus the judge is
>the resolution when it is false. This destroys the very intrinsic
>of the resolution, to be answered.
Excuse me! Then why is topicality a voting issue. Because pragmatic issues outweigh the substantative issues.
>3.) Aff slant makes this a whine. Disitionality is a fair and
>concept, to claim otherwise is to confuse roles. The Aff plan can be
>turned. The result is rejection of the plan. If the counterplan is
>the result is also rejection of the counterplan. But remember that the
>purpose of the debate is to analysis the truthfulness of the Aff
>resolution, not of the Negative plan. Thats why when the Aff plan is
>rejected, the Aff lose, while if the Neg counterplan is rejected, the
>Neative can still hypothetically win.
No, the negative loses its position of advocacy (cp) then they lose.
>4.) Aff speaks first and last and chooses round focus. Add this with
>the posts about Aff slant, then the concept of dispositionality being
>abusive becomes a whine, not a significantlly pragmatic reason to
>logical justification for dispotionality.
Not when the 1AR may have to handle such a shift after 15 min. of
negative speach time. Just because the negatives speak first and last
dosen't justify negative abuse. This is why we no longer run
> Thanks for reading!
> Lucius K
> George Mason U.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (email@example.com)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page