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

RE: Neg Fiat

I don't have the time right now to answer this post point by point, so here 
is a general overview of the issues.

Domenic Battistella writes:
> Well, your entire argument is that the judges decision making should
> parallell that of a congressman to justify forsaking the plan now so the
> opportunity to vote on a policy latrer is not lost.

I think that's a mis-statement of my argument.  My argument is that we 
should look at the role assumed by the judge.  That role could be a U.S. 
Congressperson, I suppose, but that would fail to sufficiently account for 
fiat and would retain the "should/would fallacy" that everyone refers to. 
 The judge more likely assumes the role of the entire policy-making 
institution.  Once we look at this, we see that the policy-making 
institution can easily reject one policy to consider another.

Now Domenic says that we would need to trust Congress to pass the cp at a 
later date.  That isn't really true because when the judge enters the round 
and assumes the role of a policy-making institution and votes against plan 
on the basis of an opportunity cost, this action proves support from the 
U.S. policy making institution for the counterplan.  The role continues, 
and acts on that support to pass some policy option (most likely the 
counterplan).  The judge doesn't pass the counterplan, but neither does the 
judge support the counterplan in the first place.  Unless you can tell me 
that you've supported every single cp you've voted on, the role is what 
supports the policy, and no one has given a good reason why that role can't 
go on to pass policy according to the option.

Chris Smith

"Love is apparently killed by time, only because it transcends time; and 
its spiritual and infinite essence cannot be contained with the limitations 
of a material and finite world."
	- Caroline Spurgeon, on Shakespeare's philosophy of love

-----Original Message-----
From:	Domenic M Battistella [SMTP:mattbatt@juno.com]
Sent:	Sunday, May 25, 1997 5:08 PM
To:	cdsmith@BRAIN.UCCS.EDU
Cc:	ndt-l@uga.cc.uga.edu; ceda-l@cornell.edu
Subject:	Re: Neg Fiat


On Sun, 25 May 1997 10:00:32 -0600 Chris Smith <cdsmith@BRAIN.UCCS.EDU>
writes:
>You write:
>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>It just shows that you have to prove the inevitability of the counter
>opportunity to prove that the opportunity is actually lost.  In the
>case of the CWC, Jesse Helms advocated holding out to wait for a
>better
>chemical weapons treaty.  The only thing is that there was no other
>alternative available in the real world.  In the debate world though a
>creative negative could have created a new treaty to vote upon or they
>could have run a study counterplan.  Both of these options would work
>if
>fiated in the debate world but they are not grounded in the real
>world.
>If an opportunity cost is to exist for the purposes of debate it muse
>exist, be advocated, and be inevitable in the real world.  A creative
>negative could claim anything is an opportunity cost of the
>affirmative
>even if no legislature in a million years would even consider the
>option.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>And if a creative Jesse Helms actually advocated a new and competitive
>policy, then opportunity cost would exist.  The opportunity cost would
>exist because congress could reject CWC knowing that a better policy
>exists
>WHICH THEY ARE EMPOWERED TO IMPLEMENT.

Which only proves why counterplans based on opportunity cost are bogous.
They must be advocated and feasable in the status quo.  In other words
you had better have a solvency card written by God which says the the
counterplan (word for word text) is advocated by some policy maker,
stands a reasonable chance of being passed, and is superior to the
affirmative plan.  Since, I wager, this card doesn't exist for any
counterplan and the negative is not advocating (fiating) the counterplan
then there is no lost opportunity.  The only way the negative can ever
prove anybody ever advocates the counterplan is by sticking their own necks 
out and advocating it.

>>>>>>>>>>>
>Yeah, but in the real world congress would never find a Clinton disad
>a
>compelling reason to reject a plan vs. a counterplan as is common in
>debate.  Congress would only look at the merits of the competing
>plans solvency and very reasonable disadvantages.  No such constraints
>appear in debate.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>The fact that the Clinton disad isn't considered feasible by
>Congressmen
>doesn't make a bit of difference for the theory.  If it really isn't
>realistic or reasonable, affirmatives should win that in the round.
>If
>negatives win the disad, then why should we change the form of debate
>because our opinions of issues differ from those of Congress.  I could
>certainly imagine Congress discussing the reactions of Clinton to a
>policy
>except for the political restrictions to this.  I'm not sure we should
>parallel Congress to the point of introducing politics into our
>activity.

Well, your entire argument is that the judges decision making should
parallell that of a congressman to justify forsaking the plan now so the
opportunity to vote on a policy latrer is not lost.  I would bet some 
congresspersons would laugh at some of the justifications we use to vote on
counterplans.

>>>>>>>>>>>
>The option may be feasable but would it ever make the floor of
>congress?
>In this context, probably not.  There would be no justification for
>rejecting the CWC based on this example.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>Again, should we copy the politics exchanged in Congress?  Does this
>really
>answer the resolutional question of what the USFG should do?

If no then the opportunity cost counterplan has no business being run in
competative debate.

>>>>>>>>>>>
>Sure, but a creative negative will come up with som things that
>congress
>would never concider and hence, no lost opportunity versus the plan.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>
>But you ignore the point about roles.  If the policy-maker role
>assumed by
>the judge supports the counterplan, then saying that policy-makers
>won't
>support it is just plain wrong.  This is proven by the negative
>ballot.

Uh, no.  If the judge rejects the plan on the basis of opportunity cost
then what the judge is saying is that the plan is rejected so that
congress can vote on the counterplan at a later date.  Post the round
the judge cannot choose to fiat the counterplan, that is left up to the 
real world policy makers.  That is why the negative must meet the burden of 
uniqueness to justify the counterplan or wholesale fiat it during
round.  If one of these two is not met then there is no lost opportunity
in the judges mind and hence, no reason to reject the affirmative.

>Chris Smith
>Woodland Park HS Debate


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