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

Re: Neg Fiat


On Sun, 25 May 1997 13:47:28 -0600 Chris Smith <cdsmith@BRAIN.UCCS.EDU>
writes:
>The question with CWC is what role the judge plays.  If we draw a 
>parallel,
>the judge is playing the role of U.S. policy maker.  As a U.S. policy
>maker, the judge would be perfectly justified in rejecting negative
>advocacy of creating a CWT and ratifying it instead.  This is because 
>U.S.
>policy makers simply cannot create treaties.  Treaties are negotiated
>between multiple parties, the U.S. being only one.  If the treaty were 
>to
>exist, however, and be simultaneously before the Senate, its existence
>would be a reason not to enter into CWC.  None of this proves that opp 
>cost
>is bad, but rather that a judge should reject a counterplan which is 
>not
>within the ability of his role to enact.

This a problem with the analogy--treaties are sticky situations as you
pointed out. I'll try to use general examples so we can avoid the
fallacies in the specific examples.  

>
>Let's take another scenario.  Say that some U.S. policy option has 
>been
>proposed which would solve the world's problems with chemical weapons. 
> Not
>another treaty, but another policy within the ability of U.S. policy 
>makers
>to pass.  And say that this policy competes at net benefits level with 
>CWC
> via credibility disads to violation of international treaty due to 
>this
>new policy.  In this case, a U.S. policy maker would be justified in 
>voting
>against ratification of the CWC.  See the difference?  The CWT 
>counterplan
>would not have been feasible to the role.

You're right.  CWT wasn't feasable so I'll use your example.  The problem
of propensity/inevitability still exists.  If approval of this new U.S
inacted policy was inevitable, then their would be a true opp cost to ratifying CWC, and a senator would certainly be justified in voting against
CWC.  However this would not really be a c/p and would be better suited
as a DA--not that it really matters.  But we all know that most c/p
don't have that type of propensity, they are infact inherent, i.e--they
won't go in to effect.  Because they at best MAY go into effect, the
true opp cost can't really be measured.  It may preclude a better option.  It may not.  This has to be evaluated in the congresman's mind as well
as a judge, regardless of the role.  (I tend to agree with the role you put a judge in, but I don't think it legitimizes opp cost.)  I do think
opp cost is true--to an extent.  I do think that a fiated position is
stronger, and is easier to win with.  With a fiated c/p a judge has two
definite options.  Assuming competition, he can only vote for one.  He
knows for a fact that both options are possibilities and that if he picks one the other will not go in to effect.  With an opp cost c/p a judge
has one *definite* option.  He knows that the plan will go into effect
if he votes for it, however if he votes for the c/p he only votes for
the *possibility* of it going in to effect.  As I said, I think opp cost
is a valid argument but not very strong,at least not as strong as a fiated c/p.  I don't think the presence of an opp cost warrants a neg ballot,
especially in comparison to  a fiated c/p where a judge would actually
be voting for the policy to go in to effect.  I wonder if there could be
some type of consensus on this issue.  If there is then we should shift
the focus of this thread to whether neg fiat is legit.  If it is we
should use it because the position is stonger.  If not then we should use opp cost.  (I don't know if I could ever do such a thing :)


>So choose a role, present a counterplan feasible to that role, and
>opportunity costs will work as I explained.  The simple fact is that 
>CWT is
>not a feasible counterplan to a U.S. policy-maker.  All that I'm 
>saying is
>that the opportunity cost must at least be an opportunity (*not* an
>inevitability or even a probability) for the role assumed by the 
>judge.

The role may be assumed where they take opp cost in to *consideration*. 
As a neg, I would rather the judge not be forced in to looking at the
probabiltity or inevitability of a c/p. With fiat they don't have to.  The probability has to be considered once the judge has assumed the role
you propose.  For instance (not to beat a dead horse) if anarchy is
proven to be mx and net beneficial in a round then the judge must
evaluate the probability as unlikely, and hence vote aff.  The judge would have to give the argument a little more credit if a card was presented
that anarchy is coming, and support  will make its way in to Congress for
disbanding the gov't.  Although it still may not warrant a neg ballot, it
would be closer.  The judge would have to give even a little more credit
to the neg if they fiated anarchy,  which provided even greater
propensity.  I think that's why a fiated position is more credible,
regardless of the role of the judge.  

>
>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
>

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