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

OPPORTUNITY: PART ONE

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

It wasnt meant to be an ad hom, just a joke, like Anti-Counterplans. I
regret having used this title and I apologize. My intent was never to
antagonize. I will thus change the posts title. Again, sorry.

	> 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.


I've already answered this in other posts. This is an argument you are
applying to Chris fiatless counterplan. Im not advocating this sort of
opportunity cost model. 

>Let the the debating begin!
---------------------------------------------------------------

	> A. AFF IS ALLOWED TO TURN OPPORTUNITY COST INTO OPPORTUNITY 
	> BENEFIT:

	> 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.


My answer, Neg does it _all the time_ and Aff can still win the rounds. It
is not commonly accepted that Aff automatically wins when they win the
counterplan debate. 

EXAMPLE:
Aff plan saves 200 lives. Negative counterplans, thus saves 200 lives as
well. They then run a disad that only links to the Aff plan that claims it
kills 1,000 people. In sum, counterplan saves 1,200 (1st place) SQ kills
200 people (2nd place), and the Aff plan kills 800 people (last place). 

What the negative is claiming by running the counterplan is that the SQ is
undesirable. But with the disads, they argue the Aff plan to be more
undesirable than both the SQ and the counterplan. As a result, Aff is
debating against the SQ (the 1,000 life disad) as well as the counterplan.
This happens in rounds all the time! 

(Forgive my bodycountism.)
---------------------------------------------------------------

	> 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.

Again, its not a shift of advocacy. Negative advocates negating the
resolution, not advocating a counterplan. Further my above example proves
that the Negative can advocate the Counterplan and the SQ at the same
time, and that it happens all the time!
---------------------------------------------------------------

	> 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?


Again, my above example as well as last post answers this.
----------------------------------------------------------------
 
	> 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.

 
True, but Im not saying that it will be. If the Negative conceedes the SQ
is somewhat guilty, but that the Aff plan is more undesirable, then the
judge is voting negative, and by doing so is in essence saying that the
resolutional question is answered, the resolution is false, but that parts
of the resolution are true and in the furure should be debated out. They
wont be, but thats kind of what the judge is doing when voting Neg in this
situation.

Further, the reason of the debate is not to find the best policy. The
debate is not over whether the counterplan is better than the plan, rather
a debate over should we answer the resolution true or false? (aside from
Kritiks) Therefore, by winning the counterplan is an opp. cost of the
plan, the judge votes that the resolution is false, against the plan. The
judge only votes for or against the resolution, never for the Negatives
policy. The ballot may say that the c/p was the better policy, but that
means that it proves itself as an opp. cost and thus the resolution false.
So in essence, the judge is not voting for the c/plan, but against the
plan. (Judge doesnt advocate doing the counterplan, she/he advocates NOT
doing the Aff plan.)
-----------------------------------------------------------

	> 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.


Once you advocate a counterplan then you get to be the counterplan and
only the counterplan. But all along, I've argued that opp. cost means the
Neg. doesnt advocate the counterplan, but advocates negating the
resolution. Somehow you are equating fiat to be the same as advocacy. Its
not. Under your justification for this (which I have yet to see) does it
mean that if the Negative advocates the SQ then they are allowed fiat as
well? Say to fiat plan admendments to the SQ. Fiat is first and foremost a
tool in debate to tie the real world to the debate round and to prevent
the should/would fallacy. Thus fiat for a counterplan is to increase the
educational value of that counterplan by elliminating should/would
debates, and by allowing the debators to argue real world impacts to the
proposed test of opp. Advocacy is the determinded by what side we are on,
be it Negative or affirmative. If you say advocacy is determined by the
plans/ counterplans run and not by the resolutional question, then you
allow plan plan debates that say we must forget the resolutional question
and decide which policy should be voted for.

Negatives opp cost counterplan is as as close to a counterwarrant as the
Affs ability to choose any topical world (whether obscure or not) to
justify the resolution as true. So your worries about counterwarrants are
unfounded.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

	>> 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.


I've already effectively proven that the SQ and counterplan can exist
together, and it happens all the time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

	>> 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.

AHHH! It doesnt prevent the judge from accidently voting for the worse
policy because the round is not a test of which policy is better, but if
the resolution is true or false. Dont forget this. (see above for further
details) If your arguing that the Aff plan will prevent congress from
passing the counterplan, thus an opportunity benefit, then you have not
listend to a word I've said about the difference between direct costs and
opportunity costs. If you can prove that the counterplan will be passed
absent plan, then you have a direct cost (trade-off) disad, not an
opportunity cost counterplan. Dont argue with me on this till you read up
on the difference between opp. cost and direct cost. (I gave a definition
by Korcok in my last post) I think this is also a discussion you want to
continue with Chris Smith, not me.
------------------------------------------------------------------

	> 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.


Illogical arguments strike again. I've already answered that the negative
uses counterwarrants as much as the affirmative does when they choses any
plan to advocate as the resolutions truthfulness. Further, under your
fallacy, you force the judge to vote for the resolution when the Aff plan
is more desirable than the counterplan but less desirable than the SQ.
Trabslation: Aff wins when even though the resolution is false. This
fallacy must be rejected!  
-------------------------------------------------------
 
	>> Korcok's explanation: blah blah blah see original post

	> 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.


I've asked you over and over agian, "Whats your logical justification for
arguing that fiat means advocacy?"
--------------------------------------------------------------

	> 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.


I dont want to debate disads that theoretically justify their uniqueness
by arguing opportunity cost. I dont advocate this kind of opportunity cost
model for counterplan debate. Yet you criticize the opp. cost model by
criticizing the non-unique disad that uses opp cost. If you read Korcok's
explaination this will all be cleared up. If you further want to debate
opp. cost disads, see Chris.
--------------------------------------------------------------

	> Seems like more counterwarrants.  One final thing: fiat is 
	> advocacy. Otherwise you advocate nothing.  In that case, why
	> debate?


So if the Negative advocates the SQ then they are allowed fiat? Wait, you
said "fiat is advocacy" So Im guessing in fact the negative dosnt advocate
the SQ when they argue that its better than the Aff plan, because they
dont use fiat. See the flaw in your argument. I guess the negative
advocates nothing untill they run a counterplan. 


                                               Thanks for reading!

                                               lucius K
                                               George Mason U.

P.S. Look out for PART TWO!
 

                                                > Dom Battistella
                                                > ODU Debate
 

I just want to add that judging by Dom's lack of responses and the overall
lack of responses from other debaters over this thread, I'm going to make
this my last for a while. If anyone wants to continue this discussion with
me, backchannel me. Its been brought to my attention that some debators
dont want this thread over the L because of its lack of participation.
Fine. 

Final note, I want to say I enjoyed this thread, really got me thinking
about counterplans. Thanks goes out to the participants of this thread,
Dom, Pat, Chris, and others.


							Lucius K
							George Mason U.
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page