Chris Smith and c-plans

[slusher@lexis-nexismail.com]

I don't know Chris Smith or his background when it comes to counterplan theory. 
This post just really got to me.....I'll never claim to be an expert...I just 
think this has to be wrong.

On Sun, 25 May 1997, Chris Smith <cdsmith@BRAIN.UCCS.EDU> wrote:
>
>Lucius K seems to be arguing against my view of counterplans (although he
>claims to be opposing Domenic Battistella's view).  I *do* support
>counterplans absent negative fiat, so to clarify any confusion, that is my
>position (and I think Bob's, though with perhaps a very different
>justification which I don't understand).

Still confused.  No clarity.  "I do support counterplans absent negative 
fiat"????  What is that?  
I guess you mean "advocacy" when you say "supported by fiat".  Am I right or 
wrong here?  What counterplan doesn't use fiat?  It's just as illusory as the 
affirmative's but the negative doesn't always have to defend the implementation 
mechanism of the counterplan???  What about counterplans that test out of the 
affirmative's implementation or "fiat" (delay, executive order, veto, etc.)????
Domenic Battistella says that a counterplan is definately advocacy unless the 
negative specifically addreses this in the 1NC (like, call it dispositional)...
you say your position is in line with his....so are you saying dispositional
counterplans are NOT "supported by fiat" and therefore immune from attacks 
against the implementation mechanism or from process arguments that stem from 
the use of fiat??  I think I'll disagree with that.....

>This is really a matter of terminology.  I think I am being reasonable in
>saying that a counterplan supported by opp cost doesn't claim fiat.
> Advocacy and fiat are really the same thing, and opp cost is how neg
>avoids the advocacy burdens of the counterplan.

WHAT??????!!!!!!?????  What is "supported by opportunity cost"?  Quick aside....
It seems a lot of people are treating the opportunity cost view of counterplans 
as if it is some new wacked out way to conceptualize the role a counterplan 
serves in the debate.  Actually, I think you'll find that it's mearly an analogy 
as to how we should properly view counterplans and their role.  We do 
opportunity cost breakdowns already...even if you've never made the connection 
between counterplans and the idea of opportunity cost...that's what we do 
anyway.  The link to the net-benifit is a trade-off.....the whole cannot/ought 
not thing....blah, blah.  What's the deal with the intense outrage?  It's an 
analogy to HELP or ASSIST in our conceptualization of COMPETITION...I think it 
makes it easier that way...call me crazy.
In any case, NO your NOT being REASONABLE when you say a counterplan 
"supported"(whatever that means) by opportunity cost doesn't "claim fiat".
Now maybe, through the discussion you've concluded that opportunity cost itself 
means that the negative can discard the counterplan when it no longer competes. 
That's not "opportunity cost" theory that says that per se...that's a view of 
counterplans that goes beyond the oppotunity cost analogy.  I also don't think 
that is the rationale for why the negative doesn't "advocate" a counterplan.  I 
think that has a lot to do with the origional division between affirmative and 
negative.  WHY does the negative need to "advocate" a test of the plan vs. all 
other actions(whether they be resolutional or non-resolutional)????  I'll never 
understand what theoretical justification says this.  Affirmative advocates a 
plan to fullfill a resolutional question or claim.  Negative supports anything 
that is the non-resolution(NOT NECESSARILY THE STATUS QUO)...which could also be 
theoretical "topic" ground depending on a "parametrics" discussion.  Why does 
the negative NOT get to employ the tools of that non-resolutional ground to beat 
the rez/plan?  
Where do you get this connection between "fiat" and "advocacy"?  What is 
advocacy really?  You seem to assume advocacy only lies in what the plan mandate 
is or involves over the course of implementation.  Are the things I say in a 
debate not advocacy?  I can believe that there is a connection between fiat and 
advocacy but I don't see what that has to do with counterplans that a negative 
can't kick or the be all end all of fiat.  I guess I can't have advocacy links 
to positions in the 2AC if the counterplan is dispositional (or specifically 
addreses opportunity cost in the 1NC...like that would ever happen).  I think 
I'll disagree with that too....


>I'm not going to repeat my justification for opp cost, but it basically
>deals with the role assumed by the judge, and it is currently being
>discussed in the "opportunity benefits" thread...
>
>Just wanted to clarify confusion basically.  All the issues are discussed
>elsewhere.

Okay.  Not sure what got clarified....I'm starting to think I am less and less 
confused by the big counterplan discussions.....I'm thinkin' you're a touch 
confused, bro.  At least your heart's in the right place.  :)

slusher
-college

---

• Prev by Date: OPPORTUNITY: PART TWO
• Next by Date: RE: Anti-Battistella: PART ONE
• Prev by thread: straw vote
• Next by thread: Re: Chris Smith and c-plans
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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