[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
RE: Anti-Battistella: PART ONE
Paul Xenakis writes:
> If this is true, then there seems to be unique permutation ground in opp
> cost debates, and possibly another weakness. Why not permute, saying
> that plan will be done in its entirety using the notion of fiat given
> above. Then when the opportunity would theoretically be lost, do the
c/p.
> The two wouldn't necessarily have to be done at the same time, seing as
> how the plan doesn't have to exist forever. It doesn't seem to change
> the timeframe of when the two go in to effect. The permutation would
> include the iplementation of both plans, but not at the same time. I'm
not
> advocating this necessarily, but I wonder what everyone thinks.
I've already said I think this is the best argument I've seen against opp
cost counterplans. The only problem is that the model of fiat as a single
act fails to properly address many of the questions of debate. It doesn't
look at what we should do, but rather what we shouldn't necessarily not do!
It fails to fulfill the purpose of fiat because plan will only be repealed
if unpopular. I'm still pondering what would be a better limit that would
require fiat to last forever.
One idea: Fiat lasts until a hypothetical debate that is similar to this
one but with a change in status quo to fit current state of events would
result in a negative ballot. Comments? I just wonder whether we could
hypothetically construct that similar debate.
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
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page