RE: lucius K

[Chris Smith <cdsmith@brain.uccs.edu>]

In response to lucius K's b/c (which I'm not quoting because he wanted it 
backchannel), I would like to exercise my right to shift my position. :D

I think I've been wrong about the nature of fiat, even though the right 
notion of fiat has been staring me in the face.  Negative doesn't have fiat 
for the counterplan, but the role does.  Aff doesn't have fiat for their 
plan; the role does.  I have been arguing against neg fiat for the cp, when 
I really should have just been arguing against neg advocacy of the 
counterplan.  As I just posted, under affirmative plan focus we should be 
looking at whether or not to adopt the affirmative plan.  The implied 
comparison for comparative advantage is not the counterplan but the absence 
of affirmative plan (the status quo).  The counterplan acts only as an 
opportunity cost of the affirmative plan, and negative does not advocate 
the counterplan.  However, the fiat exists in the role for that counterplan 
to be enacted at any time.

Hope that clarifies a lot of confusion.  So you're all right.  Fiat exists 
that could be used for the counterplan.  But the fiat isn't employed in 
this debate round.  This clears up a lot of the problems of cp advocacy but 
doesn't create the propensity/uniqueness problem.

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

---

• Prev by Date: RE: Neg Fiat
• Next by Date: Wil Repko only
• Prev by thread: Re: Chris Smith and c-plans
• Next by thread: Wil Repko only
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

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