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

Re: Chris Smith and c-plans

At 11:17 AM 5/26/97 -0700, slusher@lexis-nexismail.com wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>
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.
>>>>>>>>>>

Well, it may be wrong, but I don't think so.

>>>>>>>>>>
Still confused.  No clarity.  "I do support counterplans absent negative 
fiat"????  What is that?  
>>>>>>>>>>

It is where the c/plan is simply a TEST of the opportunity cost of the plan.
As it is just a test, there is some support for the fact that you don't need
fiat. It does fall into your "advocacy" vs "fiat" point below.

Which is where I am now.

>>>>>>>>>>
I guess you mean "advocacy" when you say "supported by fiat".  Am I right or 
wrong here?  
>>>>>>>>>>

Actually, it is both. It is true that the c/plan is not advocated, and as
such, there is no reason to "let it be done" (def of fiat). As a test of
what you MIGHT be missing, there is no need to actually "do" it. Remember,
it is a measure of an OPPORTUNITY, not a guarentee.

>>>>>>>>>>
What about counterplans that test out of the affirmative's implementation or
"fiat" (delay, executive order, veto, etc.)????
>>>>>>>>>>

Pretty much the same thing. If you pass the plan now, you will not be able
to pass it later after the deadline for (insert bad thing) has already come
and gone. It is still just an "opportunity" that you are missing.

>>>>>>>>>>
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. 
>>>>>>>>>>

OK, why is this? Why do you assume that it is merely an analogy, rather than
what the c/plan is based upon? 

However, assuming that you are correct, and that it IS an analogy for how we
should properly view c/plans, it seems to me that we should follow the
model. If the model says we compare the plan to the BEST opportunity that
must be foregone, then that is what we should do. If the model says that it
is only a test, then we do not need 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.
>>>>>>>>>>

Really, how is that? In the economic theory, opportunity cost is a test. It
is only a test. As such, if it fails to prove what it was intended to prove,
then it no longer tests. It ceases to exist.

>>>>>>>>>>
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?  
>>>>>>>>>>

There is a big difference between advocacy and testing. An aff is advocated
to fulfill the resolutional mandates. The negative has no such burden. If
you are simply "testing" the aff, then you are not advocating.

I test the aff as a good policy by looking at what opportunities I might
have to forego in order to advocate the plan. This is what a c/plan is. It
is a "test" of the plan, not an advocated plan in and of itself. As such, if
my test fails to show that there are better choices than the aff that will
have to be foregone, then the test failed it's purpose, and it simply goes
away (as tests usually do). It really is that simple.

As far as your question about advocacy is concerned, when you say "perm, do
both...", are you actually advocating a shift away from the 1AC into a new
plan??? If not, then why do you assume that everything must be advocated,
and where do you draw the line?

>>>>>>>>>>
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. 
>>>>>>>>>>

Because if the c/plan is a test rather than an advocacy, it matters a lot.
If the c/plan is a test, and that test fails to show what it was intended to
show (that something better would have to be foregone in order to pass the
plan), then it simply goes away. It did not show this, so it becomes a
nothing. If it were advocated, then it is in the round regardless of what
you do.

>>>>>>>>>>
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. 
>>>>>>>>>>

Actually, I think that Chris has it pretty much right on the money. But hey,
I also think that plan/plan is righteous.  :-)


Peace,

Bob Lechtreck
Bakersfield College
PUTTING OUT FIRES, AND DAMN GOOD DEBATERS
db8coach@lightspeed.net
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page