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

RE: SPRING

Once again, I haven't quite figured out that cut and paste thing, so bear
with my ignorance.  Todd Morth asks a few interesting questions....

Cplans on the NATO topic:  couldn't the negative say "COunterplan: leave the US
 in NATO but ban US first-strike nuclear option"???  The net ben is any benefit
 to NATO being good, but would answer aff scenerios on US involvement in NATO
leads to first strike use by the US to protect its NATO partners???  I think
the key here is that one need not argue pullout as the basis of the CP.  Other
counterplans which limit US military use in other ways besides NATO involvement
 seem to be legit.  They would prove that the US involvement in NATO is good,
it is only through other changes in US policy that are needed to become net ben
eficial.

Perception CP:  on the nuke topic it would say that we basically lie, and say
to other countries that we've cut weapons (to get out of US military buildup/nu
ke weapons use disads), but to actually keep the weapons for use if we need the
m (retains weapons advantages).  Now I think that the opposite is actually net
beneficial, ie to increase weapons (heg advantages) perceptions to other countr
ies.  I only propose the idea for discussion.

Offset: on the budget topic it would claim that we offset cuts in one area for
gains in other areas, or that we cut a program now and reistate it tomorrow.
They were really popular on the HSchool prison overcrowding topic, where people
 would Cplan that we should take people from the prisons and refill with other
people.  That way you get the perception advantages of cutting the military, bu
t actually stay stronger than you were before.

Utopia CP:  You merely fiat over an attitudinal barrier when you fiat utopia.
IE world government cplan only fiats over the existing governments; it does not
 fiat solvency.  If it fiated that world government would solve pop, space,
tech, etc. then it would be overstepping legitimate fiat bounds.  But as long
as the CP is not extra-coimpetitive, ie fiating to a significantly different do
main than the aff, it is legit.  For example, an anarchy CP against an ANtarcti
ca case on the democracy topic would be extra-competitive, because it needs
worldwide fiat to achieve solvency, whereas the Aff only needs fiat over
that one Continent/country.  (Res of fact counterplans seem irrelevent at this
point, but how do you determine if my understanding has gone down if you don't
know how my understanding could have gone up?  It has to go down from some init
ial starting point.  The answer to that question is where the implicit alternat
ive by the aff comes in, and where the counterplan debate begins!)

Now all you need is some solvency cards, and we're set.  (did you ever think
you'd see the day when the gurus of topic wording at that mysterious CEDA
headquarters would write a topic with the word  "nuclear" in it??  JIm
Springston must be going nuts!!

Keep Counterplanning,  Adam Chud
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page