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

Re: Nude String! Counterplans In Ceda

	I postponed this, and then got lost, so if it seems
discombobulated (I mean more than usual) forgive me.

On Fri, 19 Nov 1993, Glenn Ellingson wrote:

> From: "Maxwell D. Schnurer" <mschnure@moose.uvm.edu>
> 
>    Ahh, Glenn and Counterplan WAR!!!!
> 
>    On Tue, 16 Nov 1993, Glenn Ellingson wrote:
> 
>    > 
>    > All right... can someone explain to me why the Negative having a
>    > generic counterwarrant is a bad thing, but a generic CP is in some way
>    > better? Adam (and others), you've confused me.
> 	   1. I think that Counterplans really can't be "generic" and still apply.
>     By there nature they must be competitive.  So, a Counterplan that doesn't
>    solve the case harms, or can be permed by the aff isn't a counterplan.
> 
> Right.  The CP usually (although I don't think it *has* to) tries to
> solve case "harms".  But in a generic way, with generic solvency ev.
> So really, the analysis is more like a large CW or whole-res argument,
> in that it is examining a larger problem.  For example, "lots of
> policies are made too fast, so we should studymore first".
	I think you can find specific solvency evidence.  Lots or

organizational cp's are flaming.  I disagree that study is outdated, 
There are specific res/case specific harms to non-study.  On the HS Health
care topic, lack of study has left womyn out of medical research --
resulting in messed up medical treatments that don't neccessarily work on
womyn. 

> 
>    2. I think that a counterwarrent can be run each round that there is a
>    non-whole res case run.  Making them the simple research-easy neg
>    alternative. Counterplans, however should solve for the case advantages,
>    and offer other alternatives.
> 
> Yep.  So why does this make CWs bad?  Presumably, this is the idea of
> the activity. 
	I never said that cw's are bad, but that they can be.  I Like some
Cw's run em, and win on em.  But I still see big 'ol logical phallacies (I
know, penis on the brain...) like, CW's don't disprove case!  Counterplans
seem to make more sense to me. 

 The Aff selects one or more examples to prove the
> resolution, and the negative either disproves those examples or
> chooses better examples that they feel lead the critic to reject the 
> resolution despite the possible validity of the Affirmative examples.
> 
> Then, the Aff carries CW (and VO and DA) answers with them, much as
> the Negative carries case-spcific answers.  Just because the Aff
> speaks first shouldn't mean that the Negative is constrained to only
> answering the 1AC subpoints!
> 
we do.

> Of course, Aff criteria can make many CWs irrelevant by choosing
> VALUES (remember those?) that are not impacted upon by common CWs.  Of
> course, this will probably lead to a criterial debate.
> 
	Hey, big dog, it depends on the resolution.  But I am interested
in the implications of values and counterplans. Will you write some more
on this? Why does it t/o the cw?  howzabout cp?


>    > A CW and a CP are somewhat similar conceptually in that they both
>    > clash with one subject area by bringing into the round a different
>    > subject area that in some way supports the conclusion that the
>    > reslution is false; but a CW competes with a claim of fact or value,
>    > and a CP competes with a plan.  If the resolution is "rugs are blue",
>    > and I (the aff) claim "my rug is blue", a counterwarrant of "80% of
>    > Stainmaster carpets produced are brown" makes sense.  A counterplan of
>    > "buy a new rug" has no bearing on the resolution.  However, if the
>    > resolution is "Violence is a justified response to having a blue rug"
>    > then a counterplan of "buy a new (non-blue) rug *is* a maningful
>    > response, and a counterwarrant of "80% of Stainmaster carpets are
>    > brown" is a non sequitor.
> 	   Oh Rugs, Schmugs! (laughing heftily!) I agree with the traditional
>    premises that you have outlined above.  The examples are a little
>    specific, but still apply.  One problem is that resolutions are seldom
>    solely policy/value.  So Counterplans can apply in a non-policy world.
> 
> I agree, with reservations.  I think that CPs depend upon at least
> *implied* policies; which sometimes are not a necessary part of
> advocating the resolution.
	Why, Why do they even have to imply a policy. I have a better way
to solve.  There will be no more problem! > 
> 	   Dale Reed from Miami is writing his Masters paper thing on just
>    this idea, that non-policy debate can accept counterplans as legitimate
>    strategy.  
> 
> Interesting.  While I have not devoted master's thesis-like levels of
> thought to this issue, I think that CPs are relevant in CEDA debate,
> but I don't see what their purpose is when in a round without at least
> implied policy.
	I will write more after bingy.
> 
>    > So why, Adam, do you say a generic CP is better thana  generic CW?
>    > The two positions have different conceptual meanings and uses.  I'll
>    > leave alone the whole issue of whether generic or on-point arguments
>    > are better for the moment. I'm honestly confused why a generic CP = a
>    > good debate and a generic CW = a bad debate.
> 
> 	   Well, I can't answer for adam, but part of it may be new ideas. 
>    Counterwarrents seem stagnant, old, and not very exciting.  I think
>    Counterplans are new and have a lot of potential that is not explored.  I
>    agree that generic counterplans can be bad debate as well, but they don't
>    have to be.  No one has fully explored the ideas of a study cp, one of the
>    most popular, traditional cp's.  (Study as an inherency t/o, Study with
>    thousands of strange advantages, study as anything other than, "study
>    first") 
> 
> Yeah, I remember study CPs.  Yick.  A whine in sheep argument clothing.
	Mmm. I think study has some real potential, But like any arg can be
run poorly.  Up to the debaters. I watched UMKC run SOC really well...>



> Sometimes, the "old" may be just fine.  Besides, how "old" can CWs be
> to you, when you have been debating CEDA for only a few years?
	I have gone to a lot of damn rounds man.  Correct me if I am
wrong, but Cp's have not been traditionally run in CEDA.  It seems as
though the ground is being broken, a new fronteir and all that shit.  I
just like linked positions above CW's and I think that Counterplans bring
advocacy into the round,  Cp's also make the debate more intersting than
simple "growth good, growth bad." (now it can be "growth run by the
Austrailian Sust Develop Bank would solve for species loss faster."
  If
> anyone should be sick of CWs, it should be the lifetime CEDA critics
> (of which I'm not really one... yet).  I guess I don't find "newness"
> to be a compelling reason for choosing the CPs over the CWs.  Criteria
> is an old concept too... should it be discarded?  And topicality?
	Funny you should ask, I think that Topicality is silly.  I think we
should be able to do what we want and not be held to the topic.  (just a
personal little thing. I do use and abuse topicality -- but que sera sera.)
	I like criteria and other "traditional things" but I don't see the
reason for keeping them with no real reason.  (lets argue em out.)  All I
was saying is that COunterplans seem to me (in my silly little role as a
debater...) to be less exciting than Counterwarrents,  It seems to be a
higher more complicated level of debate, and it also is a kind of debate
where the rules and parameters are still being argued.  (Unlike T, I see
few "new" ideas in T outside of new violations and the "meta" standards
idea)



>    > Counterplans are a  mechanism for testingthe adequacy/advantages of a
>    > solvency mechanism.  IMO, if an Aff runs a plan, then counterplans are
>    > a logical way to test their claims, and I do not see that there can be
>    > any argument against the use of counterplans in this way.  Why should
>    > the Aff's chosen solvency mechanism be viewed as the only opssible
>    > solvency mechanism?  However, if the Aff is not making a solvency
>    > claim, CPs make no sense.
> 	   This is the heart of the matter, what I have been grappling with
>    this semester.  Counterplans can do lots of other things, But the question
>    of how the counterplan interacts with a strict res-o-fact affirmative, is
>    one of resolution.
> 
> Right. How do CPs work w/ res-o-fcat, or res-o-quasi-fact?
> 
	Well almost all negatives push for a non-resofact, and try to get
ground that way.  But I think there are some ways, I'll write more
tommorrow. 


> 	   On this resoution, it seems at first glance that running a cp on
>    this res, grants the affirmative their impairment of understanding. (I
>    still don't believe this.)  On other resolutions I think there is
>    counterplan ground outside of the aff offereing solvency.  On the UN
>    Topic, counterplans were run as non-un ways to solve the problems, or as
>    intrinsicness answers.  I would like to look at the resolutions for next
>    semester that give cp ground. 
> 
> I don't see that running a CP *grants* impairment (lots of policies
> exist to try to stop non-existant problems), but I certainly don't see
> how it shows that the impariment doesn't exist.
	Interesting. 

> 
> I agree that CPs make more sense on some topics than others.  Is this
> in fact what you are saying also, Max?
	yeah, That is definately part of what I am saying.  
Peas out. King maxwell Ninja.
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page