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

CPlan Logic

Seth Northrop, "thuesen@cobber.cord.edu" asks at 24-OCT-1994 14:34:15.64

>First, EXCLUSIONARY CPs:  Per se, do the affirmative absent a certain 
>plank, and then run a DA or t/a the results of such a plank.
>-Are these legit?  

I think the quesion of "legitimacy" is best discussed via the specific
arguments against the c-plan.  In short, though, yes. 


>-Can they be permuted, and if so ? that qualify as severance?  

Any permutation of an exclusionary c-plan would necisarily not contain 
the entirety of the plan.  That is problematic for two reasons.  
First, if a judge voids the c-plan because of the perm, at the end 
of the round, the judge still votes for all of the plan, therefore, 
a permuation that doesn't contain all of the plan is not a valid 
test of competition.  Second, it would give the affirmative an unfair 
advantage.  Extra plan planks are put in plans for a reason, usually 
to avoid disads or gain better solvency.  The aff can win rounds because 
of them, so therefore the negative should have a check against them - the
exclusion counterplan. 

>-If so is Severing plan planks in order to permute okay?  
>-Especially when the permutation is still topical after severing?

I don't think a permuation that doesn't contain the entire plan is
"severing" becase a perm isn't a plan amendment, but rather a 
hypothetical test of the competitiveness of the counterplan.   I gave
two reasons above why this specific perm is not a valid test of
competition.


>-Can advantages be claimed off of non-competitive planks?

A non-competative part of a counterplan can be permed away (thats why
the permuation standard of competition evolved, I think).  The best
answer to permutations is to find a net benifit - but if the plank
doesn't compete, that answer would be difficult to win.
Perhaps I misunderstand your question.


>-What implications do plan inclusive/or exclusive CPs have on whether or 
>not topical CPs are legit?

Interesting quesiton.  The typical reasons that topical counterplan 
are legitimate are 

1) The affirmative plan is the focus of the debate,
so the resolution does not constrain negatives c-plan ground.  This poses
problems for the exculsionary cplan because the c-plan is part of
the parameterization (non standard english) that the affirmative chooses.
However, it is still not EXACTLY the aff plan, so it is still arguably
a defensable postion.  

and

2)Competition checks abuse and provides for the best policy-making. This,
I think, is the best argument for the exculsionary c-plan.  The c-plan 
tests the desirablility of the extra plan planks.  The "abusiveness" of 
the c-plan linearly increases along with the abusiveness of the plan spikes.  
All you are asking them to do is specifically justify whatever part of the
plan the c-plan excludes.


Seth also asks about time-frame c-plans and permuations, specifically 
concerning moving up Gatt, etc.  I think that this c-plan presumes that
the affirmative plan would take time in congress to debate, etc., which
is questionable.  Does anyone have some thoughts on how the notion of
fiat relates to the passage of the plan thru the legislature and/or debate
and mediation concerning the plan?

Kieran Ringgenberg, UMKC
Follow-Ups:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page