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

Re: CP's and Opp/cost

	I had thought I was giving the neg rather *less* ground than 
Lechtreck does.  I was suggesting that neg's ground does not include ALL
nonresolutional actions, but rather ONLY those nonresolutional actions 
that compete (either w/ the resolution or with aff's plan).  

	Actually, if one accepts topical CPs on bidirectional topics, 
then being nonresolutional is NEITHER necessary NOR sufficient for being 
neg ground.  On this approach, neg ground doesn't have much to do with 
the resolution, but consists exclusively of actions competitive with 
aff's plan. 

> >>>>>>>>>>
>  That still leaves lots of ground that is neither exclusively aff
> (resolutional) nor exclusively neg (competes with the rez or plan).  
> >>>>>>>>>>
> 
> I'm not sure what would fall under this area, but if aff has the rez and neg
> has the not-rez, there wouldn't seem to be anything else left.

	The not-rez is itself divided into two parts: the not-rez that
competes with aff, and the not-rez that is noncompetitive.  The first 
part (the not-rez that competes with aff) is exclusively neg ground.  
The  second part (the noncompetitive nonrez actions) may belong to either.

> >>>>>>>>>>
> Some people think this ground can be claimed by neither team.  I think it can
> be claimed by either or both, as they choose.  (Affs: you can put as much
> extra-topical stuff in the plan as you like as long as you also take
> resolutional action.  Negs: you can put as much extra-competitive stuff in
> the plan as you like as long as you also include competitive action.  Just
> remember that your opponents can also do that extra- part.)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> 
> Gee, and I thought I was generous with ground. OK, let me get this straight.
> Meredith says that aff can amend NAFTA, AND stop the sale of tech to China in
> orderto get a big hairy Prolif advantage? I'm not sure I understand why. If
> the claim is that aff and neg can do whatever they want.... but they have to
> argue for it's justification in the round, this is different than I have been
> discussing about the role of the rez. I agree that most things should be
> debated in the round. If, hwever, he believes the the initial role of the rez
> allows the aforementioned case, then I disagree.

	Aff can get no advantage from stopping sale of tech to China -- 
that is, no unique advantage relative to the neg team.  They can put the 
tech-sale ban in their plan if they want to, but if they tried to claim 
any advantage from it, neg can instantly take it out by saying: "We can 
do that too.  If you think it's a good idea to ban sale of tech to China, 
then do that part without adopting the resolution."  (Just as affs can 
"perm" the extracompetitive parts of the CP in with the aff plan, negs 
can "perm" the extratopical parts of the plan in with the neg system -- 
either SQ or CP.)  On the other hand, since the "perm" is conditional, aff
is stuck with any DAs that link to banning sale of tech.  So, affs, put 
any ole extratopical stuff in your plan that you want to -- but be aware
that you can't get any unique advantage from the extra-T stuff, while you 
do risk linking to DAs.  So why would any aff do it?  Generally, aff 
wouldn't.  But spiking out a certain DA is sometimes motivation enough.

	It would seem to add credibility to your intrinsicness 
responses if you've had the foresight to include them in the 1AC plan.  In
fact, such responses would no longer have to be called intrinsicness 
arguments -- aff thus avoids the problems that intrinsicness questions raise.

> I think that inside/outside is a good and easy way to split up the rez. This
> way, there are no "grey" areas for us to get hung up on.

	If being outside the rez were sufficient to be neg ground, CPs 
wouldn't have to be competitive.  Action which is outside the rez but 
which in no way competes with aff is *not* neg ground any more than it is 
aff ground.

	Meredith Garmon / Fisk U.
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page