[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
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
> 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
Meredith Garmon / Fisk U.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page