Counterplans

["Matthew K. Roskoski" <MROSKOSKI@vax1.umkc.edu>]

Regarding Mark Jone's questions about counterplans:

1. I believe Klemz is correct - if competition were resolved based merely on
superior solvency, affirmatives would invariably lose.  My "go to space"
counterplan will outweigh most affirmatives.

2. I believe Mark understands that, though he may not realize he does - Mark
acknowledges the validity of the permutation as a test of competition.  Such a
test would make no sense if simple superior solvency is an adequate measure of
competition.  If competition does not address the question of whether or not
the counterplan PRECLUDES the adoption of the plan, then a test which
demonstrates our ability to combine the two would be irrelevant.  The advocate
of Mark's position would be obliged to say "yes, you can combine the two, but
that does not answer the question of competition, which is whether the
counterplan alone solves better than the plan."

3. Superior solvency as a test of competition ignores questions of relevance -
as Bahm argued earlier, one major purpose of competition is to ensure the
relevance of the counterplan.  On face, "superior solvency" doesn't do that -
signing a chem weapons ban is superior to the death penalty if for no other
reason than it carries the potential to save more lives.  A more sophisticated
version of "superior solvency" would mandate superior solvency FOR THE CASE
HARMS (a standard regularly proposed by North Dakota).  I believe this to be
inadequate.  Just as simple superior solvency allows irrelvant counterplans to
be introduced, the revised standard precludes relevant counterplans.  A
counterplan than banned some portion of the plan would clearly be relevant, yet
would fail the superior solvency test.

4. Non-topicality of a permutation is irrelevant - A permutation is not policy
advocacy.  One good way to realize this is to notice that we don't object to
multiple permutations.  Surely our intuitive sense of fairness and advocacy
would object to a 1AC that said "Plan: we could do X, or we could do Y, or we
could do Z, or we could..."  Yet we have no similar rebellion against a 2AC who
says "1. Perm - do X, 2. Perm - do Y, 3. Perm - do Z, 4. Perm - ..."  The
reason is that the permutation is only a demonstration of the absence of forced
choice between the counterplan and the plan, it is not a genuine amendment of
the plan.  Ergo, the presence or absence of a resolutional mandate for the
permutation is irrelevant.  There's nothing in the resolution that says the
affirmative can claim reasonability as a standard for topicality, nor does
there need to be.  The resolution only constrains the policy advocacy of the
affirmative, not the arguments they may propose in support of their advocacy.

Matt


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Matthew K. Roskoski   |  "Roskoski" isn't Slavic.  It's Irish.               |
| UMKC Debate Forum     |  It used to be "O'Roskoski" before the               |
| Kansas City, MO       |  butchers of Ellis Island got to it.                 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

• Prev by Date: Re: Help
• Next by Date: new cp stuff
• Prev by thread: Re: Counterplans
• Next by thread: Reality, Games and D-b8
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread
  • Author

---

Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page