Jump to content
stealthytitsMcGee

Mutual Exclusivity

Recommended Posts

Does a counterplan have to be mutually exclusive?

 

Can it just compete through net benefits or is this considered 'artificially competitive'?

 

If a negative ran a counterplan and the affrimative's only arguments were:

A perm.

A theory argument saying the counterplan must be mutually exclusive and if it is not there is no reason to vote on it.

Would you look at the counterplan when voting?

Recently a South Dakota team lost to the argument above; could the three ballots be a regional thing? Or, was the round a complete judgefuck?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does a counterplan have to be mutually exclusive?

No.

Can it just compete through net benefits or is this considered 'artificially competitive'?

Most counterplans run compete through net benefits such as your international actor counterplan.

 

An artificially competitive counterplan is one that only functionally competitive by text alone. Something like CP: Don't do aff but do X instead would be artificially competitive because you could do X and plan at the same time, but its only a result of the counterplan text that you can't. These counterplans should lose to the perm every time.

If a negative ran a counterplan and the affrimative's only arguments were:

A perm.

A theory argument saying the counterplan must be mutually exclusive and if it is not there is no reason to vote on it.

Would you look at the counterplan when voting?

Not if the aff won that the counterplan must be mutually exclusive.

Recently a South Dakota team lost to the argument above; could the three ballots be a regional thing? Or, was the round a complete judgefuck?

Above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mutually exclusive CPs are always superior. anything else isnt an opportunity cost, and quite frankly doesnt matter whether or not there is a superior policy option unless the neg wishes to advocate such and therefore is bound to advocating said policy option..

 

but then again, im old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mutually exclusive CPs are always superior
Word. Of course, you and I remember a time when it was generally considered Neg's job to oppose Affplan, not hunt for nit-picky ways to co-opt it... ;)
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just find it funny how debaters want to steal an economics term - opportunity cost - and then redefine it to mean whatever the hell they want it to mean irrespective of the actual original meaning.

 

opportunity cost - the benefit of a foregone policy option.

 

if debaters ran op cost theory in front of me, they would win... a lot. of course, for some odd reason, despite my published, open, and oft vocalized position on this matter, philly and northeast teams NEVER make that argument in front of me.......

 

*sigh*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kerpen sufficiently convinced me in this thread that no counterplans should be seen as "mutually exclusive" and that all competition debates are really debates over net benefits. It's a very good read as far as cross-x.com theory debates go.

 

There was a subsequent echo of that discussion in this thread, which doesn't have a very good theory debate, but there are some top-notch snide remarks. Very funny.

 

By the way, I'm moving this thread (the one you're reading right now) to Theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mutually exclusive CPs are always superior. anything else isnt an opportunity cost, and quite frankly doesnt matter whether or not there is a superior policy option unless the neg wishes to advocate such and therefore is bound to advocating said policy option..

 

but then again, im old.

Can't there be a net benefits based opportunity cost? That is to say, the CP is not mutually exclusive, but the CP is net beneficial over both the plan and the Perm. In such a view, the benefit of the CP being reduced to perm or plan levels could be seen as an opportunity cost, much as the money I use to pay down my mortgage principle creates opportunity cost by removing it from the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kerpen sufficiently convinced me in this thread that no counterplans should be seen as "mutually exclusive" and that all competition debates are really debates over net benefits. It's a very good read as far as cross-x.com theory debates go.
So, it is your sense of it that the rez means "pass a piece of legislation," not "take action X"? How odd...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no. opportunity cost is ALWAYS defined as a foregone opportunity.

 

and its important to remember that there are two ways to vote for each team: you can vote for the negative side by either a) voting for the neg or B) voting against the aff. a counterplan is designed to give the judge a reason to vote against the aff. a superior non-mutually exclusive option is a reason to vote neg. now you can view this as a semantic difference if you wish, but in a logic statement theory sense (which all debate boils down to), its very different.

 

 

if you can do both plan and CP at the same time, the fact that the perm is not better than the CP alone is irrelevant. the perm might show the CP to be a superior policy option, but its still not an opportunity cost to the aff plan because the CP isnt a foregone option. if something is not an opportunity cost to the aff plan, then its not a reason to reject voting aff, and thus its technically not a counterplan. its just a neg policy option (NPO).

 

what you CAN do is kick the NPO down to net benefits paradigm, which is perfectly acceptable, because the judge can vote for the NPO in the same way the judge votes in plan plan - the judge picks the better policy option. but in doing so, the neg is bound to the policy option because it must be advocated - its no longer a test of the aff plan because at the end of the day, a neg vote on a counterplan isnt a vote for the counterplan - its a vote for the status quo. the judge votes up a competitive CP on the grounds that doing the plan over the SQ means you cant do the CP later.

 

now a popular notion is this silly idea of op cost of benefits. the "op cost" (in this view) of doing the perm over the CP is that you still suffer the disad of the perm. but you're forgetting that its wholly irrelevant because its by definition NOT an op cost. this is just window dressing of the net benefits paradigm. its window dressing because you cant have 'opportunity' costs of impacts. they are just plain old costs. not opportunity costs. which is why its called the net benefits paradigm - a weighing of the costs and benefits of any given policy option.

 

 

op cost is binary because it literally draws a brightline which never calls into action something so subjective as looking at net benefits. if something is mutually exclusive, there is an op cost. if not, its just a competing policy option.

 

 

and again, i am not saying that you cant run arguments which are just flat out superior policy options... you sure as hell can as witnessed by topical counterplans and plan plan. but what i am adamant about is that the neg doesnt get to access the protections of counterplan theory when doing s - namely the defense of the status quo, and the ability to kick the CP (because kicking a counterplan doesnt shift advocacies from the status quo).

 

(though i think there are theoretical problems with 'net benefits' which makes NPOs competitively poor in the debate is a competition aspect)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does it matter what a term means in one context when dicussing it in another unrelated context? I didn't read the whole thread but it seems like much ado, etc. Like, if I call a phone call from my landlord rent-seeking behavior, I'm probably not using the term in a political corruption context. Ankur's definintion of opportunity cost isn't the one we use in philosophy, nor the one we use in political science, so I'm not sure why it matters how they use it in economics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, it is your sense of it that the rez means "pass a piece of legislation," not "take action X"? How odd...
I think that's a better way to read it, yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that's a better way to read it, yes.
Because....? Come on now, YOU started this... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why does it matter what a term means in one context when dicussing it in another unrelated context? I didn't read the whole thread but it seems like much ado, etc. Like, if I call a phone call from my landlord rent-seeking behavior, I'm probably not using the term in a political corruption context. Ankur's definintion of opportunity cost isn't the one we use in philosophy, nor the one we use in political science, so I'm not sure why it matters how they use it in economics.

 

because its a term taken FROM economics? and if its used elsewhere (philosophy or political science) with different meanings, its being used incorrectly.

 

if you want to make up terms, go ahead, and define them to be whatever you wish them to be. i made one up in my previous post NPO - neg policy option. philosophers make up terms all the time. but you cant arbitrarily begin redefining terms which already have meaning just because you want to make your argument sound more palatable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you think that economics used the construction prior to logic or decision-making or negotiation or rhetoric? It seems odd that you would latch on to one modern usage as the "right" one when it's not even the oldest. That's not how Aristotle used it, was he wrong?

 

It's just an odd thing to focus on, very random.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you can do both plan and CP at the same time, the fact that the perm is not better than the CP alone is irrelevant. the perm might show the CP to be a superior policy option, but its still not an opportunity cost to the aff plan because the CP isnt a foregone option. if something is not an opportunity cost to the aff plan, then its not a reason to reject voting aff, and thus its technically not a counterplan. its just a neg policy option (NPO).
Here's the way I see it. There are four distinctive post-fiat worlds. One is to maintain the SQ. Another is to adopt the CP. These are the neg ground. The Perm and the Plan on its own are the Aff ground. Each option will have benefits and liabilities, generating an overall value. By adopting any but the most valuable option, you are costing yourself the opportunity of that option. So, to accept the perm when the CP offers better advantages or fewer disadvantages is to cost yourself the value difference between the perm and the CP. I don't think it's so unreasonable to view it this way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the philosophical reference, to every opportunity exists a cost, is not applicable to the competitive reference between counterplans and plans.

 

but near as i can tell, the aristotlean interpretation is identical to the form in economics - the opportunity cost of one action is the benefits of the superior of alternative competing actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's the way I see it. There are four distinctive post-fiat worlds. One is to maintain the SQ. Another is to adopt the CP. These are the neg ground. The Perm and the Plan on its own are the Aff ground. Each option will have benefits and liabilities, generating an overall value. By adopting any but the most valuable option, you are costing yourself the opportunity of that option. So, to accept the perm when the CP offers better advantages or fewer disadvantages is to cost yourself the value difference between the perm and the CP. I don't think it's so unreasonable to view it this way.

 

 

i think you misunderstand. in my view, the perm isnt a policy option to be evaluated. the perm IS the test of mutual exclusivity. if the permutation is possible, then the counterplan is not competing with the affirmative. the judge never evaluates the perm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ankur, everything you've said in this thread is completely irrelevant.

 

Counterplans theory is built such that it produces good policy calculus. It therefore borrows much from classical economics - especially the notion of an opportunity cost. But how you define and categorize terms really doesn't matter, so long as the rules of the game are equivalent.

 

If you believe such-and-such counterplan should be considered legitimate/illegitimate, please say so, and defend your position in terms of what's best for debate. But your mini economics lessons here are rather worthless. These esoteric tirades over what really comes down to semantics aren't helping anyone decide whether counterplan X should yield a win for the neg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my point is this:

 

there isnt anything which is 'illegitimate' in debate. there is only better and worse options. 'net beneficial' counterplans are in the category of being worse.

 

if a counterplan is not mutually exclusive, and the perm is the TEST, its not a counterplan. its a neg policy option. if its a neg policy option it must

a) be advocated

B) cannot be kicked

c) the neg forfeits the defense of the status quo

d) suffers the theoretical problems/issues of plan-plan/topical counterplans and then potentially additional theoretical problems.

 

the additional problem is that the net benefits paradigm shifts a huge burden to the affirmative. why should the affirmative be obligated to defend their plan against every non-topical policy which solves the harms/advantages of the aff plan?

 

Resolution: The USFG should establish a policy substantially decreasing juvenile crime in the US.

 

SITUATION ONE:

plan: build a youth rec center to help solve juvenile crime in the frankford section of philadelphia.

disad: the proposed site of the youth rec center is a native american indian burial ground which is sacred and we shouldnt violate that.

counterplan: teach ethics, social awareness, and civic duty in schools from a young age to combat juvenile crime.

 

that seems like a pretty reasonable debate. the counterplan is topical. the aff should be expected to defend their policy against other topical options. the perm is 'worse' than the CP alone.

 

SITUATION TWO:

plan: build a youth rec center to help solve juvenile crime in the frankford section of philadelphia.

disad: the proposed site of the youth rec center is a native american indian burial ground which is sacred and we shouldnt violate that.

counterplan: invest in space research. space research leads to finding the magical martians who have a ray gun which brainwashes delinquents into good behavior.

 

the counterplan is not topical. but the perm is still 'worse' than the CP alone.

 

why should the aff be forced to research every absurd policy which solves for their harms? just because most teams opt for more sane NPOs like agent counterplans doesnt make them theoretically superior. the two examples here function identically and yet one is clearly bad for debate and one is acceptable. the difference is that one is topical and the other is not.

 

but in the 'net benefits' paradigm, they are both equally legitimate - which is absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are four distinctive post-fiat worlds. One is to maintain the SQ.
Correct. That is what you get by voting Neg...
Another is to adopt the CP.
Nope. The debate is an up/down vote on the desirability of Affplan. That's it. To allow advocacy of a competing policy option forces the judge to ignore the very real possibility that inaction is superior to either plan or CP, and likewise forces her/him to vote for a policy option without ever knowing the answer to that question. That leads to incoherent, irrational policy-making. A counterplan, to the extent it is justified at all, is justified ONLY as a reason to reject Affplan. If it succeeds in that purpose (i.e., gets you to vote Neg), then the obvious logical next step would be to debate the merits of CP vs. SQ and the CP's own opportunity costs (i.e., other CPs). Debate does not do this because the only relevant question in those 90 minutes is "Should Affplan be adopted?" Once that question is answered, the debate ends, everyone packs up, and we're off to the next debate...
The Perm and the Plan on its own are the Aff ground.
Nope and yup. The perm exists to test the competitiveness of the CP. If the CP fails the test (i.e., the perm succeeds), then it goes away as a reason to reject Affplan. The temptation to claim that Aff may amend its plan to incorporate the CP is powerful, but should be vigorously rejected. The debate is not about what would be the best of all possible post-fiat worlds. (And, even if it were, we've already seen that Affplan vs. advocated CP can't answer that question anyway.) The debate is about whether to adopt Affplan. Getting rid of the CP as a reason to reject is all Aff has any theoretical business doing...

 

Note: All of this assumes traditional framework. There are other frameworks...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there isnt anything which is 'illegitimate' in debate
Fiating solvency is illegitimate. Fiating multiple agents is illegitimate....

 

 

if a counterplan is not mutually exclusive, its not a counterplan. its a neg policy option. if its a neg policy option it must

a) be advocated

B) cannot be kicked

c) the neg forfeits the defense of the status quo

There is no reason to require (or even allow) this of a counterplan that competes via net benefits.

 

why should the affirmative be obligated to defend their plan against every non-topical policy which solves the harms/advantages of the aff plan?
Because this is how you make good policy.

 

but in the 'net benefits' paradigm, they are both equally legitimate - which is absurd.
Both are indeed legitimate. But the latter will lose on the solvency flow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all of that is correct except for the fact that you are now requiring the affirmative to effectively defend their policy against functionally EVERY policy out there. its a question of burden.

 

there is no reason why the affirmative should be forced to carry such a burden. its enormous. if the neg has a limited burden to defend against (i.e. be prepared to defend against all topical plans) why should the affirmative be forced to defend against every policy in the history of man.

 

its just unfathomable.

 

 

as for the rights afforded to net benefits CPs. i disagree.

 

a vote for a counterplan which passes the test of mutual exclusivity (aka the perm) isnt a vote for the counterplan - its a vote for the status quo. its a vote for the status quo because the counterplan is an opportunity cost to the aff plan. therefore the only way to get to the CP is a vote for the SQ because thats the only option that keeps the CP as an option.

 

the reason those limiting attributes apply is that a net benefits CP abandons defense of the status quo. a non-mutually exclusive policy option is no longer a vote for the SQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...