Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mike1669

Intrinsic Disads

Recommended Posts

Theory: The disad (politics) is intrinsic and fails to present a relevant opportunity cost to the plan...i heard this a lot at camp. Isn't a politics disad a direct opportunity cost to plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...uhh if you win link then you win that Ptix = opportunity cost and the more interesting question is who the hell made that shit theory up?

 

wow great response. usually people dont comment on things they dont understand. and greenstein definitely didnt give a whole lecture on shit theory at ddi. good call.

 

intrinsic theory supports or calls out a perm that tests the relevance of the link to the plan. so, if something could be done to prevent the link , then it should be done. the perm on the disad tests the link.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest wutlol
wow great response. usually people dont comment on things they dont understand. and greenstein definitely didnt give a whole lecture on shit theory at ddi. good call.

 

intrinsic theory supports or calls out a perm that tests the relevance of the link to the plan. so, if something could be done to prevent the link , then it should be done. the perm on the disad tests the link.

 

 

don't think of it as a "perm". it's not a test of competition, it's a test of the germaneness of the plan to the disad impact. the idea comes from the same logic that counterplans use - cps are reasons why other actions could possibly be done to solve the impacts to the case. if the aff read a politics advantage (saying social services derail obama's agenda, preventing health care from passing causing nuclear war), the neg would just cp to "pass health care", solving the entire case without a risk of a solvency deficit. so the argument goes that the aff should be able to test whether the plan uniquely causes the impacts to the disad - this is tested with a combination of the plan with any other action.

 

greenstein made up the concept of "positive" and "negative" intrinsicness. positive intrinsicness is when the the test of intrinsicness includes the plan and some fiated action that is external to both the plan and the DA. for example, if the disad's impact was terrorism, the test of intrinsicness might be "perm: do the plan and increase funding to counter terrorism". this is positive intrinsicness because you would probably have to read evidence that increasing funding solves terrorism.

 

"negative intrinsicness" is when you basically just add the plan to the conditions of the status quo. this works best on politics and some types of spending/ budget trade off disads. "perm: do the plan and pass health care". health care is already going to pass, you just add the plan to the status quo. this doesn't require evidence, because you're just adding the plan.

 

when you make the intrinsicness arg, you should pick one of the two types of intrinsicness arguments as your counter interp (when defending its legitimacy).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first paragraph of the post above is like... verbatim part of the lecture I saw Greenstein give at the DDI.

 

Anyways, the last sentence of the post above doesn't make much sense.

 

When running intrinsicness you'll want to have your "text" - it's not.. a perm per se, but you still want to have a text that you can use to leverage offense against the germaneness of the disad. You'll want to say things that help you right out of the 2AC like "We'll only run one intrinsicness argument, which means it's reciprocal because they can run a disad to the scenario, and it's just a test of the competition, and you can kick the disad and we can't go for intrinsicness..." etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People seem to be more comfortable making instrinsicness args on politics disads than other disads. 2 reasons. 1 is the distinction between positive and negative intrinsicness that wutlol explains. With positive intrinsicness there are often some questions of a solvency deficit, and also somewhat more concern about theoretical legitimacy, because the policy you are 'adding' to the plan is not something the other team introduced to the round, and thus (arguably) less predictable, whereas the healthcare bill on the politics disad is introduced by the neg and thus emminently predictable.

 

2 is that people like to make the argument with politics scenarios that the judge as a policymaker is not actually compelled to choose between supporting plan and supporting healthcare. The judge could vote for plan passage when the floor vote comes for the plan, and then also vote for healthcare passage when the floor vote comes for healthcare. Thus the disad scenario, which posits that the judge must choose between plan passing and healthcare passing, is false and can be disregarded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest wutlol

2 is that people like to make the argument with politics scenarios that the judge as a policymaker is not actually compelled to choose between supporting plan and supporting healthcare. The judge could vote for plan passage when the floor vote comes for the plan, and then also vote for healthcare passage when the floor vote comes for healthcare. Thus the disad scenario, which posits that the judge must choose between plan passing and healthcare passing, is false and can be disregarded.

 

 

 

i think this is a bad example because a real policy maker would never have to "choose" between doing the plan and funding counter terrorism, or any "positive" intrinsicness scenario, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i think this is a bad example because a real policy maker would never have to "choose" between doing the plan and funding counter terrorism, or any "positive" intrinsicness scenario, either.

 

 

There are more logical, and better, justifications for negative intrinsicness than positive. Positive intrinsicness rests SOLELY on "logical policy maker could do X___" but ignores how that interpretation would radically fuck up debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest wutlol
There are more logical, and better, justifications for negative intrinsicness than positive. Positive intrinsicness rests SOLELY on "logical policy maker could do X___" but ignores how that interpretation would radically fuck up debate.

 

 

how does this not apply to "negative" intrinsicness as well? there's no theoretical basis for neg. intrinsicness; greenstein told us he just made it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never labeled them myself, nor did I ever hear Greenstein lecture, but the difference being that "positive" intrinsicness requires the affirmative to introduce something external to the round entirely to solve. Counter-terrorist funding was irrelevant until the permutation was introduced. Whereas with negative intrisicness you are permuting the status quo, something that is already going to happen that can still be done in conjuction with the plan. You are perming to have something not change, as opposed to including something new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest wutlol
I've never labeled them myself, nor did I ever hear Greenstein lecture, but the difference being that "positive" intrinsicness requires the affirmative to introduce something external to the round entirely to solve. Counter-terrorist funding was irrelevant until the permutation was introduced. Whereas with negative intrisicness you are permuting the status quo, something that is already going to happen that can still be done in conjuction with the plan. You are perming to have something not change, as opposed to including something new.

 

 

what's your point? there's an arbitrary distinction between positive and negative intrinsicness. you'd never say the neg shouldn't get a terrorism counterplan just because they'd have to fiat something "external" to the advantage. i think aff intrinsicness is bad because the neg shouldn't be held to the same standard with defending every impact to all their disads as the aff should be to defending every advantage to their plan.

 

why should the aff get one type of intrinsicness and not the other? don't say "because it's more predictable". that's silly - certain types of counterplans are more predictable than others. but that's rarely a reason by itself to make the whole cp illegitimate. "we couldn't predict their sweet advantage cp!!!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Negative" intrinsicness doesn't preclude the possibility of running advantage counterplans. If the counterplan is an opp. cost to the aff then it still would be evaluated. However, disads that do not test the opp. cost of the plan (politics) do not meet that burden. Would it really be good for debate if the neg had to defend their disad impacts against any adv. counterplan the aff could tack on to their plan text. Probably not. But adding the status quo to the plan leaves the neg with the vast majority of disads. The argument has very little to do with predictability. It usually comes down to a discussion of which things we should be talking about: questions of implementation or the consequences of plan action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest wutlol

 

But adding the status quo to the plan leaves the neg with the vast majority of disads.

 

 

true - but why not apply this to cps as well? i think the positive/ negative standard should apply to cps too - this makes most advantage cps illegitimate... but i guess the neg can still read politics cps? the point is that although positive intrinsicness is probably more abusive than negative intrinsicness, that doesn't mean we should necessarily allow neg. intrinsicness.

 

 

 

The argument has very little to do with predictability. It usually comes down to a discussion of which things we should be talking about: questions of implementation or the consequences of plan action.

 

 

i'm not really sure what you mean by this. can you clarify?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Counterplans are an opp. cost to the plan if the negative can establish that passing the plan precludes the possibility of enacting the counterplan. Permutations are the logical test of this theory. The neg answers the perm with a link to the net benefit (there is an opp. cost to the plan that does not apply to the counterplan by itself). Therefore, enacting the plan and the counterplan precludes the possibility of just enacting the counterplan. This means a model of "negative" intrinsicness would still allow advantage counterplans. However, actor counterplans, most alternatives, and several process counterplans, like consult, do not get evaluated.

 

I agree that we shouldn't "necessarily" allow "negative" intrinsicness. That's why it gets debated out. I happen to believe that excluding actor CP's is a fine price to pay to get rid of politics DA's but plenty of people disagree with me.

 

Sorry I wasn't very clear in the last sentence of my last post. The aff will usually say that we should evaluate opp. cost because it teaches us to separate avoidable and unavoidable costs to the plan. The neg will usually defend one or more of the arguments intrinsicness excludes. For instance, actor CP's good is responsive. The same goes for any advocacy that debaters talk about that doesn't use the USFG.

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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...