Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 13:14:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: Phil Kerpen <kerpen@cross-x.com>
To: submit@hsdebate.com
Subject: Unconditional Counterplans are Illegit
Unconditional counterplans are illegitimate:
1. A. Conceptually incoherent.
There's no grounding analytically for unconditional counterplans. They
aren't based on op cost. If they are advoocacy the neg has no theoretical
basis for it.
B. Ad hoc theory is disastrous.
Yes we *can* make up arbitrary rules without any conceptual basis, but
these rules combine to unexpected effects, and shift so that ultimately
anything goes. This is the root of the performance crisis in college
debate.
2. Sets a terrible precedent.
Forces negs into unconditional counterplans in the future, crushing
arguumentative flexibiblity and creativity, and preventing rigorous
evaluation of plan desirability.
3. Leads to irrational policy making.
Status quo must *always* remain an option for a rational policymaker. It's
idiotic to implement a *bad idea* just because someone else presented a *worse*
idea. Since they intentionally rejected SQ, if SQ is the best option vote
aff.
4. Voting issue.
They should be bound by their 1NC/CX explanation of what this argument
is--not a test of op cost, but an advocacy with zero analytical basis. The
ballot is the only possible impact becauuse rejecting the counterplan
would be rewarding them.
|
