[eDebate] perms comments

[Trevor Wells]

Prof. Slusher writes:

>If the 2NC or 1NR kicks their counterplan by conceding a 
>permutation(pretend the aff made no theory arguments) does that mean the 
>negative can't go for disads presented as net-benefits in the 1NC as just 
>disads now?

My answer [which I believe that I have disclosed on every
incarnation of my judging philosophy] would be yes, so I'm
probably on the "J.P." side of the agree-to-disagree
agreement.

Actually, I guess my answer is a bit of a qualified yes,
because it relies on a few operating assumptions.
One of those assumptions is, I believe, implicit in your
question itself (the "pretend the aff made no theory
arguments" part).  Anyway, here are my assumptions:

(1) This debate takes place in a land far, far way from
    contemporary debate practice, and the negative does
    not foolishly bargain away its ability to advocate
    a negative ballot from the standpoint of the SQUO
    during a minute or so of wasted CX time where words
    like "dispositionality" and "straight-turn" are
    bandied about with virtually no meeting of the minds
    as to what the "status" of the counterplan actually
    is; and

(2) There is not a separate concession somewhere on the
    flow regarding the disad's status as a net benefit
    to the counterplan.  E.g., my answer would be
    different, I believe, if 2AC #10 on the counterplan
    was "it still links to the Bush DA because . . . "
    and, when the 1NR announces the negative's desire
    to renounce the CP as a ballot option, he or she
    also says, "oh yeah, and concede 2AC #10.  Now,
    Bush."  In other words, in a world where actual
    debate occurs as to whether a disadvantage is
    actually a net benefit to the counterplan, I believe
    the negative can make a strategic concession.

(3) I believe the question is slightly flawed because
    it ignores relativity.  In other words, the whole
    notion of "NET benefits" involves a comparison of
    policy options.  And, while a disadvantage may be
    a net benefit to a counterplan vis a vis the plan
    (imagine your garden variety "Courts CP doesn't
    link to politics" argument), it is a hasty
    generalization [hey, you grew up on the other side
    of the CEDA/NDT divide, so I thought I'd try to
    use some familiar terminology!] to conclude that
    the same disadvantage must be a net benefit to
    a permutation vis a vis the SQUO.  Thus, in many
    cases, a legitimate permutation [in my view, one
    including all of the affirmative plan, but that's
    a whole 'nuther ball of wax] will still link to
    the disadvantage even though the plan mandates
    have now been intertwined (Emeril Lagasse boat motor-
    style] with counterplan mandates.

I've got more thoughts about the binding nature of
CX identifications by the negative of the net benefits
to their counterplans, but I guess I'd better get back
to work now.

Take care,

Trevor

_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online  
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963