Skip to content
August 8, 2013 / compassioninpolitics

On the Fairness and Legitimacy of Conditional and Dispositional Alternatives

That depends on what the ideas of discourse and advocacy are unpacked to mean (define) & matter (meaning, impact, etc..) in the debate.
Advocacy and conditional counterplans seem to be contradictions in terms.

Having different rules for the aff & the neg with respect to advocacy seems to be a radical unfairness and skew.

Also the issue of how the alternatives interact at the end of the day is reasonably important.

I don’t think there is a “community consensus” per se.

I think there is also a role for exploring these arguments on the negative:
1) strategic reasons
2) getting better at understanding the theory
3) integrative logic

That doesn’t mean I think they are particularly fair if there is legitimate tension between the arguments (particularly if they are analogous to growth good/growth bad)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: