Agent counterplan

"ASPEC" redirects here. ASPEC may also refer to Adaptive Spectral Perceptual Entropy Coding used as a basis for the MPEG-1 Audio.

In policy debate, an agent counterplan is a counterplan that proposes to do affirmative's plan (or part of it) with another agent.[1] For example, if the affirmative plan were: "The USFG should send troops to Liberia" an agent counterplan would be "France should send troops to Liberia." Like most mainstream argument forms in policy debate, they are presumed to be legitimate, though it is possible for the affirmative to defeat them on the grounds that they are illegitimate by arguing that they are unfair, uneducational, or illogical. Because they make it possible for the negative to win without refuting most of the claims of the affirmative case (mooting much of the 1AC offense), they are a key component in many negative strategies.

Most affirmative's try to avoid domestic USFG agent counterplans (e.g., if the plan involves Congressional legislation, the negative might counterplan to have the president issue an executive order) by not specifying their agent beyond the United States federal government in their plan text. On international topics, international agent counterplans cannot be similarly avoided, although many consider them object fiat or otherwise theoretically suspect.

Some debate theorists (e.g., Lichtman and Rohrer; Korcok; Strait and Wallace) have argued the kind of fiat involved with these counterplans is inconsistent with the logic of decision making.[2][3][4][5]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Cheshire, David. (2003). Debating Agent Specification. Rostrum. Retrieved December 30, 2005.
  2. ↑ Lichtman, A. & Rohrer, D. (1975). “A general theory of the counterplan,” Journal of the American Forensics Association, 12, 70-79.
  3. ↑ Korcok, M. M. (2002). “The decision-maker,” in Perspectives in controversy: Selected essays from Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, (ed. K. Broda-Bahm). New York: International Debate Education Association, pp. 241-264.
  4. ↑ Strait, L. P., & Wallace, B. (2007). The Scope of Negative Fiat and the Logic of Decision Making. Debaters Research Guide, Wake Forest University Press, pp. A1-A7
  5. ↑ Strait, L. P., & Wallace, B. (2008). Academic debate as a decision-making game: Inculcating the virtue of practical wisdom. Contemporary Argumentation and Debate, 29, 1-36.
This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Wednesday, March 09, 2016. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.