I may not be understanding this strategy completely, but the way I see it, the negative is essentially challenging the affirmative's standard for when we should make decisions. The affirmative (like Hammy) would say that we should make a decision whenever there is a comparative advantage - i.e. if we would be better off than before. The negative would say that we should only make a decision when the benefits of that decision outweigh the opportunity cost - i.e. if we are not sacrificing a better alternative by making the decision.
Yes. But aren't these really the same thing? Remember that we're arguing about what should
happen. That's an abstract world that's not limited by what's going to happen in the status quo, what options each team explicitly endorses, etc. The answer to the question "what should
we do?" is always "the best possible option out of all the options available." If the plan has an overriding opportunity cost, it's not the best possible option, so it's not what we "should" do.
This is true even under the Aff's "comparative advantage" criterion. Remember, we're operating in an abstract world that includes all
available options, so a "comparative advantage" means a comparative advantage over all of the alternatives
, not just the status quo. The Aff in this case isn't arguing for a comparative advantage criterion, they're arguing that their plan should be considered in a vacuum where the only options are "our plan" and "the status quo". (some form of plancentrism
_________________Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe
- "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook
- NCFCA/Stoa (thread)Factsmith research software
- v1.5 currently available (thread)Loose Nukes debate blog
- stuff to read with your eyes.