Talk:Mutual exclusivity

Textual competition
I added the separate reference to textual competition because it's slightly different from mutual exclusivity (functional competition). Textual says to see if the text itself (ie what is read in-round) of the cp compared to the plan. If the plan can have words added to become the same as the cp, it is not textually competitive. Removing words is textually competitive. So while mutual exclusivity is a check on whether the actions can happen at the same time, textual sees if the text of the plan is part of the cp. About the only use is to show non-competition for a plan-plus when the "plus" makes functional competition hard to win.--ZaR


 * Ah, I see. What you're describing is an application of competition, not a separate type of competition a la mutual exclusivity. Let me explain.


 * The debate round is about what "should" happen. If both the Affirmative and Negative propose the same plan, they're both arguing that the same thing "should" happen (they aren't arguing that you should do the same plan twice, or something.) So, the identical parts of the CP aren't competitive. This leaves the question: are the modified parts of the CP competitive? If they are, then the CP is competitive; if they aren't, then the CP isn't competitive.


 * "Textual competition" just describes this specific application of competition - the application to specific part of a modified plan. The actual competition part (how you decide whether the modified/removed/added parts of the CP are competitive) is still the same - mutual exclusivity or net benefits.


 * I'll add a brief section on textual competition to the Competition page, to explain the application. Fiddle with it if you want. MSD (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2012 (MST)