Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

Counterplan Theory


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#1 EasilyAmusedOne

EasilyAmusedOne

    Longtime Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 347 posts
35
Good
  • Name:Molly Miller
  • School:Charles Page

Posted 18 December 2004 - 10:41 AM

First of all, what is the difference between conditional, unconditional, and disposistional.

Second, when you are affirmative, what are some reasons that they are bad.

Thanks
  • 0
"Because woman's work is never done and is underpaid or unpaid or boring or repititious and if we get raped it's our fault and if we raise or voices we're nagging bitches and if we enjoy sex we're nymphos and if we don't we're frigid and if we expect childcare we're selfish and if we stand up for out rights we're aggressive and "unfeminine" and if we don't we're typical weak females and... for lots and lots of other reasons we are part of the women's liberation movement."

AIM= VivaLaMollay

#2 senghasmic

senghasmic

    big pimpin', spendin' cheese

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 534 posts
70
Excellent
  • School:Emory

Posted 18 December 2004 - 11:51 AM

First of all, what is the difference between conditional, unconditional, and disposistional.

Second, when you are affirmative, what are some reasons that they are bad.

Thanks

Conditional means that they may or may not go for the CP.
Dispo means that they may or may not go for the CP unless you straight turn it.
Unconditional means they'll go for it no matter what.

Cond. and Dispo are abusive, etc.
Unconditional isn't really abusive.
  • 0

#3 Gilgamesh2

Gilgamesh2

    Longtime Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 557 posts
4
Okay
  • Name:Gilgamesh

Posted 18 December 2004 - 12:16 PM

Conditional: the negative retains the option to kick out of the counterplan at any time in the debate. Some might say this is abusive because the affirmative oculd read a disadvantage to the counterplan and the negative could just say, "nice job, the counterplan isn't a good idea, you disad doesn't attack the status quo which is what we would argue is the best option."

Dispositionality: the negative team retains the option to kick the counterplan unless the affirmative "straight turns" the net benefits. The negative would say this is good because it solves back the afformentioned reason as to why condo is bad, and puts the choices in the affirmatives court. The affirmative might argue that straight turns are bad, that the c/p is still condo, etc.

Unconditional: the negative will not advocate anything but the c/p. Kerpen put out some kind of block as to why this is bad... someone else can post it. If they run their counterplan like this, I would suggest reading as many disads against it as you can.
  • 0

#4 ro0t115

ro0t115

    Ordering Chaos

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,333 posts
208
Excellent
  • Name:Kel-c
  • School:The Church on the Hill

Posted 18 December 2004 - 06:28 PM

unconditional also means that they wont kick the counterplan no matter what unless they go for T. you always have the option to go for T is you are running an uncondtitional counterplan. this answers back the time-tradeoff abuse.

you should always ask in the round though because their defintion of unconditional could be your conditional.
  • 0
"blah blah blah...biopower....blah blah blah...foucault..."


community up top!

#5 kerpen

kerpen

    Regular

  • Former Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,107 posts
532
Excellent
  • Name:Phil Kerpen
  • School:Old School

Posted 19 December 2004 - 08:30 AM

First of all, what is the difference between conditional, unconditional, and disposistional.


A conditional counterplan is offered with conditions under which it can be withdrawn. Most commonly, they are conditional on net benefits, which allows the negative to kick the counterplan if they are losing it. It may also be conditional on something more specific, such as whether a critique framework is still in the debate. It is becoming increasingly more rare for the 1NC specify the conditions in the 1NC.

An unconditional counterplan is a policy that is advocated by the negative. There is no theoretical basis for such a counterplan, and it forces the judge to make irrational decisions. An unconditional coutnerplan tells a judge that he or she *must* implement either the plan or the counterplan, even if both are terrible ideas. It denies the judge the logical option of "do neither."

A dispositional counterplan means different things to different people. Get clarification in cross examination. Traditionally, the "disposition" subpoint was added to counterplans by Kentucky with an explanation that if the negative does not win the counterplan, the judge should dispose of it and evaluate the plan versus the status quo. In other words, the original meaning of dispositionality was that the affirmative gets the plan and "do both" and the negative gets the counterplan and "do neither."

More recently dispositional has come to mean "whatever arbitrary deal we make with you in cross-x," which usually goes something like: "We're stuck with the counterplan if you don't offer a permutation or make theory arguments." There are lots of reasons that wholyl arbitrary theory based on cross-x deals is a bad things.

Second, when you are affirmative, what are some reasons that they are bad.


Counterplans bad arguments center on the reasons that fiat derives uniquely from the resolution and that ceteris paribus is the best way to make decisions. Most people do not find these arguments compelling.

Conditionality bad arguments are a waste of your time.

Unconditionality bad arguments are much stronger, but also probably a waste of your time.

Dispoitionality bad arguments can be very compelling. I recommend brainstorming the reasons that just making up arbitrary theory with no theoretical basis is bas for debate. What would you say if the negative ran a counterplan quintopositionally, and explained that meant that you can stick them with the counterplan by making 5 or fewer answers? The now common version of dispoitionality I explained above is really no different from that.
  • 0

#6 D'Loaf

D'Loaf

    Cartman

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 468 posts
17
Good
  • Name:Paul
  • School:Crosby

Posted 19 December 2004 - 11:50 PM

counter plan theory is really a waste of time to run.

1)not many judges will vote on it because the flows normally get to messy and muddled
2)takes time away from the real issues of the round like the turns on the NB or the solvency debate.

my suggestion is to run theory only when it is truly abusive. i mean it really is just a reason to "reject the argument not the team"

if you hit theory i would talk much slower and run mainly 2 of you best offensive arguments and the best 1 or 2 defensive arguments. dont spend too much time on it. less args on the theory debate is best because it keeps the flow clean and not so muddled and messy and it makes it easier to extend args through out the round instead of saying "extend the 2nc #9" because if you spead through 10-15 theory arg. then judges will prob. only get like 7-10 if they flow real good because you arg is like 10 words MAYBE.

also if you run theory it helps the flow if you put on a seperate sheet of paper all together. gives more pen room to space aguments out on the flow
  • 0
FAMILY GUY RULZ, AS DOES SOUTH PARK

bohemian rhapsody is sweet and khlilzhad is my hero,

Powell-Rice '08!!!!

#7 Mannequin Republic

Mannequin Republic

    Moral Compass

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 524 posts
6
Okay
  • Name:Chaz Faubion
  • School:The Hood

Posted 20 December 2004 - 08:37 PM

This came up in a round. We ran a cp w/net benifit, T, and solvency turns in the 1nc. They ask in cross-x how we are running the cp and we say unconditional, they ask us what we mean and we say we will not kick the cp. The 2ac spends almost all their time putting offence on the cp. I take T and S in the 2, and my partner takes the cp in the 1nr. The 1ar undercovers T, and does a good job answering my partners responses on the CP, they were killing us on it. I spent the entire 2nr on T and one of the S turns, and the 2AR tells a huge abuse story on us "kicking" the cp, the judge agreed.

I think it was perfectly legit for doing this, but should I have actually announced in round that we were just granting their offence on the cp, instead of not mentioning the cp at all?
  • 0
It's not over 'till the tremulent sings...

#8 ohSnap

ohSnap

    Registered User

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 93 posts
23
Good
  • Name:Desiree
  • School:UT Austin

Posted 20 December 2004 - 08:44 PM

You do actually have to at least address the CP and point out that you grant their offense, but that its outweighed by T or something. Otherwise, yeah, you do leave great room for an abuse story, as you have seen.
  • 0

#9 Lockesdonkey

Lockesdonkey

    Liberal Jihadist

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,661 posts
420
Excellent

Posted 21 December 2004 - 07:35 AM

As far as I remember, dispo is actually you can kick out of the cp if the aff does not make offensive arguments. If they do, you can kick out of it only if you first counter the aff offense. Thus dispo is not abusive, and we always run our counterplans dispositionally. We avoid unconditionality because it puts us into a bind we don't want to deal with--neg must advocate the counterplan through every speech--and we avoid conditionality because it's abusive as hell (around here, conditional is when you can kick out regardless of what happened). Generally, they can be broken down like this:

Unconditional counterplans are advocated by neg in the way aff advocates their plan. They cannot drop it and they cannot kick out of it.

Dispo is advocated like a disad. They can kick out only if they answer offense.

Conditionality is advocated like topicality. They can kick out at any time with no penalty.
  • 0
You have the right to remain stupid.

As distances vanish and the people can flow freely from place to place, society will cross a psychological specific heat boundary and enter a new state. No longer a solid or liquid, we have become as a vapor and will expand to fill all available space. And like a gas, we shall not be easily contained.

Sister Miriam Godwinson
"But for the Grace of God"

Join the Union of People of Interesting Faiths! PM me to join.
UPIF membership: 13 and counting

#10 ohSnap

ohSnap

    Registered User

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 93 posts
23
Good
  • Name:Desiree
  • School:UT Austin

Posted 21 December 2004 - 08:59 AM

I would hardly call conditional CPs abusive. The way we run it is its just like any other neg argument, the neg can kick it if they want, and the judge evaluates it from there.
  • 0

#11 cjfernan

cjfernan

    Longtime Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 376 posts
95
Excellent

Posted 21 December 2004 - 10:14 AM

I just want to chime in my two cents. The issue that's being drawn out here is, When is a counterplan not competitive? The reason this is the issue is because basically the only time when you're "allowed" to kick a counterplan is when the aff can prove there's no "link" to the counterplan (i.e., the world of the counterplan can't be compared to the world of the aff)
**A conditional counterplan, as it is being argued here in the thread, says that a counterplan isn't competitive whenever the neg feels like it (i.e., the ability to kick out of a cp whenever you want). Hopefully, you see why this is abusive.
**Dispositional counterplans apparently is "only" competitive when either the aff turns the net benefits or if the neg goes for it in the 2NR. If this is the way dispo is run, I certainly agree with the Kerpenator that dispo is like the worst theoretical advocacy ever.

Anyway, the real "theory" debate should try and answer the question I wrote a little earlier: When is a counterplan not competitive?
Traditionally, there were “3 pillars of competition” (I’ve written about this elsewhere). Briefly, they are 1) topicality (cp must be non-topical), 2) mutual exclusivity (world of counterplan and plan cannot co-exist), and 3) net benefits (world of the counterplan is significantly better than the aff world). The neg would argue that if the aff disproves any one of the 3 pillars, then the counterplan is not competitive. Therefore, if an aff can perm a disad, it’s not mutually exclusive and the counterplan goes away.
The aff can make two arguments. First, an aff can concede there are 3 pillars. It would then argue that the aff would have to disprove ALL three in order for the neg to kick the counterplan (while people run perms and attack the net benefits, hardly anyone claims that counterplans are topical). Alternatively, the aff will argue that there’s only one real “pillar” to competition: net benefits. Therefore, if the neg ever tries to kick the cp, they’ve essentially conceded the round: they acknowledge that the world of the aff is always better than all the arguments the neg made combined.

I think the reason that theory debates get so muddled and all judges hate them is because there's no analysis provided within the rounds. I think if debaters approached counterplan theory much like the framework debate of a kritik, it'd actually be a lot more interesting. Even if you think whatever I wrote is completely wrong, ask yourself some basic questions like, Why do affs perm? What does that accomplish? If you can't answer that question, maybe it's time to re-think your ideas of counterplan competition.
  • 0

#12 tshuman

tshuman

    Nobody, really...

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,152 posts
1,760
Excellent
  • Name:Terrance Shuman
  • School:Atlantic High School

Posted 21 December 2004 - 11:55 AM

maybe it's time to re-think your ideas of counterplan competition.

Indeed. One of the primary virtues of P2 is that it renders the whole mess that conventional counterplan theory has become (especially what "competition" means) moot, and provides a way of conceptualizing a debate in which Neg is actually justified in claiming to actually advocate a policy...

P.S. If you are one of those pecksniffs who feels compelled to sneer every time someone uses the word "moot" the way I use it here, consider: "adj., Of no practical importance; irrelevant" (American Heritage Dictionary).
  • 0
Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and...well, not so tall as I used to be,

Terrance Shuman
Atlantic High School
Atlantic, Iowa

#13 D'Loaf

D'Loaf

    Cartman

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 468 posts
17
Good
  • Name:Paul
  • School:Crosby

Posted 21 December 2004 - 12:38 PM

i see nothing wrong with running counter plans disposionally meaning that if the AFF proves the cp to be theoretically (sp???) illegit or concede the perm or any theory args other than dispo bad. then the judge evaluates the squo.

this give the aff good ground because the AFF has an entire 8 min long DA against the squo called the 1ac. the aff is should be ready the defend that the squo is bad. the neg will say squo better than post plan world.

the squo should never become an option for the AFF which is what running cp's unconditionality does. allowing the aff to chose the squo as a policy option is bad because of thier entire 1ac is a DA against the squo. the squo should only be avalible to the neg.
  • 0
FAMILY GUY RULZ, AS DOES SOUTH PARK

bohemian rhapsody is sweet and khlilzhad is my hero,

Powell-Rice '08!!!!

#14 cjfernan

cjfernan

    Longtime Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 376 posts
95
Excellent

Posted 21 December 2004 - 12:56 PM

i see nothing wrong with running counter plans disposionally meaning that if the AFF proves the cp to be theoretically (sp???) illegit or concede the perm or any theory args other than dispo bad. then the judge evaluates the squo.


Ok, now prove to me HOW and WHY the counterplan is theoretically illegitimate: Is it simply because the neg used the word "conditional" and/or "dispositional" in cx? Is that the reason they're bad? Is it because there are no objective conditions to determine whether the cp will be kicked or not? For the love of cheese, give me a warrant.
If you concede the perm, WHAT DOES THAT ACCOMPLISH? Ok, so plan and counterplan can be done simultaneously. Fine. In debate speak, what does that MEAN?
Ok, I'll fast-forward to you wining the dispositionality bad argument: The judge now agrees that the neg shouldn't be allowed to run to dispositional counterplans. What does the judge DO now? Does he/she just ignore the counterplan? Vote against the neg for breaking a "rule" in debate? Decrease speaker points?

This is why counterplan theory sucks. Anyone can say, "Dispo bad, 5 reasons." You haven't made an argument yet. I mean, think about topicality, which is also a theory argument: Aff's not topical, 5 standards. Well, if you don't explain why topicality is a voting issue, you lose the argument. Counterplan theory's no different...
  • 0

#15 ro0t115

ro0t115

    Ordering Chaos

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,333 posts
208
Excellent
  • Name:Kel-c
  • School:The Church on the Hill

Posted 21 December 2004 - 01:06 PM

i see nothing wrong with running counter plans disposionally meaning that if the AFF proves the cp to be theoretically (sp???) illegit or concede the perm or any theory args other than dispo bad. then the judge evaluates the squo.

this give the aff good ground because the AFF has an entire 8 min long DA against the squo called the 1ac. the aff is should be ready the defend that the squo is bad. the neg will say squo better than post plan world.

the squo should never become an option for the AFF which is what running cp's unconditionality does. allowing the aff to chose the squo as a policy option is bad because of thier entire 1ac is a DA against the squo. the squo should only be avalible to the neg.


squo isnt a word.

If you concede the perm, WHAT DOES THAT ACCOMPLISH? Ok, so plan and counterplan can be done simultaneously. Fine. In debate speak, what does that MEAN?



that means that if you are neg, you lose. the aff has the BPO with the perm and they win.
  • 0
"blah blah blah...biopower....blah blah blah...foucault..."


community up top!

#16 cjfernan

cjfernan

    Longtime Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 376 posts
95
Excellent

Posted 21 December 2004 - 01:46 PM

that means that if you are neg, you lose. the aff has the BPO with the perm and they win.


Amazing. If you were writing a paper for English class and this was your thesis: Catcher in the Rye was an awesome book because Holden Caulfield was a pimp. What grade would you get?

Similarly, you argue, "If I perm, and the neg concedes it, the aff wins, because." What, the word "permutation" is so magical that it's an automatic winner? What is the aff trying to do with a perm?

Most debaters seem to acknowledge that topical counterplans are legit. Similarly, most debaters agree that mutual exclusivity isn't important. So, that seems to suggest that net benefits is the battleground of a cp. So how does a permutation indict the net benefits? The net benefits are supposed to be disads that LINK to plan (and not counterplan). Therefore, any perm (which combines PLAN and counterplan) should link back to those net benefits. The only way that a perm beats back the net benefits argument is if there were no net benefits to begin with. But did you have to perm to prove that? Why not say, "No net benefits, no reason to vote for counterplan"?
Therefore, if mutual exclusivity ISN'T a "pillar of competition," then a permutation accomplishes exactly NOTHING.

Why not run a trillion nonsensical statements like, "The sky is blue," "Hitler sucks" on and on. If you fail to respond to any of them, you automatically lose, because a dropped/conceded argument means an automatic loss.

Now do you understand why counterplan theory debates suck so bad?
  • 0

#17 ro0t115

ro0t115

    Ordering Chaos

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,333 posts
208
Excellent
  • Name:Kel-c
  • School:The Church on the Hill

Posted 21 December 2004 - 03:30 PM

Amazing. If you were writing a paper for English class and this was your thesis: Catcher in the Rye was an awesome book because Holden Caulfield was a pimp. What grade would you get?

Similarly, you argue, "If I perm, and the neg concedes it, the aff wins, because." What, the word "permutation" is so magical that it's an automatic winner? What is the aff trying to do with a perm?

Most debaters seem to acknowledge that topical counterplans are legit. Similarly, most debaters agree that mutual exclusivity isn't important. So, that seems to suggest that net benefits is the battleground of a cp. So how does a permutation indict the net benefits? The net benefits are supposed to be disads that LINK to plan (and not counterplan). Therefore, any perm (which combines PLAN and counterplan) should link back to those net benefits. The only way that a perm beats back the net benefits argument is if there were no net benefits to begin with. But did you have to perm to prove that? Why not say, "No net benefits, no reason to vote for counterplan"?
Therefore, if mutual exclusivity ISN'T a "pillar of competition," then a permutation accomplishes exactly NOTHING.


i said that if he neg conceded the perm, they give the aff the BPO (best policy option) and that would entail that the counterplan isnt competitive because the plan can be done with the cp. if the aff can gain the BPO through the perm when the neg concedes the perm, then the aff should win.
  • 0
"blah blah blah...biopower....blah blah blah...foucault..."


community up top!

#18 cjfernan

cjfernan

    Longtime Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 376 posts
95
Excellent

Posted 21 December 2004 - 03:42 PM

Bah. HOW does a permutation provide the BPO?

Combining a bad idea and a good idea doesn't lead to the conclusion that the permutation provides the BPO...
  • 0

#19 ro0t115

ro0t115

    Ordering Chaos

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,333 posts
208
Excellent
  • Name:Kel-c
  • School:The Church on the Hill

Posted 21 December 2004 - 03:58 PM

because the plan and counterplan together in the world of the perm arent bad.
  • 0
"blah blah blah...biopower....blah blah blah...foucault..."


community up top!

#20 cjfernan

cjfernan

    Longtime Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 376 posts
95
Excellent

Posted 21 December 2004 - 04:01 PM

I quit. And you were so close to making a complete debate argument....
  • 0





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users