Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
aznguy930

unconditional CP strategy...??

Recommended Posts

ok some1 on my team tried to explain this to me but i didn't rly get it.

 

okay when u go up for cross-z of the 1nc n u ask for the status of the CP, they say they're gonna run it unconditionally. then he said we should ask what d/a's they claim as their net benefits. then for instance if they claim 4 d/a's a nb's, then a good strategy is to put a lot of answers on just one of those answers...i think he said that if we did that then we take out the nb of the CP, but don't they still have the other 3 d/a's as net benefits??

 

i dunno, i mite b explaining it wrong, but can some1 plz help??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

UM, don't do that. Putting a lot of answers on only one of their positions will make them kick out of it and grip up on the three other disads.

 

 

JUst pace yourself and answer all of their positions with enough good offensive answers and if you want to just unload on one disad in particular because you think its one they're going to go for or something, make sure you are turning it and make most of the cards youi read arguemetns that support the turn so they cant just kick the disad and nullify half the time spent in the 2AC....

 

 

I mean, if you know they're going for the counterplan my advice would be if you plan on allocating a lot of your 2AC time to one of the 5 positions in the round it would be better spent on the counter plan. Make 7-10 good arguements and make sure you have carded turns on their disad net benefits, then read whatever turns or disads or solvency or other theory or misc args you have on the cp..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just straight-turn the crap out of the CP.

 

you :S: them

 

Unless the four DA's that make up the net-benefit outweigh your CP turns.

 

they :S: you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just straight-turn the crap out of the CP.

 

you :S: them

 

The best way to straight turn a counterplan is generally to straight turn the net benefits. you aren't gonna turn solvency on the c/p cause its probably a pic (cause who runs anything else these days? yes, agent c/p's, consult, and all those other shitty counterplans are under my concept of pics, I'm not trying to get into a giant "what is a pic debate?" I'm using it for counteprlans that try to co-opt aff solvency.) Yes, you can turn solvency on a counterplan, but its GENERALLY alot harder than linking turning ptix or w/e.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unless the four DA's that make up the net-benefit outweigh your CP turns.

 

they :S: you

 

I dont know about you but I usally seprate the DA away from the CP and make sure I win the whole debate. Why would you just straight turn a CP then sit down. Just awnser the DA just like there was no CP and then you :BB them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

elliot is correct. the way to beat any counterplan is to turn the net benefit, whether it be impact or link. straight turning counterplan solvency is usually not worth the debate as to why it does/doesn't apply to case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah, there is plenty of offense you can run against any agent counter plan, if they run courts, get out your courts bad file and whip up some hollow hope, legitimacy, activism, jud fism, whatever makes sense...PICS or consult cps often have their own specific disads to them depending on their particulars.

 

the negs theory responses will usually already be blocked out, but you will often get a good time trade off as they unload 15 arguements from their block defending their right to negative fiat or something, or better, they put 4 defensive answers on conditonality bad or something....then lock and load in the 1AR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only time anyone ran a Unconditional CP against me was in a practice debate with Groves. Then they drop it. And I had turned two of their net benefits (they had 3 - NU on the 3rd DA). AND THEY INTRODUCED IT IN THE 2NC after judge said he hated it. And they said PICS bad and then said XO wasn't a pic. Then they said all they did was include the plan.

 

LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
agent c/p's, consult, and all those other shitty counterplans are under my concept of pics,

 

hahah 2 things

1. Since when are agent CP's PIC's they are completly different from a Plan Inclusive Counterplan, its a different plan itself.

2. Agent CP's are shitty? what do you run?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes, agent c/p's, consult, and all those other shitty counterplans are under my concept of pics, I'm not trying to get into a giant "what is a pic debate?" I'm using it for counteprlans that try to co-opt aff solvency

 

 

2. Agent CP's are shitty? what do you run?

 

lol, OMG!! WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO WITHOUT OUR AGENT CPs!?!?

 

btw, elliot likes to consult or veto.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol, OMG!! WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO WITHOUT OUR AGENT CPs!?!?

Mmm i dunno at least on this topic Agent choice has a ton to do with it... ( court sets precedent executive maintains pres powers... ETC)

 

btw, elliot likes to consult or veto.

 

agent c/p's, consult, and all those other shitty counterplans

 

i dont think he would run a "shitty PIC"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And now, time for the biggest load of theory BS that you will ever hear in your entire debating career.

 

Unconditional CP’s illegitimate 2AC

 

 

1. Unconditional CP’s take out all affirmative ground.

By allowing a CP to be run unconditionally, the negative team also becomes affirmative when they are supposed to negate, not affirm the resolution. When they so specifically state their ground to stick with the CP, that is what the affirmative does at the beginning.

 

2. If the negative wants to act like the affirmative, they must meet ALL affirmative burdens, if they don’t meet, a vote on the CP is unjustified.

Since the negative team wishes to be affirmative so badly, they must meet all five stock issues, Significance, Harms, Inherency, Topicality, and Solvency. Not to mention they also now have the burden of proof also.

 

3. When both teams have burden of proof, clash is destroyed.

Now that both teams posses the burden of proof on their position, focus on other issues in the round totally die, decreasing any clash on any other issues.

 

4. If the negative does run DA’s with the CP, they don’t matter.

The DA’s act as why the affirmative case is bad, but at the point where the negative becomes affirmative, they link back to their own DA’s and the CP doesn’t solve the MPX.

 

5. Makes the negative a moving target.

If an unconditional CP is allowed, the negative team becomes a moving target, they are now allowed to go for the CP, K’s, DA’s, or Topicality and not be penalized for it, even though they too are now affirmative.

 

6. If the CP is unconditional, then it should be the only thing the negative goes for in the 2NR.

Heck, the affirmative has to stand behind their plan, and only their plan through the whole round, the least the negative could do is stand just behind their unconditional CP since they believe it is so great.

 

 

7. At most, if the negative goes for more than the CP in the 2NR, the majority of the time has to be spent on the CP, if not, the CP must be rejected.

Unconditional means they must go for it in the 2NR, however, if they just touch on it, it becomes abusive to the affirmative team b/c now they must repeat the 1AR arguments against the CP and answer anything else they decide to go with.

 

 

 

 

 

8. Well, the negative team says that is abusive to only go for the CP in the 2NR b/c it takes out any DA’s as net-benefits, they should have ran the CP as a different status.

If the negative knew they were going to run the CP and some DA’s with it as net benefits, they could have ran it as a different status where they would not be required to go for only it.

 

9. Just b/c it is predictable, doesn’t make it good.

We have already proven in our previous three points of why unconditional CP’s bad, so they check the fact of predictability.

 

10. Rejoinder

A. The negative must be responsive in the 2NC or we assume they concede our unconditional illegitimate arguments.

B. Burden of Rejoinder- the debate must clash throughout. No clash in the 2NC means they concede that unconditionality is bad.

C. The 2AC is the affirmatives last chance to generate any offense, so the 2NC should be the negatives last chance also, if the negative attacks unconditional CP’s illegitimate in the 1NR, the 1AR gets leeway with other arguments in the round.

 

 

See? Doesnt every bit of that sound like total BS by the affirmative (Mind you, you do run this affirmative, incase u couldnt figure it out) I am sure that it has more holes than swiss cheese, but whenever there is something like that in the round, they have to defend it...not to mention I have Uncondital Illigt. speech by speech too...lol... peace...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sry to double post...Unconditional arguments in general (conditionality is usually made on only CP's and K's) usually means that the negative team cannot drop it no matter what...however, there are ways that they can actually drop an unconditional CP/K and win...that is basically if the judge doesnt buy these type of arguments for either side...or the negative team drops the CP and runs abuse good arguments...(which apparently exist, and which apparently, and oddly, actually can win rounds). But speaking in general, the best way to beat an unconditional CP is to prove plan is better, prove that CP is bad, or just straight up turn the SOB...also, there are competitivness arguments u can make such as the CP is a PIC, and the CP is topical...however, those three ways to beat an unconditional CP, actually apply to any CP...peace...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sry to double post...Unconditional arguments in general (conditionality is usually made on only CP's and K's) usually means that the negative team cannot drop it no matter what...however, there are ways that they can actually drop an unconditional CP/K and win...that is basically if the judge doesnt buy these type of arguments for either side...or the negative team drops the CP and runs abuse good arguments...(which apparently exist, and which apparently, and oddly, actually can win rounds). But speaking in general, the best way to beat an unconditional CP is to prove plan is better, prove that CP is bad, or just straight up turn the SOB...also, there are competitivness arguments u can make such as the CP is a PIC, and the CP is topical...however, those three ways to beat an unconditional CP, actually apply to any CP...peace...

The only thing that an unconditional CP means is that they're never going to revert to SQ. It doesn't mean they can't, for instance, kick and go for T, and even arguably a K. As long as they never defend the advocacy they shifted from, it's ligit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only thing that an unconditional CP means is that they're never going to revert to SQ. It doesn't mean they can't, for instance, kick and go for T, and even arguably a K. As long as they never defend the advocacy they shifted from, it's ligit.

See...all of this is why I hate arguing conditionality of anything...almost guaranteed, any region you go too, the standards of what is conditional, dispositional, and unconditional will vary slighlty...which is why some judges dont buy these argument types...but thanks for the clarification...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only thing that an unconditional CP means is that they're never going to revert to SQ. It doesn't mean they can't, for instance, kick and go for T, and even arguably a K. As long as they never defend the advocacy they shifted from, it's ligit.

 

going for a K would be either defending the K alt or the squo as better than case, making the CP conditional. Unconditional means that that substantive advocacy is the only way in which the negative can frame the debate. Going for T is not "kicking the CP", T is not an advocacy that must be shifted to. People might argue that they can go for the K without the CP being condo because it somehow operates on a different level but that is a lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And now, time for the biggest load of theory BS that you will ever hear

 

yes

 

 

1. this is a topical CPs bad arg, not uncondo bad.

 

2. warrant? also #1 would be a reason why them being T would be bad. btw, significance!? lol

 

3. no I/L, see #2. Again no warrant.

 

 

4. no, the CP would presumeably NOT LINK to the d/as. Links are based off of the case, not the virtue of being aff.

 

5. you're thinking of conditionality.

 

6. the aff stands by their case including advantages, NB = advantages to CP

 

 

7. Can you say brightline?

 

if they just touch on the CP, then mebbe u should just touch on it when answering it? just a thought.

 

8. wrong, d/as are not an advocacy, running the CP simply shifts the way that disads must be evaluated to plan vs cp rather than plan vs squo.

 

9. you haven't proven anything.

 

10.

A. making us waste time on ur retarded theory args is abusive and a voting issue.

B. so what, still no impact or voters.

C.

The 2AC is the affirmatives last chance to generate any offense

 

noob

 

so the 2NC should be the negatives last chance also' date=' if the negative attacks unconditional CP’s illegitimate in the 1NR[/quote']

 

1nr answers are functionally the same as 2nc answers.

 

...the 1AR gets leeway with other arguments in the round.

 

why other args? why not just on this theory flow?

 

See? Doesnt every bit of that sound like total BS

yes

 

(Mind you' date=' you do run this affirmative, incase u couldnt figure it out)[/quote']

story of your life

 

I am sure that it has more holes than swiss cheese

 

this theory flow is like having sex with your mom' date=' sister, and aunt: it's better just to group it, go really fast, and move on.

 

but whenever there is something like that in the round, they have to defend it...

 

have you heard of a time tradeoff?

 

 

I have Uncondital Illigt. speech by speech too...lol... peace...

 

this magnifies the link to all the reasons you are retarded (see: the rest of this post)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But suppose you were hitting a neg team that ran a one off strategy which was a non-topical and incredibly competitive unconditional counterplan? If someone ran a counterplan the way it should be run, all your answers FAIL.

 

I plan to do that this weekend if I hit Korematsu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
going for a K would be either defending the K alt or the squo rather as better than the CP, making the CP conditional. Unconditional means that that substantive advocacy is the only way in which the negative can frame the debate. Going for T is not "kicking the CP", T is not an advocacy that must be shifted to. People might argue that they can go for the K without the CP being condo because it somehow operates on a different level but that is a lie.

 

I still don't see where going for the K after running a CP unconditionally makes any difference. The only thing that uncon guarantees is that you don't defend the status quo anymore - whether you go for the K is irrelevant because you're not shifting back to the status quo in rebuttel time, thus skewing the time by the 1AR and whatnot. You recognize that shifting advocacies back and forth is bad - this is why you stick with your new advocacies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We should write REAL CP's that are not topical and mutually exclusive. That way, the counterplan won't just be a way to prove the abuse on ASPEC. How about this? On HIV exclusion, we should spend more money trying to cure HIV instead of stopping exclusion. That wasn't hard to think of, was it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
irrelevant because you're not shifting back to the status quo in rebuttel time, thus skewing the time by the 1AR and whatnot.

 

right, instead u are screwing them by switching from CP to K.

 

 

You recognize that shifting advocacies back and forth is bad - this is why you stick with your new advocacies.

 

no, you are not sticking with your new advocacies, u are switching back and forth between your new advocacies, making them conditional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...