Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
heggo

Plan Plan

Recommended Posts

Shuman and Ankur are bitches for sure, but they're right - it's all about the BPO and I'm sure a lot of wankerous theory (like, I don't know - 90 lines of education good, real world kinda jazz) arguments justify it being broken down into a BPO format.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I don't think yall are bitches at all...just more intelligent than others. And sorry Ankur, I guess I read that post the wrong way.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well i dont know about shu...

but i am no bitch. more of a prick bastard maybe.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think i have a pretty good understanding of the plan plan framework and i don't think that its a good negative strategy (reasons aside from judge bias against it) do you (ankur and tsu) agree or disagree with this ultimate conclusion?- just curioius

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in 95% of situations, you are correct.

however, just as there is a situation where running inherency is a golden opportunity... plan plan fits a particular niche in the world of neg strategy.

 

the ability to run p2 is a huge check against uber-squirrely cases to which the neg will have NO answers... including generic disads. see previous example given.

 

in those situations, p2 can be warranted and the judge bias against it is likely to be vaporized seeing how squirrely the aff case actually is. the judge can easily be persuaded into believing you literally had no other option... and will thus not be motivated to intervene on their own personal beliefs. (just to play the psych game).

 

but imo, there is nothing which prevents p2 from being a legitimate strategy. i think it would be very difficult to beat a good p2 round, as far as debate quality is concerned... however, its equally hard to coach debaters into doing a good p2...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, there are a few of my arguments that I knew sucked when I posted them. The only one I didn't know was that you can't kick a plan-plan (well, technically you could, but I didn't know it was uncommon).

1. Excludes about 50 decent 1ACs that would be interesting to talk about but we can't because this stupid neg thinks there's one that's better

5.You've just proven the resolution true. [insert topical CPs = an aff ballot block]

3. Impossible for us to outweigh - any answers we make only prove the resolution false. They can just concede all of them and go back to advocating the squo, completely skewing our ground

 

 

Anyway, on to the good arguments...

Number 2...

Debates aren't about "proving the resolution true." If you want to argue that they are, you've got a pretty steep hill to climb. What you're really saying here is that you'd rather have to beat a truckload of counter-warrants rather than a single topical alternative to your plan. That's just nuts...
1. I'm not advocating counterwarrants. I'm advocating not doing p2.

2. Rez-focus doesn't legitimate whole rez, as evidenced in the 1AC that I would have read if this were a round. Besides, parametrics are key even in a rez-focus round.

 

a) What is a topical counterplan then?

1. Fine, topical counterplans are illegit.

2. At least topical counterplans compete, which is more than I can say for p2.

3. Topical counterplans are a red herring. If you win BPO is good, topical counterplans aren't run, so it doesn't matter. Referencing topical counterplans bad theory was a stupid idea on my part.

 

B) Pics?
1. Pics are competitive, p2 is not.

 

c)

You still dont have any reading comprehension. I quote again:

plan plan is a Best Policy Option paradigm argument regarding competition between two potentially uncompetitive topical advocacies. in order to draw the necessary comparisons, the standard negative arguments apply.

What part of 'in order to make the necessary comparisons, the standard negative arguments apply' is confusing. It REQUIRES the presentation of negative argument slike disads, critiques, solvency turns etc.

1. What you claim that BPO means and what BPO means in the context of the round are two entirely different things. You define BPO as meaning that all the traditional arguments can still be done, but I don't care. Several reasons why you're wrong.

a)All the traditional arguments can't and won't be run. The problem with this interpretation of debate is that it excludes any and all generic arguments from being run. Any chance that my Statism K links to my case too (and it probably does) means that it's a really stupid idea to run. That precludes the aff from running any kind of argument that could possibly link to both affs. That destroys the strategic imperative of running a generic, which undermines debate and general education.

b)You'll say that generics are bad, but there are some that just plain need to be debated about, like statism. Besides, 99% of education comes from generics - learning just about the rez and only the rez the whole year gets reeeeeally boring.

c)Forces plan-only debate: any turns or no-links that are read must be about ONE CASE AND ONE CASE ONLY, otherwise the other team can suck up the turn and the no link. That's really, really non-educational because we just let the aff research their own aff and nothing else, and there's no imperative to research any generics or any other arguments. Best case scenario for education in a p2 community is two cases (one if another team runs your aff) and a bunch of case hits researched.

d)Real-world education - your interpretation precludes me from running anything but the biggest and best affs, when real debate should be about the consideration of all possible alternatives. Congress doesn't debate about the budget vs. the war every session, every single time. There's national holidays, allocations for minor spending, and talks about rights, petitions, and many other things. Affs that aren't so great get excluded, and no one runs anything without huge fucking nukes impacts or dehum on the bottom. The affs that your neg theory calls "squirrely" I call a good idea.

d) turn - both sides must affirm and negate. doubles the obligations of both teams forcing the reduction of "arguments they wont go for" and increases discourse on arguments which actually matter.
1. Thanks for proving my argument. It's called rez focus debate, and it's what we do when we debate aff one round and neg the next. That's why there aren't "aff teams" and "neg teams" who each go into their own pool at the beginning of the year and are matched against eachother as the year goes on. Within the rounds we maintain consistent stances, but we still get education about both sides.

2. This argument makes no sense and has no warrants.

3. P2 doesn't affirm and negate, it makes the round entirely about two arguments. There is no inherent benefit to affirming "something" or negating "something," only from negating or affirming the rez.

Number 4 and 6

Splendidly argued. Lovely warrants you have there. How about coming back when you've learned how to make an actual argument? The whole basis for P2 is the idea that we should be evaluating which of two topical advocacies is superior. In what POSSIBLE sense is this "no different" than running some random, non-topical Aff out of my tub?
a) there is a very big difference between running a topical plan and a non-topical plan. if you dont know this much, you need to return to novice 101.
1. (To the first quote) Hoisted on your own petard, eh? Get some warrants.

2. There is no theoretical basis for your advocacy from a strategic competition standpoint. THERE IS NO REASON WHY WE CAN'T DO ONE, THEN DO THE OTHER, OR EVEN DO BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. NON-COMPETITIVE ADVOCACIES DO NOT PROVE ANYTHING, AND VOTING FOR ONE OVER THE OTHER ONLY POLARIZES THE JUDGE BETWEEN TWO ARGUMENTS, CREATING A FALSE DILEMMA WHERE NONE IS REALLY NECESSARY AND BOTH CAN BE DONE AT THE SAME TIME. I know you'll say that case turns and such make competition, but if you use a case hit to try and win based on the other plan being worse than the squo YOU MIGHT AS WELL BE RUNNING REZ-FOCUS.

There are four possibilities. First, the aff plan is better than theirs. You win, in either framework. Second, the plan is worse than theirs but better than the status quo - this is where competition actually matters. Why endorse one with the ballot when both are good? Why give your support to a team if their aff is just better, not the only good idea? Surely having just one plan isn't the way you think politics works. Third, your plan is worse than the squo and worse than their plan. Why not just debate a plan-focus framework, then? Fourth, both plans are worse than the status quo. Should one team win, just because they're less bad than the other? Not when the squo is an alternative. Drop both teams.

 

B) any counterplan which is not mutually exclusive operates in BPO. consult, agent CPs, and most other 'popular' CPs operate in BPO.

1. I beg to differ. Counterplans which are net-benefits competitive are not BPO, they are rez focus. The part about the neg fiat may use a part of the BPO paradigm, but the purpose of the counterplan, competition, and the ensuing perm solvency arguments is to prove that there is a beneficial action which is precluded by plan - ie, that the plan's solvency or the cp's solvency is destroyed when both are done together. The part of CP solvency and extrinsic net benefit that plan doesn't suck up is a disad to the plan, along with the DA link.

2. Only when you mean BPO in the sense of "the best thing to choose." See above.

3. It's a red herring. I'm not discussing counterplan theory vs BPO but rather the value of the competition of two alternatives. You win that CPs operate within BPO, congratulations.

B) the neg's job is to negate the affirmative, not negate the resolution. if that were the case, any non wholerez case would be illegitimate.
1. The neg's job is to prove that the affirmative does something bad, not that there is something better that could have been done. P2 does not negate the aff.

2. This entails a negation of whatever action the 1AC advocates, so running counterwarrants doesn't make sense. Parametrics good.

 

(on the "war 1AC")

6. a) again, not topical.
My point was not that it is non-topical but that it is non-competitive, and that the difference between a non-topical, non-competitive CP and a non-topical, competitive one is only on the theoretical/procedural level. What would the neg say if I read 2 1ACs? I'd still be running multiple affs, but my team said them, so you should evaluate them before anything. I can use both (or all of the affs, if I read 4x 2-minute affs) that I read in the 1AC to bash you with, since my Korematsu, GTMO, Immigration, and Iraqi Detention affs are better than your single aff.

 

The most important argument is, quite simply, competition. Why choose between one good alternative and another good one? The ballot is an endorsement of the statements made by either team.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in those situations, p2 can be warranted and the judge bias against it is likely to be vaporized seeing how squirrely the aff case actually is. the judge can easily be persuaded into believing you literally had no other option... and will thus not be motivated to intervene on their own personal beliefs. (just to play the psych game).

 

If p2 is dependent upon getting past a judge bias by proving that you have nothing else to run, why waste time with a non-competitive policy option and prove the abuse?

 

Just as plan-plan is frowned upon in debate, things like T - substantial and minor repair are just as well frowned upon. In all seriousness, why quibble the debate down to noncompetitive policy options when you can exploit that in-round abuse in something like T - sub, or minor repair, and then quanitfy the negative position with a process CP like XO or Courts, and quantify that with NB's like Politix?

 

The running of plan-plan would almost resubstantiate the affirmative's claims that there's no in-round abuse, because even when you had nothing, you brought out something, and education and ground has been preserved. However, if a team runs minor repair/T-sub, and then runs XO and politix, it would counteract this theory because it proves that the negative had an ultra-generic strategy that it had to encompass because anything else = instant loss.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a way to make p2 competitive.

 

Cut the 1ac a little bit (not too much mind you) and throw in a net benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If p2 is dependent upon getting past a judge bias by proving that you have nothing else to run, why waste time with a non-competitive policy option and prove the abuse?

 

I'll answer Zeigler first... well... because I want to.

 

I was just stating the reality of it. P2 isnt generally a good strategy. But as I said, there are situations where the nature of the affirmative case will overcome most judge's dislike of P2.

 

Most judges are almost certain not to pull the trigger on inherency. However, if someone were to run the "affirm john roberts to the SC" case... I think the first thing out of your mouth should be inherency. And I dont think there is a judge out there who wont vote on it.

 

So do you still mean to tell me that you dont choose strategies based on the affirmative case?

 

Having nothing to run is NOT abusive. Its called insufficient homework being done by the neg. If the aff is still reasonably topical and any T vio you run is not a solid obvious victory.... then your lack of evidence is the neg's fault. The aff did not abuse you. You will never win the abuse story because you "ran only generics." Any judge who buys that bullshit is an idiot. What possible incentive does the neg have to actually do any work then? "Oh judge. I have NOTHING to argue! The aff must have abused me!"

 

 

 

Just as plan-plan is frowned upon in debate, things like T - substantial and minor repair are just as well frowned upon. In all seriousness, why quibble the debate down to noncompetitive policy options when you can exploit that in-round abuse in something like T - sub, or minor repair, and then quanitfy the negative position with a process CP like XO or Courts, and quantify that with NB's like Politix?

 

Because

a) politics disads are 100% illegitimate arguments to begin with. see

here

B) because CP's like agent cps and Pics are not competitive - they are neg plans just like plan plan. and this is irrespective of the disad NB you present. see here

c) because you literally have nothing else. see my previous example on this thread. WHAT would you run against this that you have in your tubs?

 

 

The running of plan-plan would almost resubstantiate the affirmative's claims that there's no in-round abuse, because even when you had nothing, you brought out something, and education and ground has been preserved. However, if a team runs minor repair/T-sub, and then runs XO and politix, it would counteract this theory because it proves that the negative had an ultra-generic strategy that it had to encompass because anything else = instant loss.

a) there is NO SUCH THING as in-round abuse. its not a voter. lets break that down for a second... you're telling me that because the opposing team devised a topical plan of such craftiness, that they are in someway abusing you because you have nothing to run against it?

B) your theory arguments are bad because you're not taking into account the circumstances that predicated running p2.

c) youre telling me that a team which is running a topical 1ac to trump a small squirrely aff with small impacts is somehow not a "generic" strategy? or that it is less generic than an XO w/ tix NB? are you serious?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shudogg, if you want to go school the youngin from tualatin... be my guest... i wont get a chance until at least mid afternoon... and such a violent pimpslapping must be handed out quickly to prevent the spread of stupidity on this site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yo, Ankur. If you want to take the point on this, you need to be quick about it. How do you expect me to pass up opportunities like this? ;)

First of all, there are a few of my arguments that I knew sucked when I posted them.
I doubt that the original poster (or anyone else for that matter) got that impression from your post. And what, really, is the point of posting arguments that you "know sucked" anyway? If you want to contest the legitimacy of P2, is it your sense that the folks who read these threads are so stupid that they'll even buy arguments against it that obviously "suck"?
The only one I didn't know was that you can't kick a plan-plan (well, technically you could, but I didn't know it was uncommon).
As will be seen, there is quite a bit about P2 that you "didn't know" (and still don't), but to correct this particular misperception: If the Neg has put forward the P2 framework, they CANNOT then kick it and revert back to SQ, "technically" or in any other fashion. P2 is a framework argument, first and foremost...
Anyway, on to the good arguments...
The proof of the pudding, as they say...
1. I'm not advocating counterwarrants. I'm advocating not doing p2.
One of your objections is that Neg would be "proving the resolution true" in a P2 framework, and that this is a reason not to do it. What I'm saying is that if Aff starts talking this way, Neg is perfectly within their rights to demand that AFF "prove the resolution true" (that IS the ground Aff is claiming, right?). Problem is, a single Affplan DOESN'T ACCOMPLISH THIS, and Neg in the 2NC gets to run counter-warrants (examples of resolutional action which are bad), plus Hasty G. Where's the upside for Aff in all of this?
2. Rez-focus doesn't legitimate whole rez, as evidenced in the 1AC that I would have read if this were a round.
Uh huh. Well, the devastating critique of that Aff I would have run would have won... ;) I mean, come ON. If you have an argument, make it, but spare us the "I could have shown you the killer arg if I had wanted to" stuff...
Besides, parametrics are key even in a rez-focus round.
Excuse me? Not if Aff is claiming to "prove the resolution true" they aren't. You can't eat your cake and have it too...

1. Fine, topical counterplans are illegit.

Your best answer here is just to stake out a position that hasn't been widely accepted for at least a decade? Best of luck with THAT strat...
At least topical counterplans compete, which is more than I can say for p2.
Again, you wouldn't keep making this silly claim if you would simply read up on what P2 actually says. The P2 framework argues that the BALLOT enforces a choice (no double wins). That's all the "competition" we need. If you actually understood the basis for P2, you'd understand this as well...
1. Pics are competitive, p2 is not.
Sure it is. P2 suggests that the judge evaluate which of the two topical advocacies put forth in the round is superior. The ballot enforces a choice (no double wins or ties are permitted). That's "competition" in the ballot sense, which is all that is required for a debate to happen. Your "competition" argument assumes that a debate must be an up/down vote on the merits of Affplan ONLY. P2 challenges that premise. Reiterating the traditional framework isn't an answer to the P2 framework.
a)All the traditional arguments can't and won't be run.
This is really Ankur's part of the discussion, but I did want to mention that argument from tradition is a well-known logical fallacy. I would also point out that a P2 Neg still has to win the comparison debate, which will require them to argue SOME "traditional" positions against Affplan. Yes, Neg must be more judicious in the selection of these arguments, but the same thing is true of a Neg running a conventional counterplan (i.e., the counterplan can't bite any DAs or kritiks the Neg plans to run). What's the difference?
c)Forces plan-only debate
Not true at all. A key method for winning the comparison debate in the P2 framework involves attacking the CASE claims made by Aff. Haven't you been listening? The main use for P2 is to protect Negs from small cases that don't link to much if anything, and from "kritikal" Affs that try to win by striking an intellectual pose...
d)Real-world education - your interpretation precludes me from running anything but the biggest and best affs
No. It simply asks you to defend your choice of Aff. If you can't do that, why should you win? If you can't explain why you chose this particular Aff, isn't that fair game for Neg? If not, why not? You assume that judges wouldn't listen to Affs' justifications for smaller, truer cases. I think you are mistaken about that...
Affs that aren't so great get excluded, and no one runs anything without huge fucking nukes impacts or dehum on the bottom. The affs that your neg theory calls "squirrely" I call a good idea.
But not such a good idea that you could actually explain it in-round? Why should we just take Aff's word for this? Besides, you are also assuming that the ONLY way to win the comparison debate in a P2 round is with body counts. That's absurd...
1. (To the first quote) Hoisted on your own petard, eh? Get some warrants.
Oh, please. I've been writing about this stuff on this website for more than three years now. Not my fault that you wish to remain ignorant, and not my responsibility to re-type all of that stuff every time someone shouts "warrant!" Your whole position amounts to an un-warranted assertion, and is based on a comprehensive misunderstanding of what P2's theoretical basis is. I repeat: Either respond to THAT, or please shut up about the matter...
THERE IS NO REASON WHY WE CAN'T DO ONE, THEN DO THE OTHER, OR EVEN DO BOTH AT THE SAME TIME. NON-COMPETITIVE ADVOCACIES DO NOT PROVE ANYTHING, AND VOTING FOR ONE OVER THE OTHER ONLY POLARIZES THE JUDGE BETWEEN TWO ARGUMENTS, CREATING A FALSE DILEMMA WHERE NONE IS REALLY NECESSARY AND BOTH CAN BE DONE AT THE SAME TIME.
Are you under the impression that using all caps for whole sentences somehow makes them more cogent? It doesn't. "Do both" is not an option. You may not "perm" a Negplan. If you don't know why not, it is because you don't listen, and can't stop conceptualizing a debate round in any way other than the traditional one...

 

I've got classes to teach, so I'll let Ankur tag in for awhile, but...

The most important argument is, quite simply, competition. Why choose between one good alternative and another good one? The ballot is an endorsement of the statements made by either team.
Why choose between one good topical action and another one? Because the ballot says only one team can win, and only one team had the BETTER of the two topical advocacies. In a P2 framework, to repeat, Neg still has to win the comparison debate. If Affplan, at the end of the day, is better than Negplan, vote Aff. What's the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A sort of plan-plan (advocacy-advocacy?) though never called so much and I am sure would have this discription violently rejected, is emerged in critical debate as a way to deal with the lack of well, anything resembling topicality or cases that do, well, anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
true- yikes it is strikingly similar to plan plan just instead of 2 plans there are none.
Maybe we could call it P-Zero, eh? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First even though Tshu and Ankur definitely don't need any help I did want to say something about one argument going on.

 

Apparently some people think that P2 isn't real world because you could do both plans at the same time. I argue P2 is more realistic becuase lawmakers often agree an action is a good idea but only have limited resources to enact a plan.

 

For example the USFG has some extra money (not like this could happen in the next 3 years) and wants to improve medicare.

The lawmakers could raise benefits to receipiants, add more receipiants, change administration of medicare, change source of funding, etc. Ultimately there will be limited resources to draw upon. Thus lawmakers will debate NUMEROUS topical actions, and either comprimise or decide one action is best. The only way to do this is proving which topical action is most beneficial then priortizing all actions presented. This is actually how a lot of lawmaking happens at the legislative level and thus P2 is a perfect refleciton of this type of policy debate.

 

Really how many lawmakers ever discuss non-topical plans. For example if USFG is discussing PKO's they don't have the luxury to say let's have China do that. If you think you're actor CP's are more realistic or educational in a policy sense then P2 maybe you should look at these warrants, even though I am clearly not the first person to say any of this, maybe showing you this will help everyone understand an aspect of P2 debate.

 

On a side note to Tshu and Ankur, I am just beginning juding high school debates, since I just became a college debater. What do you guys have to say about making P2 my paradigm? Or is it better just to say I'm willing to listen to P2. I can't really find much discussion on the way judges who like P2 should go about supporting it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you guys have to say about making P2 my paradigm? Or is it better just to say I'm willing to listen to P2.
Definitely the latter. P2 isn't a judging stance at all. If you meant to say that your judging stance would be "Best Policy Option," that best describes what most people call the "policymaker" paradigm...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no one disagrees. there are strategy issues with p2.

but it is hardly the abusive uber-ridiculous thing most debaters think it is. its not the big bad boogeyman of debate. it doesnt necessarily make for shitty debates. if its done well, and in certain situations, its just as good as any other round. there is nothing fundamentally wrong with p2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As will be seen, there is quite a bit about P2 that you "didn't know" (and still don't), but to correct this particular misperception: If the Neg has put forward the P2 framework, they CANNOT then kick it and revert back to SQ, "technically" or in any other fashion. P2 is a framework argument, first and foremost...

I'll get back to the rest of this post later, but clearly you don't know anything about debate. Technically, the neg and the aff can both do whatever the hell they want, whenever the hell they want to. I can re-plan, run plan-plan, or take a shit on the American flag in my 1AC if I want to, it just doesn't mean I should win. P2 is not a monolithic concept that you (or anyone else) gets to define, it is an arbitrary name for an arbitrary theoretical interpretation of debate. Just like the definitions of "dispositional," the structure of an A-SPEC debate, or even the fundamental framework of debate can change, the interpretation of plan-plan could be changed to include strategic concession of the framework. Just because you've never seen it run that way doesn't make it automatically wrong. My point was that you could kick P2 and go for a disad or something in the 2AR, I just didn't know that most teams didn't do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, lets put it in english you can understand then... if the neg kicks their P2, they lose on advocacy shift. Granted, the opposing team must make that argument, but it would be EXTREMELY persuasive in the 2ar.

 

Constructing a BPO/policymaker paradigm is a framework argument. You are establishing a specifric framework as the way in which the judge evaluates the round and the arguments in the round. Kicking the framework typically means you will lose the round.

 

Just because you have never seen topicality defined as a deontological critical implication to the affirmative case doesnt mean that that definition of topicality is wrong....

come on now... anyone can redefine shit to mean whatever the hell they want. There are commonly perceived definitions to what P2 entails. learn them

 

PS - people earn their right to be pricks. you havent earned your stripes yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you read my post? I said that people could kick the framework, and they can pretty much do whatever they want, not that it would be legit to do so. Yes, it would be abusive to kick p2. That does not mean no one would do it, or that your interpretation of plan-plan would preclude them from doing it by the sheer force of your will. People can do whatever they want in debate, and there's no way to physically force them to stop, only win on the ballot.

I don't really want to defend an argument I've already admitted is pretty dumb. Anyone who is intelligent enough to run theory against p2 is intelligent enough to run an RVI when the neg kicks the framework in the 2NR, so my argument doesn't really matter. Just remember that "but my interpretation precludes that type of behavior" isn't an argument, it's a claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a really piss poor terrible response to anything shuman and I have said. "Kids can do whatever they want in debate" So disads no longer need to have links. Counterplans no longer need to be competitive. Plans no longer need to be inherent.

Because kids can do whatever they want.

 

Lets stick to reality... the reality being that teams run arguments they are trying to actually WIN...

 

why dont you actually take time out of your busy schedule of inflating your own importance... and actually respond to something,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just stating the reality of it. P2 isnt generally a good strategy. But as I said, there are situations where the nature of the affirmative case will overcome most judge's dislike of P2.

 

Most judges are almost certain not to pull the trigger on inherency. However, if someone were to run the "affirm john roberts to the SC" case... I think the first thing out of your mouth should be inherency. And I dont think there is a judge out there who wont vote on it.

 

So do you still mean to tell me that you dont choose strategies based on the affirmative case?

 

Having nothing to run is NOT abusive. Its called insufficient homework being done by the neg. If the aff is still reasonably topical and any T vio you run is not a solid obvious victory.... then your lack of evidence is the neg's fault. The aff did not abuse you. You will never win the abuse story because you "ran only generics." Any judge who buys that bullshit is an idiot. What possible incentive does the neg have to actually do any work then? "Oh judge. I have NOTHING to argue! The aff must have abused me!"

 

Whether you choose strategies based on case or not is 1) irrelevant, and 2) not what I was saying. All I'm saying is that if the debate really does come right down to coming over a judge bias everytime, why take the route of plan-plan, instead of running a more run-of-the-mill strategy that is widely understood, and almost without question accepted to prove the abuse?

 

Also, having nothing to run isn't abusive, but it sure as hell is when it's a direct result of an affirmative plan. If the affirmative advocates your mock plan for instance - end audits by IRS for people making less than 50,000 etc., it's sure as hell untopical under "substantial", which pops up in almost every resolution without fail. At the very least, you run minor repair.

 

Also, assuming that the aff. is trying to get buy with really small impacts, like saving 10,000,000 dollars, these strategies give an added bonus to the neg. cuz not only do they have the abuse story ligitimately going for them, but they can also confidently say that any link to something like politix will o/w the crappy aff. cuz they offer no real terminal impact.

 

Also, I'd highly doubt that the mock affirmative you show is a reasonable interpretation. At worst, the neg. brings up answers to their reasonability counter-standard. Big deal - not really hard to beat against an aff. that picks the smallest possible case parameter that it possibly could.

 

Because

a) politics disads are 100% illegitimate arguments to begin with. see

here

B) because CP's like agent cps and Pics are not competitive - they are neg plans just like plan plan. and this is irrespective of the disad NB you present. see here

c) because you literally have nothing else. see my previous example on this thread. WHAT would you run against this that you have in your tubs?

 

Eh - conceeded. Politics = crap. Too bad that the negative is net beneficial with any possible link because of the lack of terminal impacts from the aff. Hell, the neg. doesn't even need a CP at this point.

 

Agent CP's and PICs aren't necessarily non-competitive. If ran correctly, they run affirmatives into advocating intrinsic/severance perms, which kinda prove competitiveness, although there's theory to go both ways.

 

As for what I'd run, I merely show off this hypothetical XO/Politix round as an example. I personally see the problem with p2 being that it takes quite a bit to overcome judge bias against non-competitive negative positions, and that if the real intent is to prove abuse and gain ground from other positions, at least run offensive generic positions and say under your minor repair/T-Substantial flow a potential abuse standard if they try to undermine that ground with "we're just this little policy judge" arguments. At the very worst, they straight-turn the CP and claim no links/intrinsicness to all of your DA's. They just feed your abuse argument. Also, extend this to your argument that having nothing to run isn't abusive. Sure, it may not be, but undermining what stuff you have to run with an abusive strat., i.e. unsubstantial cases to whine intrinsicness on DA's, is the abuse, and that's the entire point.

 

a) there is NO SUCH THING as in-round abuse. its not a voter. lets break that down for a second... you're telling me that because the opposing team devised a topical plan of such craftiness, that they are in someway abusing you because you have nothing to run against it?

B) your theory arguments are bad because you're not taking into account the circumstances that predicated running p2.

c) youre telling me that a team which is running a topical 1ac to trump a small squirrely aff with small impacts is somehow not a "generic" strategy? or that it is less generic than an XO w/ tix NB? are you serious?

 

First, there is a such thing as in-round abuse, and once again, the abuse doesn't happen because they find this crafty, nifty little 1AC that I have nothing on. The abuse happens when it's a completely abusive, minimalistic interpretation of the resolution that they'll use later to dodge all of my offense in their amassed 2AC "clarification." There is a such thing as in-round abuse, and that's when they use crappy interpretations of the topic, thus being untopical, to dodge key offense.

 

Second, yet again, it's still the fact that an abuse story is much more warranted (at least, in my opinion) when you run a generic off-case strategy, and the neg. tries to dodge it with intrinsicness arguments - this feeds the potential and regular abuse stories. Running p2 offers a non-competitive policy option against the affirmative, where chances say that they'll have case-specific offense against it. If the theory position with the minimalisticness of plan is what you really run p2 for, why not make that abuse abundently clear and exploit it? Either make them conceed that XO is net beneficial under a shotty politix NB, or make them conceed that they abuse the fuck out of you.

 

Third, yes, p2 may very well be just as generic as anything else advocated by the neg., but it's yet again a non-competitive policy option that the aff. has lit on vs. a generic strategy that their intrinsicness responses to will prove in-round abuse.

 

Personally, I see the latter as a more competent strategy, especially when your core objection is when the fact that they = abusive interpretation, killing all of your ground. It's not abuse when they kill your ground base, but it is abuse when they kill what ground you have with their faulty interpretation.

 

 

However, let me just kinda sum up my personal position on it - I totally agree that if ran correctly, p2 could be an excellent debate - my contention is that it simply doesn't make sense to run on the neg., especially where most paradigms ask for a competitive policy or argument against the affirmative. I'm simply saying that when most paradigms want to hear competitive policy, p2 is a bad strat. to go with, despite it's benefits that it could have. Also, even if the judge is totally down with p2 framework, or if you'd win it in a round, why bother? You could run a competitive policy option and feed this abuse claim in the end, w/o the risk of losing to a lot of responses to a particular case.

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...