Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
heggo

Plan Plan

Recommended Posts

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,

I was talking about the fact that you said "but, but you just can't do that in a p2 framework!", not actually responding to any of your arguments. I'm not trying to win this argument, I was just pointing out that there is nothing physically preventing utterly random and pointless behavior, only strategically. You don't seem to have realized this. We are basically arguing the same side here, and I don't even close to think that this argument wins me the P2 debate.

 

Just please, please try to actually read my posts. I do actually say things, not just enter random characters.

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

whoa whoa whoa, everyone here has a big penis, there's no need to try to out piss one another, ankur you and tshu like plan plan, i like plan plan, (not as a strat, just as a possible framework) but hey, we all have big jimmies so lets just sit around and be cool. no need for bickering, lets get this forum back to the 'helpful' stature it should have. lets try to make a differnce, change the world, and contribute something positive...chillllllll

 

 

seriously though, thinktank, you sound like you are misunderstanding something

 

and ankur you are sounding elitist....tshu you sound grumpy, ankur you sound grumpy too as a matter of fact ;)

 

ankur-you were able to reintroduce me to debate theory after having left the game for a couple of years with one post in a 'topical counterplans legit' forum (in which your post brought flashbacks to years of highschool debate, ddi, the transition into college debate, coaching and judging etc...") and you cant set aside you guys' ego for a second and just try'n outdebate this mo fo? c'mon i mean i know he's being a prick (thinktank: you are) but c'mon. rise above it; you're much older and more mature.

 

yo think tank- your posts make more sense than 99% of the people's on this website so hold your head high and just say to yourself 'hey, my experience at this point in my debate career has me thinking my way, theirs has them thinking their own way" whatever, agree to disagree, or debate, dont get caught up in a silly pissing game when you could be cutting cards, its not worth it man!!

 

Tshu---- you're a fucking genius man, we all listen to your posts, i look forward to hearing your opinion every damn day so just keep it positve as well! dont let people get you worked up just because they disagree with you, highschool debaters are fickle and believe what helps them win, i never ran plan plan in highschool, few do, they're taught not to, understand the culture, as i'm sure you do. its not nearly an intellectual culture as it is a 'winning culture'....camps, coaches, and lame judges contribute to this but hey, changing it doesn't depend on changing this one kid's mind.

 

you and ankur have good ideas, put them out there where they belong and dont belittle them by getting into machobitchesque peeing competitions!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dont get caught up in a silly pissing game when you could be cutting cards

...that's a good point...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Derek, don't you dare say that plan-plan is frowned upon, your just mad cause Brandon and I won and you though the emporia girls were hot. Plan plan is simply a strat that is not useful to most cases, but I feel that it works, I'm thinking I might even run this at State, mostly to piss off kids from other towns, but also in hopes that I hit you, for plan plan shall rain its fury upon you! Plus even when it's not that useful aff still freaks out and usually doesn't know what to do (example Jen and Mary). Question for the leet guys, is it wrong to run plan plan just to freak a team out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

Because the nature of the affirmative case will automatically overcome judge inhibition. When the neg says in their overview... "uhhh... plan-plan" the judge is going to smile not frown... because you chose an appropriate strategy. Just as I point out in the inherency example which you missed, there are appropriate times to run plan plan. Running it during inappropriate times is just foolish. It is when you run it during inappropriate times that you are having to overcome judge bias. But no one advocated doing that!

 

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.

 

I chose that example for a reason. I forget the actual statistic I had heard earlier that day... but something like 30% or 40% of the labor force would fall under the being employed by a small business category. If say 35% of 150 million isnt signficiant... well... nothing is.

 

I would love to know what politics link you have to that. To my knowledge, not a single good link, let alone a half decent arguable one, exists to link to an IRS case like that. And no, dont go out and cut a link... what link do you have in your tubs right now. You dont have one. No one does. But thats not MY fault that you dont have one. Thats YOUR fault.

 

Your abuse story is absolute garbage. The aff isnt obligated in any way shape or form to run an affirmative to which you will have any specific answers or even a generic argument. You have about as many rights to demand the aff to run an aff case to which you have answers as you to do demand that the aff give you their neg block to their own case.

 

There is no such thing as abuse. There are bad arguments and bad strategies. There are bad debaters, and bad speaking techniques. Bad manners, bad evidence cutting skills, and bad underlining skills. But there is nothing in any of those which is "abusive." The minute you bring the word abuse into debate you are ASKING for the judge to intervene in the round. You are asking the judge to make a value statement on the character of an argument independently.

 

 

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.

Not really. Agent CPs are NEVER competitive. Its the nature of the counterplan. Competitiveness is strictly defined as something which prevents both plan and counterplan from being enacted simultaneously. Saying the perm is net detrimental is not a prevention... its a lesser policy, yes. See some of my hospital/rec center examples on that thread. I do a pretty good job of defining op cost etc.

 

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.

But you're not paying attention. If the aff case is legitimately squirrely and you run P2, you wont be overcoming judge bias! There wont be any bias! The judge wont mind because your arguments in the round will indicate that you had no other options available. the judge may even like if for not running silly abuse stories... abuse positions only piss off good judges.

BTW - you dont run T vs the plan and then run P2. You risk the aff kicking the resolutional advocacy, flipping to the negation by acceding to the T-vio, and claiming the plan as a neg plan to your aff plan.

 

 

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.

But you dont have a competitive policy option against the IRS case. You dont have any of this. Instead of whining abuse, and pissing off the judge, why dont you actually debate it and rise above the pettiness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek, don't you dare say that plan-plan is frowned upon, your just mad cause Brandon and I won and you though the emporia girls were hot. Plan plan is simply a strat that is not useful to most cases, but I feel that it works, I'm thinking I might even run this at State, mostly to piss off kids from other towns, but also in hopes that I hit you, for plan plan shall rain its fury upon you! Plus even when it's not that useful aff still freaks out and usually doesn't know what to do (example Jen and Mary). Question for the leet guys, is it wrong to run plan plan just to freak a team out?

 

Its not wrong. Its just not strategic. When you run things to freak the other team out, you dont want to timeskew yourself. You run a short argument, something under a minute... and then cause panic on the other side and have them waste three minutes of their speech... hopefully their 2AC...

But you dont get to "kick" P2 later... so there really isnt a point. You still need to defend your P2. If you run it conditionally, the aff wont bite on the time skew and they wont freak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just please, please try to actually read my posts. I do actually say things, not just enter random characters.
Hard to tell sometimes. With regard to the "kick it/can't kick it" aspect of P2, for instance, your response to my "claim" that this is impossible for a team arguing from a P2 framework is to say, "Well, technically, there's nothing in P2 theory to prevent random, suicidal strategic choices in the round." Well, brilliant. In the meantime, though, please stop suggesting that a P2 Negplan is in any way conditional when run by debaters who are trying to win. One of the key advantages of the P2 framework is that it gives BOTH teams the opportunity to actually ADVOCATE something. That's missing from the more traditional view of debate as an up/down referendum on Affplan only...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Derek, don't you dare say that plan-plan is frowned upon, your just mad cause Brandon and I won and you though the emporia girls were hot. Plan plan is simply a strat that is not useful to most cases, but I feel that it works, I'm thinking I might even run this at State, mostly to piss off kids from other towns, but also in hopes that I hit you, for plan plan shall rain its fury upon you! Plus even when it's not that useful aff still freaks out and usually doesn't know what to do (example Jen and Mary). Question for the leet guys, is it wrong to run plan plan just to freak a team out?

 

When was I mad? My personal feelings were that you ran it incorrectly, and that you should have lost on other things. Also, when do I ever reference you at all? Conceeded - you scared a traditional lab team and picked up a round by a bunch of mesmerized high schoolers who'd never seen p2 before. Get over it.

 

Because the nature of the affirmative case will automatically overcome judge inhibition. When the neg says in their overview... "uhhh... plan-plan" the judge is going to smile not frown... because you chose an appropriate strategy. Just as I point out in the inherency example which you missed, there are appropriate times to run plan plan. Running it during inappropriate times is just foolish. It is when you run it during inappropriate times that you are having to overcome judge bias. But no one advocated doing that!

 

While you have some point, you completely ignore my point that most judges are looking for a competitive policy option. Also, if your arguments that abuse doesn't exist is correct, then having to run p2 is proof that there's no reason NOT to do plan. Yet again, if the entire point is to exploit a shady affirmative interpretation, argue it up front and don't just say "Well, we're countering with no theory and one new off-case because we had nothing else." The judge isn't just goin to default to you for running p2. You also completely ignore my point that most affs. will have case-specific offense against your aff., meaning that your whole streak of "weigh the better of the two plans" is done because your entire 1NC = new offense that isn't competitive, while the 2AC = 8 minutes of ligitimately justified offense saying why your plan = bad shit.

 

I chose that example for a reason. I forget the actual statistic I had heard earlier that day... but something like 30% or 40% of the labor force would fall under the being employed by a small business category. If say 35% of 150 million isnt signficiant... well... nothing is.

 

I would love to know what politics link you have to that. To my knowledge, not a single good link, let alone a half decent arguable one, exists to link to an IRS case like that. And no, dont go out and cut a link... what link do you have in your tubs right now. You dont have one. No one does. But thats not MY fault that you dont have one. Thats YOUR fault.

 

Your abuse story is absolute garbage. The aff isnt obligated in any way shape or form to run an affirmative to which you will have any specific answers or even a generic argument. You have about as many rights to demand the aff to run an aff case to which you have answers as you to do demand that the aff give you their neg block to their own case.

 

There is no such thing as abuse. There are bad arguments and bad strategies. There are bad debaters, and bad speaking techniques. Bad manners, bad evidence cutting skills, and bad underlining skills. But there is nothing in any of those which is "abusive." The minute you bring the word abuse into debate you are ASKING for the judge to intervene in the round. You are asking the judge to make a value statement on the character of an argument independently.

 

The whole point of the position I advocate (i.e. this hypothetical T-sub/Minor Repair, XO/Courts CP, and Politics) is that the aff. becomes fucked because their first response to the politics DA will be intrinsicness - we're so tiny that we couldn't link. All they do is feed every pigment of offense under your T-sub/Minor Repair potential abuse story. Even if you don't think abuse is real, you can't deny that clash and certainly education gets screwed because instead of adopting a real policy, they squirm behind nothing.

 

Yes, you're right - the aff. doesn't have to provide the negative ground. However, while they aren't obligated to GIVE ground, they're kinda obligated to LEAVE ground that isn't there's alone, and that's the entire point of T-sub/Minor Repair. The word "substantial" is there for a reason - to define that neg ground = plausible, predictable links. When they violate that word, they literally steal your plausible, predictable links, leaving you with nothing. Also, while the 1AC may not be uniquely abusive, the 2AC is where the debate is won because the first word say is "intrinsicness" - this only feeds the abuse story under the T-sub/Minor Repair, and no intelligent team can argue intrinsicness and argue that they also meet the neg. interpretation under T-sub/Minor Repair.

 

Also, abuse isn't judge intervention. Abuse, figurtively, is a representation of the purpose of the word "substantial" specifically. That is, the affirmative is obligated to advance a policy of substantial repore - dodging this by finding a miniscule plan kills any and all education and ground in round. Abuse = taking away predetermined ground, and that's the entire purpose of key words in the rez. When that happens, intrinsicness wins affirmative rounds, when they're really advocating what should be a negative strategy to begin with. Also, extend my analysis that abuse is real, and happens in the 2AC. The ground that they did LEAVE you is fucked royally because they scream intrinsicness and ask you to vote aff. on presumption. Either they conceed the theory arg., or they conceed that the generic ground is yours because they pick a flambouant, unsubstantial plan that the resolution doesn't justify.

 

ot really. Agent CPs are NEVER competitive. Its the nature of the counterplan. Competitiveness is strictly defined as something which prevents both plan and counterplan from being enacted simultaneously. Saying the perm is net detrimental is not a prevention... its a lesser policy, yes. See some of my hospital/rec center examples on that thread. I do a pretty good job of defining op cost etc.

 

Competitiveness isn't just whether CP is ME or not - you completely mischaracterize the competitiveness of an argument. Competetiveness is if an argument has an offensive link to something - it's not dependend upon mutual exclusivity. If I can run a CP that solves all of case and has a 1% less link to politics than the aff., I've proven that plan = uniquely bad idea. This even happens IF we were to buy your p2 framework of "vote for the better plan." Anything with any ounce of offense = competitive, therefore better. There is no unique difference between better policy option and competitiveness, except that w/o competitiveness, you don't have a better policy option by default.

 

Also, you conceed a large portion of your justification for p2 framework when you admit that policies that are net beneficial = better policies, and that the aff. = lesser policy. All you prove with this analysis is that competitiveness is a prerequisite to being a better policy. P2's uniquely never meet this obligation, therefore never becoming uniquely better.

 

But you're not paying attention. If the aff case is legitimately squirrely and you run P2, you wont be overcoming judge bias! There wont be any bias! The judge wont mind because your arguments in the round will indicate that you had no other options available. the judge may even like if for not running silly abuse stories... abuse positions only piss off good judges.

BTW - you dont run T vs the plan and then run P2. You risk the aff kicking the resolutional advocacy, flipping to the negation by acceding to the T-vio, and claiming the plan as a neg plan to your aff plan.

 

So you overcome judge bias and win by default by running a non-competitive policy option that the affirmative = 8 minutes of offense against? If your block even considers running new offense against the affirmative case, your advocacy is fucked, and chances say that kicking the advocacy = instant ballot cuz you've wasted their entire 8 minutes of the 2AC against an advocacy that you kick in the block. You don't put a theory arg. on the flow - rather, you run a unique chance of losing against your own paradigm of best policy option, because p2 uniquely simplifies the round to the point that negs. can't have offense, because having offense uniquely disproves their claim that their advocacy is warranted.

 

As for your advice on T and p2, I could do nothing but perfectly agree. This is why p2 is a bad strat., in my opinion, because you screw yourself out of putting the theory arg. on the flow, and screw yourself out of any offense you could argue. While you may have the block to rattle off a bunch of case-specific advantages to p2, the aff. has 8 minutes to read a gazillion DA's and case turns against your aff. The debate is over at that point.

 

But you dont have a competitive policy option against the IRS case. You dont have any of this. Instead of whining abuse, and pissing off the judge, why dont you actually debate it and rise above the pettiness?

 

Extend my analysis that competitiveness isn't limited to ME. It's only limited to whether I have offense against you, which any link to politics 1) O/W's your lack of a terminal impact, and 2) Is something that uniquely links to you and not the negative, even if it's not as much.

 

Also, the policy I offer = competitive. If I win that CP links 1% less to politics, I've uniquely shown the downside of the political process of the affirmative plan. If they can't defend this, they can't defend any portion of their plan. You even admit that my policy = better policy than aff. This is where I win my test of the political advocacy of the aff.

 

Also, ligitimize that I = whining about abuse. My T-Sub/Minor Repair argument is that I don't want to argue T all day, but I can't do anything w/o ground. Either give me my generic ground, and assume that all generic links = case specific, or FORCE me to argue theory because I ligitimately have nothing else. My idea isn't much different from p2, except that I allow myself to resort to offense against the aff. plan if needbe, and allows an easy out if that offense is answered back.

 

All running the competitive argument does is give more options for the negative come 2NR time, which against squirrels that don't do much, is ultimately what takes them down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

not much time to respond.

 

in my link to the topical CP thread, i clearly illustrate how your default neg strategies of generic arguments like agent CPs are equally competitive as plan-plan.

 

i.e. they are not.

you garner no offense with your arguments on competitivenes.

competitiveness can ONLY be determined by mutual exclusivity. if you determine based on net benefits, then the plan plan is a superior strategy because the theory of plan plan creates the forced choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just slipping in a sucker punch or two (try to stay out of our corner of the ring, eh?) ;)

While you have some point, you completely ignore my point that most judges are looking for a competitive policy option.
First, why do I need to care what judges are "looking for"? Many of them are also looking for kritiks, politics DAs, consultation CPs, and a bunch of other stuff my kids don't run. Should we just stop debating because we don't run what judges are "looking for," or should we persist in trying to interest them in "wanting" something else once in awhile?
You also completely ignore my point that most affs. will have case-specific offense against your aff., meaning that your whole streak of "weigh the better of the two plans" is done because your entire 1NC = new offense that isn't competitive, while the 2AC = 8 minutes of ligitimately justified offense saying why your plan = bad shit.
Gee, I hadn't thought of that? :rolleyes: Tell you what: Go ahead and roll with that strat, and we'll see who wins in the end, 'kay? Of course, a 2AC that spends all 8 minutes attacking Negplan without answering the attacks on its OWN plan (remember, a P2 Neg will run SOMETHING against Affplan in order to facilitate winning the comparison debate) will be, uh, screwed... ;)
Competitiveness isn't just whether CP is ME or not - you completely mischaracterize the competitiveness of an argument. Competetiveness is if an argument has an offensive link to something - it's not dependend upon mutual exclusivity.
What???? Please go back and re-read Ankur's posts about competition. You might not agree with his argument that net benefit does not equal competition, but at least acknowledge that he's made an argument. Ignoring it because you don't have an answer isn't the way to persuade anyone...

 

Most of the rest is just the usual "I don't really know what P2 does but I'll pretend like I do anyway" boilerplate. Answered many times, in many other threads...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference between plan plan and a net-benefit dependent counterplan is obvious but hard to articulate. There is a vital distinction that makes plan plan a non-competitive arguement outside the obvious BPO, "no permutations allowed framework."

 

This supposed "best policy option" framework is illogical in terms of policy making, or even decisonmaking in every day life. The presence of aff and neg as the only two choices in the ballot does not make an arguement competitive.

 

In terms of substance this framework is infintely regressive ( fiat world peace plan, save the planet plan etc)

 

Basically I'm going to try to explain nicely why i think a net benefits counterplan a competitive arguement while plan plan is not, and i will try to explain it clearly so that we can stop this comparison of plan plan and agent counterplans that seems to be going on here a lot. They do not operate in the same framework at all.

 

Lets take an everyday example of a plan like if the aff were to say"lets go out to eat at McDonalds"

 

the plan lets go out to eat there has its own advantages (better french fries et cetera.)

 

the neg argues we shouldn't go to mcdonalds because they have evidence that this will inevitably cause food poisoning and explosive vomiting.

 

but then there comes the neg counterplan:

 

"lets go out to eat at Burger King instead" we still get to eat similar food and no food poisioning. no vomiting. we have a net beneficial counterplan. Doing both entails no unique advantages because double eating doesn't really do much for solving our hunger and we still vomit from the mcdonalds if we were to do both, so the one option, alone is the better policy. The choice isn't forced between the two, but the benefits can only be reaped if we choose Burger King alone. This is similar to an agent counterplan that avoids politics. IF you argue that the aff must stick to an advocacy of defending mcdonalds, even with a permutation of doing both the neg's net beneficial plan should still be chosen over the other because ONLY going to burgerking IS mutually exclusive in the very essence of the meaning there is a forced choice when it comes to reaping the benefits of eating without vomiting.

 

Then how is plan plan different? The essence of plan plan is to run an unrelated plan or anyplan against the aff in order to prove that its the better policy and win. This is infinitely regressive as i explained above because there are no constraints on what could be ran.

 

This is not a problem though. In the case where the aff said "go to mcdonalds" and the neg said "have world peace" those two options are wholy unrelated and the benefits reaped by the counterplan are soley derrived from the counterplan itself. The net benefits of world peace do not show a reason not to go to mcdonalds.

 

Even if the neg argued mcdonalds was bad, the benefits to world peace would be solved by a permutation that suggested to both go to mcdonalds and 'have world peace.' This would render them back to the comparison between the status quo and going to mcdonalds as now the only relevant dissimilarities and modes for comparison are the offensive reasons given not to go to mcdonalds. IN the case of the net benefits counterplan a permutation to do both since the case is solved for by the counterplan,doesn't revert back to a comparison between the status quo and the plan. The comparison is between two policy options that (for the sake of arguement) solve the same harms and one has a disadvantage that cannot be avoided through any combination of the two. The distinction between competitive arguements and non-competitive ones are whether or not the arguement warrants the rejection of the other.

 

A competetive counterplan; plan minus x is competitive.

 

Plan plus x is not because it doesn't prove a reason the plan is bad, just why x is good.

 

All plan plan debates are include reasons why x advocacy is good, which can be subverted by saying "so what if all that is good? that doesn't prove our plan is bad, the only competitive arguements you've demonstrated are the arguements against our case. If you dont want to call it a permutation thats fine but you can just as easily demonstrate the fact that their 'plan2 advantages' are not mutually exclusive from your case JUST because they said them and not you. Under that plan plan framework it just turns into an advocacy pissing match and whoever can advocate the best ideas would win. 2AC could say "we also advocate no fighting, being nice, and utopia" that would then become a competitive advantage to the negplan. Even though there is no reason the neg could not also advocate that position.

 

The difference between a net beneficial agent counterplan is that it doesn't state that 'we're good, it states that we avoid x flaw in your plan, the link to our disad" the avoidance of the link to a disad or a kritik is what makes it compete because you cannot sever that part from your plan the plan or a perm cannot prove it uncompetitive. The comparison between the perm and the counterplan is not the same as the comparison between the disadvantage impact and the plan because the plan could be weighed against the status quo, now the case is being solved by the counterplan so the disad impact means more than it would have. it is easier for it to outweigh the plan because we have a policy option to advocate that avoids the link. a competitive version of plan plan i suppose would have to be a clever way to solve the case and simultainously argue a disad to the case, and a combination of doing the two plans would have to have either disadvantages or no unique benefits, this type of plan plan is ran all the time and called counterplans most of the time.

 

like if the case is pro-gay education in schools

and the counterplan is civil rights legislation for gays

then the school-bad K arguements and the specific gay education-bad are the net benefits

 

plan plan isn't some 1960's whole rez, old school thing, its ran all the time without being called plan plan. But im not sure if ankur and tshumann have said this yet, but there are competitive ways to run plan plan and not competitive ways. Trying to come up with a bogus " you can't make a permutation" framework doesn't seem to solve any problems. Plan plan can be ran in a framework with permutations allowed. The label of a 'bpo framework' is meaningless, all arguements operate in a 'bpo' framwork, even competley mutually exclusive PICS have to be "the best policy option" or the aff wins.

 

 

 

 

 

the counterplan:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not worth a line-by-line here, but there is one thing mentioned that needs to be cleaned up...

The essence of plan plan is to run an unrelated plan or anyplan against the aff in order to prove that its the better policy and win. This is infinitely regressive as i explained above because there are no constraints on what could be ran.
Um, no. There are, in fact, TWO constraints on what Negplan can be:
  1. Negplan MUST be topical.
  2. Negplan CANNOT be/include Affplan (i.e., no PIC-type strategies).

Negative cannot, in fact, run whatever they wish. And, again, Neg must win the comparison debate. It isn't as if all they need to do is run Negplan, you know. They actually have to win that the judge should prefer Negplan to Affplan...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Refer back to the thread I link in a previous response. My examples on that thread clearly answer back your points. I demonstrate that a counterplan which is not mutually exclusive can only be evaluated in a BPO paradigm identical to that which is used to establish plan-plan decisionmaking.

 

If there is no forced choice, the rules of debate require the judge to establish choice. This is artificial competition because the policies themselves are not competitive - the judge is making them competitive because the judge is adjudicating a competition, not the real world of policymaking.

 

Your fast food analogy is flawed because while eating at McD's leads to explosive vomiting, eating at burger king is not a reason to reject eating at McD's. The fact that the permutation is worse than the counterplan is irrelevant to establishing the notion of choice aka competition.

 

Because the judge can reasonably choose to do both plan and counterplan, the advocacies are defaulted to a plan plan decisionmaking paradigm - BPO. THEN, the judge can evaluate the effects of the explosive vomiting and triumphantly say "BK it is! I do not like explosive vomit!"

 

Moral of the story - agent counterplans are no different than plan plan.

 

For more info, refer back to that thread.

 

But the problem then becomes a question on topicality. Plan plan is a limited uncompetitive policy advocacy, because the entire world of policies cannot be advocated, only topical ones. However, your agent counterplan on a foreign resolution is suddenly a non-topical uncompetitive policy. Thus your NATO CP is functionally no different than "solve homelessness." The fact that the NATO CP attempts to solve for the aff case harms is irrelevant - the two are evaluated the same.

This is why agent counterplans, and uncompetitive non-topical counterplans are uniquely worse than plan plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Um, no. There are, in fact, TWO constraints on what Negplan can be:

Negplan MUST be topical.

Negplan CANNOT be/include Affplan (i.e., no PIC-type strategies).

Negative cannot, in fact, run whatever they wish. And, again, Neg must win the comparison debate

 

Fine, you constrain the debate to the topic. Interesting way of limiting out that infinitely regressive arguement. So under this framework a possible aff strategy would be to prove the counterplan is not-topical, and then the infinite regressiveness example might hold water? just wondering.

 

They actually have to win that the judge should prefer Negplan to Affplan...

 

So they have to win affplan is less good than negplan, i understand. why does the negplan being good weigh against or mitigate the aff plan being good?

 

Why do you get to weigh 'non-competitive' advantages to a "negplan" against an aff case? Doesn't ankur's "artificial competition" arguement apply here in a much more obvious way then it does to the agent counterplan? You can't just say "plan plan means no perms" you have to warrant that arguement.

 

Why can an aff not point out that doing the affplan does not preclude doing the negplan. Wouldn't it then make it more effective of a strategy to run more offense against the affplan rather than waste time advocating something that is irrelevant to impacting the affplan?

 

It is possible to advocate more than 1 thing at a time. Here i'll do it right now. We should be able to do the plan and the negplan simultainiously...the federal government takes simultainious actions all the time. Plan plan is not mutually exclusive, and permutations are not really advocacies anyway.

 

 

anyway, on to Ankur

 

If there is no forced choice, the rules of debate require the judge to establish choice. This is artificial competition because the policies themselves are not competitive - the judge is making them competitive because the judge is adjudicating a competition, not the real world of policymaking.

 

Policy makers use this model of net-benefit calculation in their policymaking all the time. If they are trying to put together an economic stimulus bill lets say and one proposed bill is net beneficial to another then the policymakers will choose it. That is, primarily if passing the other bill would incur a cost that the net-beneficial bill would not. The agent counterplan/net benefits paradigm is used in the real world all the time. When you have a choice between two policy options and the implied third option of doing both or a combination of the two, real world policy makers choose the one that is net beneficial.

 

Are you saying that in the real world there is no logical policy comparison between the executive branch acting on a specific issue, or the congress, or the courts for that matter? And that comparing the agent of action in any particular plan is 'artificial' and 'noncompetitive'? If thats the case then why do authors fill small libraries (and debate tubs) with evidence making a direct comparison between agents in many policymaking cases?

 

Limiting agent counterplans to topical actions, i might add, would have the same effect as plan plan in limiting out 'homelessness', so my answer to your "agent counterplans justify ridiculous non-competitive extrapolations" would be cross apply tshumann's previous 'topic checks' analysis. If that neat little trick can work for plan plan, why not agent counterplans? As for that other forum, i read it, and i dont think it makes sense to say that agent counterplans in all cases are bad, i would say that if we approach debate from a policy making paradigm then good requirements for a competitive agent counterplan would have to be either

 

1. solves the case and

2. theres a net benefit uncapturable by perms

 

or

 

1. net benefit uncapturable by perms

2. that outweighs case irrespective of external solvency

 

(in option 2 the status quo would also win, unless the counterplan supercharged the uniqueness to the net benefit or something)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the problem with your theory isnt the value of it, its the arbitrarily defined nature of it. i will wholeheartedly agree that a counterplan should at minimum attempt to solve for the harms of the affirmative case. however, that is merely an interp - one which can easily be violated to no end because there is no concrete method of determining "what is considered solving the case?" in the other thread a hunger example was illustrated which i will now reiterate here:

 

Scenario 1- normal agent CP

Plan: repeal patriot act w/ courts

Disad: judicial activism bad

CP: repeal patriot act w/congress

 

Scenario 2- what the agent CP justifies

Plan: repeal patriot act with courts

Disad: judicial activism bad

CP: solve world hunger with congress.

 

You may say that the CP is not net beneficial because it doesnt solve the aff case. how much of the aff does the neg need to solve for? a specific percentage? all of it? a vague substantial/significant part of it? can it be very very effectual? like if solving hunger will lead to a more productive economy which leads to higher education and education leads to liberalization of the populus which culminates in the overturning of the patriot act. is that a legitimate counterplan still? Does that suddenly make the counterplan competitive because the effect of the effect of the effect of the effect of plan does the plan?

 

Secondly, obviously, if you prove judicial activism good, then the counterplan is just a ridiculously abusive plan-neg plan. Its not even a topical neg policy advocacy! Well, what do you consider an agent CP on a foreign policy resolution with a politics disad which gets turned? Is that not a non-topical neg policy advocacy?

 

Looking to establish competitiveness beyond the plan text is ludicrous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not an arbitrary standard, you need to solve enough of the aff case so that the disad impacts make up for the difference in the impact quotient. i suppose it would depend on the particular case and cp. but one objective standard would be that in terms of agent counterplans it would have to be addressing the particular object of the aff harms, if the harms would be racial profiling, then courts act to ban it or congress does. causally ridiculous, obnoxious counterplans like 'solve x which solves y which eventually solves the object of plan through tons of links' will be filtered out by solvency advocates and the literature base for the counterplans and those counterplans will be spotted for what they are; not that i particularly think that an arguement should be limited out for this reason; look at the condition of most disads in debate. they're totally ridiculous, just a part of the game.

 

Also, you didn't mention that just like plan plan you could filter out these arguements by saying that your interps of counterplans limit you to topical actions which would mean xo and courts would be legit but world hunger would not. oh well beyond this point i guess i'm just gonna have to agree to disagree with you all; i've won hundreds of debates with agent counterplans so i'm not going to stop running them or having my teams run them in highschool anytime soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and which has won more rounds plan plan or agent counterplans, and is the debate community including institutes etc stupid at large in you and tshumanns opinions for always putting out agent cp files and not plan plan files?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no offense, but you win rounds on agent counterplans because of an inbred system of debate which has long since forgotten that its the argument in the assertion that matters. i wont say i have never upped a team running agent cp's... but i will say that a mutually exclusive intrinsically net beneficial counterplan (topical or nontopical) have won a higher percentage of rounds.

 

to me its simple - why run an argument (agent cp) which you will win 50% of the time when you can run an argument (ME cps) which wins nearly 100% of the time? baffles me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PICS have encouraged better plan writing, what can i say, lots of teams don't leave that door open and thats one area i'll wholeheartedly agree, if given the choice between having my politics disad as a net benefit or PICing out a piece of the plan i have sweet offense for, i choose the PIC every time.

 

Will also concede personally the win loss ratio (including highschool) looks better for ME counterplans than agents.

 

 

However, please i still wanna know why topicality cant be a limiting factor for agent cps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PICS have encouraged better plan writing, what can i say, lots of teams don't leave that door open and thats one area i'll wholeheartedly agree, if given the choice between having my politics disad as a net benefit or PICing out a piece of the plan i have sweet offense for, i choose the PIC every time.

 

Will also concede personally the win loss ratio (including highschool) looks better for ME counterplans than agents.

 

 

However, please i still wanna know why topicality cant be a limiting factor for agent cps.

 

 

because that means the content of the resolution determines the ground for agent CPs. its the diff between a foreign and domestic resolution. on a foreign res, you have ZERO topical ground. on a domestic res, you have 100% topical ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ankur that doesn't make sense. the executive could just as easily negotiate an agreement with another country as congress could ratify a treaty. in some cases courts rule on international issues, foreign policy topics that mandate some-non usfg action you would be right, but other fo po topics there would still be ground. plus it wouldn't make as much sense to run agent cps from a policy-comparison perspective when the policycomparison is not between 'what should U.S. action entail' if the agent is the UN or whatnot US XO's make less sense. i would however, suggest that a comparison between unilateral and multilateral action would be relevant to that debate, as there is a rich comparison between the two on many international issues. if the topic mandated UN aid to africa, wouldn't a debate between whether the UN should give assistance or japan should give assistance make sense? that would be your agent counterplan ground; unilateral action by 192 countries (out of which maybe 5 have good literature advocates and 15 you might be able to find a single solvency card for in some obscure journal) ie. the consult new zealand counterplan on the CTBT aff that i ran back on the college treaties topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no. japan vs america giving aid to un doesnt make sense

lawmakers in congress dont get the opportunity to say "oh, japan will give the aid."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sigh....ok try this then reread my post

 

http://www.hookedonphonics.com

 

 

if you dont need to be relearned some readin' skillz then you will notice that i said comparing unilateral (america, japan, turkmenistan) versus multilateral (UN) action would be agent counterplan ground.

 

The UN can give aid.

 

Japan can give aid.

 

 

 

The judge doesn't represent any group of lawmakers in the US. The judge is just a nonaffiliated arbiter of the word should. Should the UN give multilateral assistance?

 

The counterplan would say "no, japan should give unilateral assistance" (multilateral assistance is bad) obviously i know the US can't make japan give aid to the UN.

 

I've thought about it a lot, and your agent counterplans arguement would make an interesting no neg fiat arguement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So under this framework a possible aff strategy would be to prove the counterplan is not-topical, and then the infinite regressiveness example might hold water? just wondering.
If Aff wins a T violation against Negplan, they don't need "infinite regression." They win on T. Duh. Negplan MUST be topical. Likewise, T can still be a viable issue for Neg in a P2 round also. Depending on HOW squirrelly your squirrel case is, P2 might make a lot of sense there also...
why does the negplan being good weigh against or mitigate the aff plan being good?
Because the framework argument says it does. The framework for the debate is "Which of two topical actions should the USFG take?" Again, Neg in a P2 round has to win the framework argument, much as they must in a kritik round...
You can't just say "plan plan means no perms" you have to warrant that arguement.
Again, you would know what the warrant was if you used the search function and did a little reading. It is simple: The framework Neg argues for says the debate is about which of two topical actions should be taken. "Do both" isn't an option under that framework, is it? If so, HOW is it? How is "do both" an answer to the question of which of the two topical actions is superior? See what I mean?

 

By the way, I'm not defending Ankur's position. He and I differ in some important ways. The only reason I'm here at all is to keep the P2 part of the conversation clean.

Why can an aff not point out that doing the affplan does not preclude doing the negplan.
Because Aff would be ignoring the framework argument. Yeah, what you say makes sense under the traditional notion of counterplan debating. P2 isn't the traditional notion of counterplan debating.
Plan plan is not mutually exclusive, and permutations are not really advocacies anyway.
Negplan in a P2 framework IS mutually exclusive, because the framework posits that only ONE of the two topical advocacies can be selected (ballot doesn't allow ties). If you want to talk about P2, please try to address the actual claims it makes, rather than trying to shoehorn your misunderstanding of it into the conventional way of thinking about counterplans...

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...