Jump to content
gcsdebate

Agent Specification

Should the aff specify their agent?  

824 members have voted

  1. 1. Should the aff specify their agent?

    • definitely
      325
    • no way
      209
    • if they can get away with it, no
      290


Recommended Posts

thats a good arguement but the aff might try and say we use this branch in there next speech and if so would u use an abuse arguement or just let it be

and if you let it be it would still give the aff a heads up on you because you would only have one speech to bring up anyhting dealing with there branch.(just some thoughts)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you allow your plan to be just the USFG then you link to pres powers stuff, court DAs and Politix and congress DAs along with really easy consult and other actor counterplans. Always specify so that you can limit negative links.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
agent counterplans are not competitive. loss of agent ground is meaningless

 

If the Neg can prove that having agent X over agent Y solves better, the Aff has a solvency deficit to the Counterplan. Say I run a courts counterplan against a congressional text. There is evidence that I read which says that the courts are looked to by the public more than the congress for reason S. That reason S is enough to vote for the counterplan because of the possibly better solvency. Oh, and if I run politics against that Congressional counterplan and prove a possibility of the DA, I now have a solvency and DA net benefit. You must lose a lot of rounds. Changing the agent can completely affect Kritik ground, DAs and solvency if the team running has the evidence that they should. :mad: 000(:BB )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wolfe,

 

If the Neg can prove that having agent X over agent Y solves better, the Aff has a solvency deficit to the Counterplan. Say I run a courts counterplan against a congressional text. There is evidence that I read which says that the courts are looked to by the public more than the congress for reason S. That reason S is enough to vote for the counterplan because of the possibly better solvency. Oh, and if I run politics against that Congressional counterplan and prove a possibility of the DA, I now have a solvency and DA net benefit.

 

first, you dont answer my post, as my post clearly identifies that the conention is competitiveness. thus, your entire blurb is functionally, non-responsive.

 

second, competitiveness can only be illuminated through textual competition - mutual exclusivity is the key. if the CP and the plan are not mutually exclusive, and they can be enacted simultaneously then the CP is never a reason to reject the affirmative policy. the judge can opt for the CP as a BETTER policy, however, not a negation of the affirmative. subtle but important division.

 

third, you subscribe to a broken model of competitiveness as defined as any policy which solves better or retains superior net benefits. this model is broken because it permits non-topical policies which solve for the plan through effects as legitimate. me educating homeless people leads to a peoples revolt solving back patriot act. your view of counterplans allows "educate the homeless" as a reason why to not vote for banning the patriot act. foolish. i can give you reasons why thats foolish, but i shall assume the better of you and assume that you are able to figure out why on your own.

 

 

You must lose a lot of rounds. Changing the agent can completely affect Kritik ground, DAs and solvency if the team running has the evidence that they should.

 

i think the reverse - you must lose a lot of rounds. someone who joined this site in 1999 and is closing in on 10000 posts is probably no longer a debater. but of course... those clues would be too subtle for someone to possibly identify and digest....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I beg to differ. Agent CPs are net-benefits and solvency-competitive. I just made up the second term, but I basically mean that there's no added solvency for a perm of Courts and Congress do plan (a ruling and a bill doing the same thing at the same time is redundant if you assume enforcement), thus there's no reason to prefer for the perm and any risk of the DA means you vote neg.

 

the perm can never be evaluated. the perm as a policy option doesnt exist if the CP and plan are mutually exclusive. if the two are not mutually exclusive, the only way the negative CP can be evaluated is by saying the CP is a better policy not a negation of the aff and in doing so, you automatically jump into BPO and thus, the perm cannot be evaluated again.

redundancy is not a reason to reject the aff let alone prefer the neg CP. most government policies include redundancy as a modus operandi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the perm can never be evaluated. the perm as a policy option doesnt exist if the CP and plan are mutually exclusive. if the two are not mutually exclusive, the only way the negative CP can be evaluated is by saying the CP is a better policy not a negation of the aff and in doing so, you automatically jump into BPO and thus, the perm cannot be evaluated again.

redundancy is not a reason to reject the aff let alone prefer the neg CP. most government policies include redundancy as a modus operandi.

 

Redundancy does serve as a reason to reject the affirmative if the permutation to do both is less beneficial than the counterplan. The reason is one of opportunity cost. While it is possible to do both the Courts and the Congress, it would not be beneficial to do so, because this would still link to the politics DA.

 

The affirmative says "Congress should do X."

Negative replies "No, Court should do X."

Having the Congress do X would trade off with having the Court do X, such that if the negative wins that Court action is superior (by avoiding the politics DA), that is a reason to not do Congressional action. Your response that "it is not a reason to reject the aff" is flawed for two reasons.

1. This relies upon the permutation, which is not beneficial, therefore proving the opportunity cost.

2. It's a flawed view of debate. Ignore counterplans momentarily. If the negative does for the DA and case, the affirmative doesnt get the leeway to say "but our aff can be done, so we should do it." Likewise, in the world of agent counterplans, the aff doesnt get the leeway to say "the permutation can be done, so we should do it." In both cases, they have to prove that their action would be beneficial.

 

second, competitiveness can only be illuminated through textual competition - mutual exclusivity is the key. if the CP and the plan are not mutually exclusive, and they can be enacted simultaneously then the CP is never a reason to reject the affirmative policy. the judge can opt for the CP as a BETTER policy, however, not a negation of the affirmative. subtle but important division.

I beg to differ. This interpretation of debate is attrocious for negative counterplan ground. Any external counterplan to solve an advantage, agent counterplan (which is arguable good, and any reason why they are good is a reason to reject your model of competition, which destroys your, so far, only argument against them), etc. Essentially, the negative is limited to PICs, or fiating the opposite of the plan.

 

third, you subscribe to a broken model of competitiveness as defined as any policy which solves better or retains superior net benefits. this model is broken because it permits non-topical policies which solve for the plan through effects as legitimate. me educating homeless people leads to a peoples revolt solving back patriot act. your view of counterplans allows "educate the homeless" as a reason why to not vote for banning the patriot act. foolish. i can give you reasons why thats foolish, but i shall assume the better of you and assume that you are able to figure out why on your own.

Enlighten me, why is this foolish? Certainly, the example you give is a bit absurd, but the affirmative should have an easy time winning that a revolt of the homeless would not check the Patriot Act. However, take this example. The affirmative argues that we should end detention in Guantanamo for the sake of soft power and democracy promotion. The negative should have the option to aruge that we should instead Ratify the ICC to solve for soft power, and impact turn demo promo while running a terrorism disad. These sorts of policies arent absurd, they simply test the intrinsicness of the advantage to the resolution. They encourage affirmative's to research more specific advantages and isolate better internal links, which deepens topic specific research. This is uniquely true in the world of agent counterplans, which are essential to a discussion of the word "authority" in the resolution (we can have this debate, but it seems to extensive for an already large cross-x conversation).

 

On an entirely different note, and the one this thread was created about (that is to say ASPEC, not agent counterplans), I think regardless of the competition of agent counterplans, specificiation is a question of topicality under the word authority, which requires a division of power between two branches, I.E. the USFG as a monolith cant decrease its own authority because it would retain discretion. Therefore, the only topical affirmatives are those that have the Court decrease the Executive's Authority or the Congress decrease the Executive's Authority, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Redundancy does serve as a reason to reject the affirmative if the permutation to do both is less beneficial than the counterplan. The reason is one of opportunity cost. While it is possible to do both the Courts and the Congress, it would not be beneficial to do so, because this would still link to the politics DA.

 

The affirmative says "Congress should do X."

Negative replies "No, Court should do X."

Having the Congress do X would trade off with having the Court do X, such that if the negative wins that Court action is superior (by avoiding the politics DA), that is a reason to not do Congressional action. Your response that "it is not a reason to reject the aff" is flawed for two reasons.

1. This relies upon the permutation, which is not beneficial, therefore proving the opportunity cost.

2. It's a flawed view of debate. Ignore counterplans momentarily. If the negative does for the DA and case, the affirmative doesnt get the leeway to say "but our aff can be done, so we should do it." Likewise, in the world of agent counterplans, the aff doesnt get the leeway to say "the permutation can be done, so we should do it." In both cases, they have to prove that their action would be beneficial.

 

First, you have absolutely no clue what opportunity cost is - opportunity cost REQUIRES mutual exclusivity. Seriously. go look it up. If you continue to redefine economic terms however you want to define them, well, go ahead, but a) dont expect me to care and B) if you want me to care, then you must warrant why opportunity cost should have nothing to do with foregone opportunities.

 

Second, you keep going back to the EFFECTS of the counterplan/neg plan. Ignore the effects. The effects never matter when determining competitiveness. As I already mentioned, opening competitiveness beyond textual interpretations makes every single policy option in the history of the world competitive with the affirmative policy.

example:

aff: Courts ban Patriot Act

neg: Courts bad. Congress solves homelessness by educating them/job training. They become ardent democrats who then make a huge bloc and lobby and forces congress to overturn patriot act.

 

Under YOUR interpretation, solving homelessness is competitive with the affirmative policy of courts banning the patriot act. The perm is "worse than the CP" and it solves back the aff. now you tell me... why does allowing such clearly non-mutually exclusive counterplans keep the playing field in debate equal?

 

 

 

I beg to differ. This interpretation of debate is attrocious for negative counterplan ground. Any external counterplan to solve an advantage, agent counterplan (which is arguable good, and any reason why they are good is a reason to reject your model of competition, which destroys your, so far, only argument against them), etc. Essentially, the negative is limited to PICs, or fiating the opposite of the plan.

 

Not true. You clearly dont know what counterplans are then. Example:

aff: ban FOCs

neg: enact Port State Control (which allows for the search and seizure or rejection of any ship).

 

its a) not the opposite B) its not a PIC c) its still non-topical (per the MNR rez) d) its mutually exclusive e) its net beneficial.

 

welcome to counterplans 101.

 

 

Enlighten me, why is this foolish? Certainly, the example you give is a bit absurd, but the affirmative should have an easy time winning that a revolt of the homeless would not check the Patriot Act. However, take this example. The affirmative argues that we should end detention in Guantanamo for the sake of soft power and democracy promotion. The negative should have the option to aruge that we should instead Ratify the ICC to solve for soft power, and impact turn demo promo while running a terrorism disad. These sorts of policies arent absurd, they simply test the intrinsicness of the advantage to the resolution. They encourage affirmative's to research more specific advantages and isolate better internal links, which deepens topic specific research. This is uniquely true in the world of agent counterplans, which are essential to a discussion of the word "authority" in the resolution (we can have this debate, but it seems to extensive for an already large cross-x conversation).

 

I am not saying that consults shouldnt be run... or that non-mutually exclusive counterplans shouldnt be run. I am simply asserting that those counterplans are NOT counterplans and that they can ONLY be evaluated in BPO (which is not uniquely bad). However, I do assert that the BPO in the context of a debate round must be thought through more carefully than it has been in the past - legitimizing BPO means legitimizing my extreme homelessness example and hopefully you can agree that legitimizing that would be bad for debate.

 

Counterplans as they have always been defined INDIVIDUALLY reject the affirmative case without external help - i.e. disads, solvency turns etc. they reject in the form of mutual exclusivity which illustrates opportunity cost. THEN you assert the disads and solvency turns etc which illustrate the cost to the forgone opportunity (hence the term, opportunity cost).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true. You clearly dont know what counterplans are then. Example:

aff: ban FOCs

neg: enact Port State Control (which allows for the search and seizure or rejection of any ship).

 

its a) not the opposite B) its not a PIC c) its still non-topical (per the MNR rez) d) its mutually exclusive e) its net beneficial.

 

welcome to counterplans 101.

 

Before I can more effectively respond to your argument, I need to understand this example. I don't exactly know what Port State Control is, but it seems to me that its not mutually exclusive, as you could ban FOCs, then allow the search and seizure or rejection of any ship (which would be ships without FOCs).

 

Chances are, said counterplan wouldn't solve the aff either, given that the main advantage of most FOC affs on that topic was hegemony, based on the US being able to recall ships for forward deployment.

 

Your interpretation would exclude, for example, the torts counterplan. Aff says MPAs. Neg says regulations bad, enact tort law. Aff says, not mutually exclusive, create MPAs and enact tort law. Negative says, but regulations are still bad, kill bizcon, whatever.

 

As far as I understand it, your interpretation of debate is that counterplans are only competetive if mutually exclusive.

 

My interpretation of debate is that counterplans are competetive on the basis of net benefits or mutual exclusivity.

 

I have yet to understand your offensive reason for why net benefits is a bad standard, other that a set of absurd examples like educate the homeless.

 

The closest you come to an offensive argument is this

 

why does allowing such clearly non-mutually exclusive counterplans keep the playing field in debate equal?

 

And I pose a similar question... why does allowing such non-mutually exclusive counterplans make the playing field unequal?

 

In most of these absurd examples, the affirmative should have an easy time winning the counterplan doesnt solve their case (i.e. a revolt of the homeless would not stop the patriot act). Maybe its stupid for these counterplans to be run, but given that there is zero solvency for that argument, they wouldnt be, and there is no reason to exclude them solely on the basis of mutual exclusivity when the affirmative should have an easy time arguing that said counterplan is not beneficial.

 

My argument is that these counterplans test the intrinsicness of the advantages to the resolution/plan and hence require more specific research on the part of the affirmative to pick advantages which specific and well-constructed internal link stories, therefore making these counterplans good for debate. Without these sorts of counterplans, affirmatives are encouraged to string together a long chain of internal links that arent necessarily specific to their plan in order to access advantages. This is uniquely true on this topic, with the word authority. Forcing aff's to have an agent defense means their advantages must be based not on the search or detention itself, but on the authority to search or detain, which encourages more topic specific research and is better for debate.

 

For example, affs are encouraged to have advantages which are functional agent defenses, like deference/plenary powers, presidential powers, independent judiciary, etc. There are specific internal links to these advantages based on detention/searches, and making affs research those internal links makes debate better, not worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Before I can more effectively respond to your argument, I need to understand this example. I don't exactly know what Port State Control is, but it seems to me that its not mutually exclusive, as you could ban FOCs, then allow the search and seizure or rejection of any ship (which would be ships without FOCs).

 

Chances are, said counterplan wouldn't solve the aff either, given that the main advantage of most FOC affs on that topic was hegemony, based on the US being able to recall ships for forward deployment.

 

Port State Control is an international treaty already signed by the US (though not enforced due to international political norms) which states that vessels entering the port state waters must adhere to all local regulations regarding personal safety, environmental safety, security, cargo manifests, personnel registry, etc. If the vessel is "not up to code" the port state retains any of the following options:

a) reject the ship back out to sea

B) require repairs/violations to be fixed etc before entry is permitted

c) seize the ship (previously unheard of because it is sovereign property flying flag of another nation)

 

Its mutually exclusive because the policies themselves are antagonistic. While it is possible that every FOC ship could be denied port entry and the rest are let in (thus the CP is effectually identical), the policies cannot be enacted simultaneously.

 

Your interpretation would exclude, for example, the torts counterplan. Aff says MPAs. Neg says regulations bad, enact tort law. Aff says, not mutually exclusive, create MPAs and enact tort law. Negative says, but regulations are still bad, kill bizcon, whatever.

Correct. My version would exclude this.

 

As far as I understand it, your interpretation of debate is that counterplans are only competetive if mutually exclusive.

My interpretation of debate is that counterplans are competetive on the basis of net benefits or mutual exclusivity.

Also correct.

 

I have yet to understand your offensive reason for why net benefits is a bad standard, other that a set of absurd examples like educate the homeless.

First, this is debate - absurdity is the name of the game. Debaters managed to link giving textbooks to grade school children to ending in nuclear war (on the secondary ed topic). Debaters have an uncanny knack for linking together completely unrelated pieces of information to create an absurd story simply because the syntax of the evidence matched despite completely contradictory or irrelevant rhetoric between the pieces of evidence. Thus my absurd example, although seemingly absurd to the real world, is absurdly common in the debate world.

 

Is it not obvious? How can the affirmative be expected to defend the value of their policies against the entire range of policies in the world? The aff would be carrying around 50 tubs... just for current bills in congress and court cases! Debate requires clash for the game to be effective as it was designed as a competitive event. If one team is competitively excluded because debaters get to be "creative" with their negative CPs then clash will stop, education is lost, limits are destroyed, so on and so on. And to make matters worse, you'll end up with horribly interventionist decisions.

judge: i'm a devout catholic, and you know if by my rosary beads and habit!

aff: ban the patriot act

neg: overturn roe v wade and make abortion illegal. concessions to conservatives force concessions to liberals, patriot act gets overturned.

who's gonna win that debate? not the aff!

 

The closest you come to an offensive argument is this

And I pose a similar question... why does allowing such non-mutually exclusive counterplans make the playing field unequal?

See previous on affirmative being unable to research EVERYTHING.

Besides, why is offense a winner and defense is not?

Aff: Fossil fuels--> global warming

Neg: Fossil fuels do not --> global warming

Its definitely defense, but that can still win a round if the neg illustrates why their argument is preferable. There is no such thing as offense and defense. There is only good arguments and bad arguments and winning arguments and losing arguments. The notion of "offense" is as ridiculous as my homeless example.

 

In most of these absurd examples, the affirmative should have an easy time winning the counterplan doesnt solve their case (i.e. a revolt of the homeless would not stop the patriot act). Maybe its stupid for these counterplans to be run, but given that there is zero solvency for that argument, they wouldnt be, and there is no reason to exclude them solely on the basis of mutual exclusivity when the affirmative should have an easy time arguing that said counterplan is not beneficial.

I am giving absurd examples of what is to come if your vision is legitimate. This is debate. A coach I know came up with a Panama disad for the FOCs case! The disad ends in total global economic collapse (and thus potentially mead '92/'98) all because Panama ceases to receive licensing revenue. Creative, and funny, but completely outside the realm of probability and reality.

Even if uncompetitive counterplans could somehow be limited to topical action, I might be okay with it. I believe both teams are expected to research all angles of the resolution. But theoretically, I dont see way to operate in a BPO paradigm and then artificially limit it to topical BPOs only. The BPO is all encompassing hence the name, Better/Best Policy Option - not to be confused with BTPO - Better/Best Topical Policy Option. To limit to topical options only is a violation of the whole purpose of BPO.

 

My argument is that these counterplans test the intrinsicness of the advantages to the resolution/plan and hence require more specific research on the part of the affirmative to pick advantages which specific and well-constructed internal link stories, therefore making these counterplans good for debate. Without these sorts of counterplans, affirmatives are encouraged to string together a long chain of internal links that arent necessarily specific to their plan in order to access advantages. This is uniquely true on this topic, with the word authority. Forcing aff's to have an agent defense means their advantages must be based not on the search or detention itself, but on the authority to search or detain, which encourages more topic specific research and is better for debate.

 

I understand your argument, and if it could somehow be theoretically limited to only X Y and Z and eliminate all of the potential problems which you legitimize, then I'd be all for it. But the problem is that such a limitation is artificially constructed. Its not a debate theory issue - its just a random unsubstantiated preference issue.

 

But lets take agent CPs for example. This year, agent CPs are topical, on foreign resolutions, agent CPs are now non-topical. To keep agent CPs legitimate for the reasons you do, then ALL non-topical uncompetitive non-mutually exclusive counterplans are legit. You see where this is headed? Debaters as a whole just havent realized it yet.

 

For example, affs are encouraged to have advantages which are functional agent defenses, like deference/plenary powers, presidential powers, independent judiciary, etc. There are specific internal links to these advantages based on detention/searches, and making affs research those internal links makes debate better, not worse.

Correct - the worse part comes in when debaters start realizing what allowing competition through effects actually means. I have realized it and posted all over this website. Give it a year or two, you'll see arguments like my homelessness examples in debate rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the reason the types of counterplans you describe warrant a negative ballot isn't because it solves case, its because there is a net benefit. the net benefit is always some sort of disadvantage to the affirmative case. i don't see why affirmatives shouldn't be able to defend against disads to their case.

 

in your homeless people example, you are right when you say that educating homeless people isn't a good reason to vote negative. but the courts bad arguments are. the other means to solve the affirmative case may be unpredictable, but the courts bad arguments aren't. the aff should have offensive reasons why the courts are good. if they do, it seems like they'd still beat the counterplan.

 

in general, i don't think its that hard to beat a team that has a ridiculous solvency mechanism. "your internal links make no sense" is not that bad of an argument, even if its uncarded. furthermore, if you write a good case, it seems like you'd always win that you solve your case much better than their counterplan. meanwhile, the net benefit would still just be a kritik or a disad the aff should have answers to.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the reason the types of counterplans you describe warrant a negative ballot isn't because it solves case, its because there is a net benefit. the net benefit is always some sort of disadvantage to the affirmative case. i don't see why affirmatives shouldn't be able to defend against disads to their case.

The homelessness example does have a net benefit. it doesnt have a courts bad disad attached to it because it goes though congress. and you are wrong. net benefits are not always disads to case. see the port state CP. it simply solves better and is mutually exclusive. net benefit can be solvency. though with uncompetitive CPs they tend to be disads...

 

in your homeless people example, you are right when you say that educating homeless people isn't a good reason to vote negative. but the courts bad arguments are. the other means to solve the affirmative case may be unpredictable, but the courts bad arguments aren't. the aff should have offensive reasons why the courts are good. if they do, it seems like they'd still beat the counterplan.

to the same degree. an XO counterplan is not a reason to vote neg. the disad is. the disad is a cost to the plan and an advantage to the CP. however it is not an opportunity cost and as such, it is not a reason to reject the neg EXCEPT under a BPO. I am not challenging the "courts bad" disad. i am challenging the counterplan's legitimacy as a policy option as a negation of the aff

 

in general, i don't think its that hard to beat a team that has a ridiculous solvency mechanism. "your internal links make no sense" is not that bad of an argument, even if its uncarded. furthermore, if you write a good case, it seems like you'd always win that you solve your case much better than their counterplan. meanwhile, the net benefit would still just be a kritik or a disad the aff should have answers to.

if that were the case, then not a single politics disad would pass muster. i dont know many judges who say "oh your internal links suck. the other team pointed that out. good enough for me." clearly, the invention of the politics disad proves the contrary.

and in case you didnt know, non-topical solvency mechanisms of CPs tend to be MUCH more specific and solvent, esp when they are mutually exclusive. the key is to find an actual opportunity cost to the plan - not merely a cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

judge: i'm a devout catholic, and you know if by my rosary beads and habit!

aff: ban the patriot act

neg: overturn roe v wade and make abortion illegal. concessions to conservatives force concessions to liberals, patriot act gets overturned.

who's gonna win that debate? not the aff!

 

Your example doesn't pass the laugh test, the aff will always win in that situation because the plan is an effect of the counterplan, meaning its functionally the same thing as the permutation. If net benefits is a basis for competition, there's zero net benefit to the counterplan because every disad the negative reads to banning the patriot act is an effect of the counterplan as well.

 

Also, affirmatives can make solvency deficit arguments which function as net benefits to the permutation, such as attacking the internal link or making timeframe arguments.

 

The type of counterplans which would be competitive test the intrinsicness of the advantages to plan action. We'll use the patriot act again.

 

aff: ban the patriot act. banning the patriot act increases our soft power, solves nuclear war

neg: ratify the icc, which solves soft power. terrorism disad

 

the negative doesn't claim that ratification of the icc will result in banning of the patriot act, that's absurd, but an alternate method can solve certain harms presented by the affirmative, meaning there's no reason banning the patriot act specifically is critical to our soft power, but it is necesarry to prevent a terrorist attack. If you evaluate competition solely on a basis of mutual exclusivity, this isn't competitive, but if you evaluate in terms of net benefits, the counterplan is clearly better than the plan or the permutation.

 

your best arguments are research burden (the 50 tubs example) and unrealistic scenarios (panama disad), but a world where mutual exclusivity was the norm would ultimately be worse for both. Affirmatives could construct extremely tenuous advantages with almost no scenario for an impact and claim huge impacts, such as the textbook example. that screws the negative, it's hard to garner offense against a case that just gives people textbooks, meaning they need to carry around 50 tubs to answer each advantage. that's easily avoided in a world where net benefits is the norm because there's reason those textbooks specifically are critical to avoid that nuclear war; chances are you can counterplan out of one of the later internal links to avoid it. This forces teams to construct advantages that are intrinsic to their affirmative, such as indicting the rights violations of the patriot act specifically rather than soft power in general, resulting in more realistic scenarios. This also answers the 50 tubs example, because affirmative can just propve that their plan is uniquely key to solve the harms and permute, rather than reading disads to each counterplan, whereas the negative doesn't have that same built in advantage.

 

 

Second, you keep going back to the EFFECTS of the counterplan/neg plan. Ignore the effects. The effects never matter when determining competitiveness. As I already mentioned, opening competitiveness beyond textual interpretations makes every single policy option in the history of the world competitive with the affirmative policy.

example:

aff: Courts ban Patriot Act

neg: Courts bad. Congress solves homelessness by educating them/job training. They become ardent democrats who then make a huge bloc and lobby and forces congress to overturn patriot act.

 

Under YOUR interpretation, solving homelessness is competitive with the affirmative policy of courts banning the patriot act. The perm is "worse than the CP" and it solves back the aff. now you tell me... why does allowing such clearly non-mutually exclusive counterplans keep the playing field in debate equal?

 

this example is just as bad, and the internal link is laughable at best. the permutation would be to have the courts ban the patriot act and have congress solve homelessness, solving all the reasons homelessness is good, and all the reasons congres s acting to overturn the patriot act is good.

 

your counterplan just becomes a shitty congress counterplan, with a massive solvency deficit to the counterplan, but with that aside, teams that specify their agent generally have a good reason for doing so; the counterplan wouldn't solve the built in reasons the courts are key to the advantages.

 

this is just an agent based example of the counterplan above; it tests the intrinsicness of the advantages to court action specifically, because an effect of the counterplan is that congress acts to overturn the patriot act. affirmatives just need a reason their plan is uniquely key to solve the advantages to beat it back.

 

if someone loses to this counterplan they shouldn't complain, they should switch their agent to congress and take alot of cites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i love people who "laugh at the internal links" and yet they run politics, the most asanine of all disads, one which doesnt know the meaning of internal links. please justify to me how you are not entirely hypocritical and how you can stand in front of me and assert that "absurd internal links" are a voting issue. i shall remember this for future reference when you are judging a team i coach, when a team i coach hits you (and of course you should be expected to concede that shoddy internal links are reasons to reject), or at minimum next time you open your mouth on cross-x.com to defend something functionally equivalent to an absurd internal link. i am an elephant.

 

Spork -

1) My bad. I forgot to include some equally shitty net benefits argument - lets say the aff uses congress. CP uses courts. Congress action bad disad. redo

 

2) the permutation is not a policy option. counterplans can either be mutually exclusive or not. if they are mutually exclusive, there is no perm. if they are not mutually exclusive they can only be evaluates as an alternative policy option and thus immune to the perm. the perm NEVER exists as a policy option.

 

3) there is absolutely ZERO reason to prefer evaluating competition through net benefits, unless of course you approve of absurd policy options... and approve of horribly generic arguments lacking internal links, logic within the argument, let alone realistic real world overall impacts. unquestionably, specificity, and as it relates to CPs would be mutual exclusivity, is the superior option.

 

4) just because the examples are certainly extremes, they are entirely accurate representations of what is currently occurring. the stories are even more far fetched than current ones, but not by such a large margin that the examples are fictional accounts of reality. the arguments function identically, and all your arguments to them have nothing to do with the theoretical assumptions established by the arguments. the bulk of your arguments are strategies as opposed to theory, which for the purpose of my arguments is entirely irrelevant.

 

5)

your best arguments are research burden (the 50 tubs example) and unrealistic scenarios (panama disad), but a world where mutual exclusivity was the norm would ultimately be worse for both. Affirmatives could construct extremely tenuous advantages with almost no scenario for an impact and claim huge impacts, such as the textbook example. that screws the negative, it's hard to garner offense against a case that just gives people textbooks, meaning they need to carry around 50 tubs to answer each advantage. that's easily avoided in a world where net benefits is the norm because there's reason those textbooks specifically are critical to avoid that nuclear war; chances are you can counterplan out of one of the later internal links to avoid it. This forces teams to construct advantages that are intrinsic to their affirmative, such as indicting the rights violations of the patriot act specifically rather than soft power in general, resulting in more realistic scenarios. This also answers the 50 tubs example, because affirmative can just propve that their plan is uniquely key to solve the harms and permute, rather than reading disads to each counterplan, whereas the negative doesn't have that same built in advantage.

a) I am living proof this is not true. i had two tubs and won ALL my neg rounds with specific on case arguments, typically "defense" no less! there is nothing special that seperates me from the next debater.

B) you clearly have never seen a meaningful on case spread to be able to hypothesize as you do. trust me, a debater who chooses to research specifics of cases will always find tons of quality argument ground available to them, specific links to disads, and competitive policy options in addition tot he standard gamut of harms, solvency answers and turns. you wont need 50 tubs. most cases at the heart of any topic are sufficiently similar that only the specific links and internal links change - the impacts NEVER do.

c) whats wrong with the aff claiming their plan is uniquely key to solving the harms? isnt that what they SHOULD be doing?

 

please realize that when it comes to specificity, and in many cases 100% specific all new in the 2 neg strategies, i have done it to a high level of success. it is not a hypothetical situation for me. i can tell you that its very much a reality, a possibility and a higher probability of winning anyways.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i love people who "laugh at the internal links" and yet they run politics, the most asanine of all disads, one which doesnt know the meaning of internal links. please justify to me how you are not entirely hypocritical and how you can stand in front of me and assert that "absurd internal links" are a voting issue. i shall remember this for future reference when you are judging a team i coach, when a team i coach hits you (and of course you should be expected to concede that shoddy internal links are reasons to reject), or at minimum next time you open your mouth on cross-x.com to defend something functionally equivalent to an absurd internal link. i am an elephant.

 

people don't make those arguments, and when they do, judges vote on them. i won the last 4 of my aff rounds in which a disad was in the 2nr on defensive link arguments and case extensions. this was at the glenbrooks and blake, im not going to bother going back further than that. obviously teams will try to defend the validity of their internal link, it just usually doesnt work out if its that absurd

 

2) the permutation is not a policy option. counterplans can either be mutually exclusive or not. if they are mutually exclusive, there is no perm. if they are not mutually exclusive they can only be evaluates as an alternative policy option and thus immune to the perm. the perm NEVER exists as a policy option.

 

my argument is that the counterplan needs to be better than the plan and better than the plan + all or part of the counterplan. sure its not a policy option which the judge votes for when the negative kicks the counterplan, and it's not advocated, but evaluating it in terms of disads to the permutation and net benefits is critical to answer that question

 

 

3) there is absolutely ZERO reason to prefer evaluating competition through net benefits, unless of course you approve of absurd policy options... and approve of horribly generic arguments lacking internal links, logic within the argument, let alone realistic real world overall impacts. unquestionably, specificity, and as it relates to CPs would be mutual exclusivity, is the superior option.

 

I'm AGREEING that horribly generic arguments are bad, thats all explained above. evaluating in terms of net benefits allows teams to counterplan out of internal links to advantages, ensuring affirmatives have SPECIFIC advantages with REAL impacts that ONLY their case can access. they lose if they dont because their plan isn't the only policy which can solve the harms they indict.

 

your disads to that interpretation of evaluating competition are all solved by a permutation or solvency deficit arguments. on the other hand, the disadvantages to your interpretation are substantial

1. horribly generic advantages stories because there's no check on the specificity of the internal link

2. your "judge intervention" example: the plan results in the overturn of roe v. wade in front of a devout catholic. under my interpretation, a counterplan to overturn roe v. wade allows us to debate about the advantages and disadvantages of plan action, under yours, its a lost ballot.

3. your interpretation functionally eliminates all counterplans, because mutual exclusivity is impossible in a world of fiat. perhaps the permutation would involve illegal action, but there's no impact to that absent evaluation of net benefits

4. new affs always win - the 1ac is an 8 minute indictment of the status quo, counterplans are critical checks; teams can't run a mutually exclusive counterplan against a case that they've never heard of before. big schools always win because they can read a slew of new cases

 

there really is no reason to prefer your interpretation because affirmatives always beat the types of counterplans you're criticizing.

 

a) I am living proof this is not true. i had two tubs and won ALL my neg rounds with specific on case arguments, typically "defense" no less! there is nothing special that seperates me from the next debater.

 

very nice, but unfortunately not really relevant to this conversation. at worst there's no disadvantage to this interpretation of competitive, at best it provides a better method of testing the internal link to advantages, one which judges are more receptive to.

 

your interpretation would require revolutionizing the judging pool; winning with defensive case arguments isn't realistic in front of most people. while its nice in theory, unless you plan on going up to every judge on every circuit imaginable and changing their opinions, it's going to be pretty hard for debaters to win this way.

 

 

B) you clearly have never seen a meaningful on case spread to be able to hypothesize as you do. trust me, a debater who chooses to research specifics of cases will always find tons of quality argument ground available to them, specific links to disads, and competitive policy options in addition tot he standard gamut of harms, solvency answers and turns. you wont need 50 tubs. most cases at the heart of any topic are sufficiently similar that only the specific links and internal links change - the impacts NEVER do.

 

i've debated in rounds where the 1nc was T and 7 minutes of case, and rounds were teams had great case specific disads and pics, but i fail to see how this is relevant. my argument is that your specific links to disads are more useful in a world where you are able to mitigate opponents advantages through counterplans which test that internal link, and that certain counterplans which aren't mutually exclusive are written about in the literature. many authors write about how alternate methods of solving are better than others, such as an author advocating the use of solar energy rather than oil. that's not mutually exclusive, because you CAN use both, but the counterplan is preferable because the use of oil is a bad thing. most case specific literature doesn't assume mutual exclusivity.

 

c) whats wrong with the aff claiming their plan is uniquely key to solving the harms? isnt that what they SHOULD be doing?

conceded, my argument is that there's less of an incentive to do that without competition through net benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it has become abundantly clear to me that you are missing a lot of the point of my position.

 

clarification #1: the perm is a test of the counterplan. it cannot be a third policy option. two cases:

the counterplan is mutually exclusive - the perm doesnt exist as a policy option because the counterplan negates the aff.

the counterplan isnt mutually exclusive - the perm cannot exist because the counterplan can only be evaluated in BPO paradigm which forbids the perm.

the counterplan, mutually exclusive or not, does not need to be better than the "perm" because the perm can never be evaluated. the perm is "can you do both" not "should you do both." if it were the latter, the answer would still be yes despite mutual exclusivity and would thus serve no purpose.

 

 

side note to #1: coincidentally, by running a non-mutually exclusive counterplan, you are actually forfeiting conditionality and are required to advocate your policy option... but thats a whole diff can of worms, so lets leave it for a while...

 

 

clarification #2: its important to realize i am not at all saying if a counterplan is not mutually exclusive, the judge cant evaluate the counterplan. i am saying that it can only be evaluated in BPO and that BPO is fundamentally bad for debate.

BPO is bad because it opens the affirmative to an entire world of policies which are deemed "competitive" simply through effects/net benefits. the affirmative can never be expected to be prepared to defend their aff against ANY of these policies except if they are topical (because this is switch side debate)... but in that case, its really a plan plan round anyways hence BPO (and the sidenote).

 

in order to win this battle, you must be able to justify why my absurd examples, although absurd should exist in debate as legitimate arguments. arguing that "internal links are silly" is really quite irrelevant to theory. i could easily say "all your arguments are silly. hee hee." and that is not a development of theoretical underpinnings of arguments within debate. your position is to support my examples, not to say they are absurd. the more absurd you think they are, the more absurd your position becomes, because the arguments function identically.

 

 

 

 

 

very nice, but unfortunately not really relevant to this conversation. at worst there's no disadvantage to this interpretation of competitive, at best it provides a better method of testing the internal link to advantages, one which judges are more receptive to.

 

your interpretation would require revolutionizing the judging pool; winning with defensive case arguments isn't realistic in front of most people. while its nice in theory, unless you plan on going up to every judge on every circuit imaginable and changing their opinions, it's going to be pretty hard for debaters to win this way.

 

actually you are wrong here. debaters determine what the judge evaluates. if the debaters simply run counterplans which are mutually exclusive, and the debaters dont evaluate the CP in a BPO and instead assert it as a negation of the aff, then the judge isnt going to say "you didnt argue in a net benefits BPO. you lose." the judge will act accordingly, and if the judge doesnt, then the judge is a terrible judge and incredibly interventionist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it has become abundantly clear to me that you are missing a lot of the point of my position.

 

clarification #1: the perm is a test of the counterplan. it cannot be a third policy option. two cases:

the counterplan is mutually exclusive - the perm doesnt exist as a policy option because the counterplan negates the aff.

the counterplan isnt mutually exclusive - the perm cannot exist because the counterplan can only be evaluated in BPO paradigm which forbids the perm.

the counterplan, mutually exclusive or not, does not need to be better than the "perm" because the perm can never be evaluated. the perm is "can you do both" not "should you do both." if it were the latter, the answer would still be yes despite mutual exclusivity and would thus serve no purpose.

 

 

My/Our argument is not that the permutation is a policy option, it is still a test of competition. The question asked is simply differnet.

 

Under your interpretation you evaluate the permutation as "Can it be done." Under the net benefits interpretation you evaluate the permutation as "Is it beneficial to be done." You dont vote for the permutation, but you have to compare the permutation to the counterplan in terms of a benefit. If the permutation is beneficial, then the counterplan goes away and the judge votes for the plan. Your argument begs the question of whether or not your interpretation of competition is good for debate anyways.

 

 

clarification #2: its important to realize i am not at all saying if a counterplan is not mutually exclusive, the judge cant evaluate the counterplan. i am saying that it can only be evaluated in BPO and that BPO is fundamentally bad for debate.

BPO is bad because it opens the affirmative to an entire world of policies which are deemed "competitive" simply through effects/net benefits. the affirmative can never be expected to be prepared to defend their aff against ANY of these policies except if they are topical (because this is switch side debate)... but in that case, its really a plan plan round anyways hence BPO (and the sidenote).

 

in order to win this battle, you must be able to justify why my absurd examples, although absurd should exist in debate as legitimate arguments. arguing that "internal links are silly" is really quite irrelevant to theory. i could easily say "all your arguments are silly. hee hee." and that is not a development of theoretical underpinnings of arguments within debate. your position is to support my examples, not to say they are absurd. the more absurd you think they are, the more absurd your position becomes, because the arguments function identically.

 

 

Likewise, in order to win this "battle," you must be able to justify why absurd examples, shouldnt exist as debate arguments. While it is true that they are absurd, this simply means it should be easy for the affirmative to beat them. The aff doesnt even have to research a disad to each counterplan, if they research good, specific links to all of their advantages and have advantages which are intrinsic to their plan mechanism, they have an automatic answer to these counterplans. Take your homeless example. Aff says Courts get rid of patriot act-- advantage is the independent judiciary. Negative says Congress educate the homeless. The CP has no hope of solving the advantage, even if it does result in overturning the PA--therefore, aff wins. This is not a problem for the aff, assuming their advantages are researched well.

 

Also, Josh made a point I dont think you ever responded too, which is that, in your examples, the CP always RESULTS IN THE PLAN. In this instance, they are not competetive even under the net benefits interpretation, because any disad to the plan would also link to the counterplan.

 

Josh already thoroughly discussed this question of internal links beating absurd counterplans, and I already made the argument that they encourage better research and specificity to the resolution. All these absurd scenarios would simply become aff advantages unless the negative has the ability to counterplan out of the internal links.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My/Our argument is not that the permutation is a policy option, it is still a test of competition. The question asked is simply differnet.

 

Under your interpretation you evaluate the permutation as "Can it be done." Under the net benefits interpretation you evaluate the permutation as "Is it beneficial to be done." You dont vote for the permutation, but you have to compare the permutation to the counterplan in terms of a benefit. If the permutation is beneficial, then the counterplan goes away and the judge votes for the plan. Your argument begs the question of whether or not your interpretation of competition is good for debate anyways.

the minute you say "is it beneficial to do both" you are evaluating the impacts. this is forbidden because the perm is a test. there is no perm. the perm CANNOT exist as a policy. you can only evaluate something if its a policy.

 

 

 

Likewise, in order to win this "battle," you must be able to justify why absurd examples, shouldnt exist as debate arguments. While it is true that they are absurd, this simply means it should be easy for the affirmative to beat them. The aff doesnt even have to research a disad to each counterplan, if they research good, specific links to all of their advantages and have advantages which are intrinsic to their plan mechanism, they have an automatic answer to these counterplans. Take your homeless example. Aff says Courts get rid of patriot act-- advantage is the independent judiciary. Negative says Congress educate the homeless. The CP has no hope of solving the advantage, even if it does result in overturning the PA--therefore, aff wins. This is not a problem for the aff, assuming their advantages are researched well.

it shouldnt exist because ANY policy is therefore competitive. the affirmative will have ZERO predictability and will justifyably lose EVERY SINGLE DEBATE which comes down to it.

 

 

Also, Josh made a point I dont think you ever responded too, which is that, in your examples, the CP always RESULTS IN THE PLAN. In this instance, they are not competetive even under the net benefits interpretation, because any disad to the plan would also link to the counterplan.

wrong. the disad links only to the aff. the disad is say... umm... courts. the counterplan results in congress. no link. happy? the point is still the same. this is debate. i can make ANY policy competitive with ANY affirmative you give me. this is bad for debate because it has absolutely nothing to do with the negation of the affirmative policy option

 

 

Josh already thoroughly discussed this question of internal links beating absurd counterplans, and I already made the argument that they encourage better research and specificity to the resolution. All these absurd scenarios would simply become aff advantages unless the negative has the ability to counterplan out of the internal links.

simply saying "oh you can beat absurd internal links" is NOT an argument. this is THEORY. theory is CONSTANT.

 

 

 

 

lets have a little fun here.

you pick a mainstream 1ac and give me the full 1ac text (the only reason i need the 1ac text is because I dont follow debate cases or arguments. i only write theory really)....

i will come up with another absurd example, and come up with evidence and a shell to back me up

i will inform you ahead of time when i will be posting it. you will then have exactly one minute to draft your responses, evidence included. then we'll let the debate world vote on whether your responses would win the round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the minute you say "is it beneficial to do both" you are evaluating the impacts. this is forbidden because the perm is a test. there is no perm. the perm CANNOT exist as a policy. you can only evaluate something if its a policy.

 

This pre-supposes that you win your interpretation of competition. Under ours, "test" involves comparing impacts.

 

 

Likewise, in order to win this "battle," you must be able to justify why absurd examples, shouldnt exist as debate arguments. While it is true that they are absurd, this simply means it should be easy for the affirmative to beat them. The aff doesnt even have to research a disad to each counterplan, if they research good, specific links to all of their advantages and have advantages which are intrinsic to their plan mechanism, they have an automatic answer to these counterplans. Take your homeless example. Aff says Courts get rid of patriot act-- advantage is the independent judiciary. Negative says Congress educate the homeless. The CP has no hope of solving the advantage, even if it does result in overturning the PA--therefore, aff wins. This is not a problem for the aff, assuming their advantages are researched well.

it shouldnt exist because ANY policy is therefore competitive. the affirmative will have ZERO predictability and will justifyably lose EVERY SINGLE DEBATE which comes down to it.

 

 

There is a reason that despite the fact that net benefits competition has been the norm for a number of years, affs still win debates. Absurd counterplans won't win you debates if the aff has good internal links to their advantages they always get 8 minutes of offense to weigh against them, and then it just becomes another disad and case debate.

 

 

Also, Josh made a point I dont think you ever responded too, which is that, in your examples, the CP always RESULTS IN THE PLAN. In this instance, they are not competetive even under the net benefits interpretation, because any disad to the plan would also link to the counterplan.

wrong. the disad links only to the aff. the disad is say... umm... courts. the counterplan results in congress. no link. happy? the point is still the same. this is debate. i can make ANY policy competitive with ANY affirmative you give me. this is bad for debate because it has absolutely nothing to do with the negation of the affirmative policy option

 

 

Why is this bad for the aff then? You now automatically get all your court defenses as solvency deficits to the counterplan. The permutation still links to the disad but solves any external net benefit to educating the homeless.

 

 

Josh already thoroughly discussed this question of internal links beating absurd counterplans, and I already made the argument that they encourage better research and specificity to the resolution. All these absurd scenarios would simply become aff advantages unless the negative has the ability to counterplan out of the internal links.

simply saying "oh you can beat absurd internal links" is NOT an argument. this is THEORY. theory is CONSTANT.

 

 

Theory is also reliant upon the actual debate model. Something is not abusive if the nature of how debates actually play out makes it non-abusive. The fact that you can beat asburd internal links IS an argument. While theory may be constant, so is the fact that as long as affirmatives arent retarded, they wont lose to CP: Educate the Homeless.

 

 

lets have a little fun here.

you pick a mainstream 1ac and give me the full 1ac text (the only reason i need the 1ac text is because I dont follow debate cases or arguments. i only write theory really)....

i will come up with another absurd example, and come up with evidence and a shell to back me up

i will inform you ahead of time when i will be posting it. you will then have exactly one minute to draft your responses, evidence included. then we'll let the debate world vote on whether your responses would win the round.

 

in all fairness, I should have about 3 minutes, assuming my partner is cross-x-ing your 1nc while I prep the 2ac. But whatever you want to do.

 

Plan: The United States Supreme Court should rule on substantive due

process grounds that executive authority to detain enemy combatants

without charge is limited by a judcial habeas corpus determination to

verify that the executive branch has not wrongfully classified

individuals as "enemy combatants," and rule that the executive must

end the detention without charge of wrongfully classified individuals.

The United States Congress should enforce this ruling.

 

Advantage 1: Independent Judiciary w/ Democracy Modelling and Afghanistan Judiciary key to Stability

 

Advantage 2: International Law

 

shoot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ummm, i need full 1ac text. i have no idea what that case is doing, what the harms are, what your solvency is and how you come to the advantages. if this is your case, you can just send it to me on email if you dont want it out in the public. i just havent followed any cases this year to know enough about any of them.... hell, i have only judged four or five rounds... sorry. been lazy :)

 

i gave you 1 minute (which technically is greater or equal ro one and less than two because if i post at 1:00:XX you have until 1:01:59) and most teams try to use as little prep for the 2ac as possible... and because i figure a CP and disad wouldnt be an entire 1nc. you'd have to use time to cover other arguments. so i figured you know say a minute or so for the CP/disad... a minute or so for T/theory... a minute or so for other random case and advt turns etc...

 

if i get the time and opportunity, i'll even write the ENTIRE 1nc and post it... in which case you can have three minutes for the xx time and one more of prep for four minutes :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also wouldn't normally have to type out my entire 2acs... I just pull them out.

 

I dont have the text of my entire 1ac online and I dont feel like typing up the text of all the cards.

 

I can give you an outline if that is sufficient. (tags+cites)

  • Downvote 1

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...

×
×
  • Create New...