Jump to content
The End

Plan planks?

Recommended Posts

What are the advantages to having a plan with planks? Are there certain plans that have to have planks? Any help would be appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it just depends on what is accepted by judges and teams in your area. On th UIL circuitmost plans have planks because it has always been that way. It makes it easier for teams to point specifically where the "holes" are in the plan but it allows aff teams to kick out of some workability issues by specifically pointing where in the plan it says. . .whatever it says they are doing. thats about it. They are usually broken down into Mandates: Enforcement: Funding: and Intent:. Overall they just make the plan and case seem cleaner and more put together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

planks are used to better explain the aff plan by breaking it down into specific areas: Mandates, Enforcement, Funding and Intent. It's not FX-T, and any neg who says otherwise is going to look stupid...especially to an judge that used to debate

 

judge that used to debate=old school

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
planks are used to better explain the aff plan by breaking it down into specific areas: Mandates, Enforcement, Funding and Intent. It's not FX-T, and any neg who says otherwise is going to look stupid...especially to an judge that used to debate

 

Ohhh. This makes more sense to me now. Thanks; I didn't understand what plan planks meant.

 

 

But yeah, planks seems unnecessary and pretty old school.

Are there benefits to reading plan planks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

plan planks exist for one reason: organization

its the same reason why you read

a. definition

b. violation

c. standards

d. voter

 

its about organization

 

some plans require planks. others do not. it depends on the content and character of your advocated policy.

 

 

 

any mention of funding, specification of agent beyond USFG, and enforcement (the typical trio of nonessential plan text faux pas) are all extratopical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
plan planks exist for one reason: organization

its the same reason why you read

a. definition

b. violation

c. standards

d. voter

 

its about organization

 

some plans require planks. others do not. it depends on the content and character of your advocated policy.

 

the above are th biggest reason to use planks. in truth, all plans have planks of a sort(or maybe just one), what we are talking about is simply a matter of structuring them.

 

the weaknesses is that in making yur logic more clear, it may actully make certain holes in you case more obvious. the best example is xtra-t(correcting an earlier comment, they are probably not going to give you FX T problems, they posts may have confused the two). it isn't that planks MAKE you Xtra-topical, it's that when you break things down like that it becomes easier to see an extra topical part of the plan. it also makes severance easier, because it puts things into nice little groups that the neg can pick apart.

hopefully your case is strong and this wont be an issue.

 

any mention of funding, specification of agent beyond USFG, and enforcement (the typical trio of nonessential plan text faux pas) are all extratopical.

 

while i agree that they aren't topical, i think they do(sometimes) have a role in the plan text: to prevent abuse. neg teams(particuarly crappy ones) love to run A-spec and other arguements on you which are easily avoided by adding a simple explanation or your mechanism. the fact that you will spend money and use the courts is not topical per se, but neither is something that would really be severed. if you sever my funding and enforcement plank you can't use that for anything meaningful.

the only thing that i think might be legit is that advantages which stem from actors/funding/enforment(and i've seen some) are extra topical. that means if someone says they use the court and that's good because courts are uber cool, it has nothing to do with the athority of the gov to search or detain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in some debate circles, funding and enforcement(specificly identifying which government entity will handle it ie: The dept. of defense or thye department of health and human services) are essential and neg teams will rip you a new one on workability.

 

Its different from other areas like NFL or TFA but its ours and I like it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...