Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
klub_

Potential Harms!!!

Recommended Posts

In the semis round at yesterday's tournement, we went neg and ran into a case the talked about taking away Bush's Blanket war power so that he could never creat a detainment camp like the US did during WWII. But the problem for me was that their harms were all potential...(ex: "if Bush created one, then all these harms would happen.") They had evedense saying the Bush and Ashcroft were talking about it, but thats it.

 

My question: Since all of their harms were potential, then the plan solves no problem. My thought send me to think that this means there are no advantages b/c the plan really didn't achieve anything. We said this and we won in a 2-1 but how do yall handle these kind of cases?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense but u got lucky. All the other team had to do is say that they are solving for the authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats not the only thing we ran. that was just one of the thing we ran. we had 2 DAs a lot of Harms Turns and I think some other on case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. Your argument means their aff is meaningless, but their advocacy means it's true. Even if there are no impacts, they've still proven the word "authority" in the resolution true - Bush should never have the right to set up detention facilities, even if he isn't doing so now. Their only burden is to prove the rez true, not to prove it significant or meaningful. And no, "significance" isn't a stock issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

where do you debate? because here significance and harms are both stock issues...seperatly. Not only to cases have to prove the resolution, theymust prove that their case is is both harmful and significant in the SQ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
where do you debate?

Oregon.

 

Why would they have to prove case is significant?

 

1. Any net-beneficial action should be done, otherwise it's not real-world. Congress doesn't vote down a bill because "it's just not good enough."

2. So there's not really that many harms in the squo - there's still no reason why we shouldn't do plan, only a reason why you shouldn't not do it. Vote aff on a risk of the impacts

3. Turn - insignificant actions boost real-world debate. Not everything has a nuke war impact on the bottom - sometimes you should do things just to be nice to people or just to make someone's life a little bit easier. Besides, the "insignificant" plan just makes it easier for you to beat with a disad or a critique.

4. No brightline - what's significant and what isn't? At best, it's entirely relative and subjective. Without a way to determine it, there's no objective or logical analysis involved, there's just the judge saying "well, I don't really think it's significant" or "well, I really think it's significant." That kills education because instead of actually debating, you're asking the judge to use their best judgement which leads to judge intervention and "intuition-based" arguments.

5. "Should" just means it's a good idea, ie preferable to the squo, not that it's a great idea. "ZOMG! PLAN JUST ISN''T GOOD ENOUGH!" No, you have to prove that plan causes something worse than what it manages to solve for

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hahaha... i can't tell you how many times my partner and i ran our CP no one is blocked out to and the aff says

 

"um... the cp doesn't solve better because... uh... it's not good enough. moving on to uh... extending case or something..."

 

^I don't even debate novice.

 

it's probably not competitive -- good Lord, do teams really not know how to debate counterplan theory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We run this and call it existentiality, ran it on the dugongs case on the oceans topic and the space weapons topic on peacekeeping and this year on REAL/National ID.

We have two versions..one is a T arg that says authority doesnt exist yet so you cant decrease it, ergo plan is untopical

The other version is a striaghtup theory argument that says there is no counterevidence to something that doesnt exist yet, fiat abuse, etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...