Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ixlovexmex02

CounterPlan?

Recommended Posts

no. counterplans win... a lot.

 

especially if they are intrinsically net beneficial mutually exclusive non topical counterplans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can master a generic counterplan (consultation, unilat, alternate agent, etc...) you're on your way to winning a lot of rounds. They're really good "fall back" strategies if you're getting smacked on other flows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, obviously, disagree with Sam. I think those are PPT neg strategies. You're better off running a half dozen generic disads than these counterplans. The counterplans themselves are meaningless in the absence of a net benefits disad. All the aff needs to do is defeat the disad (which is usually relations or tix...) which makes the counterplan 100% useless due to the perm. Its a bad time trade off.

 

1a: case

1n: cp & nb disad

2a: cp theory & answers, disad answers & turns

block: a/t all of 2ac

1ar: disad. only disad. turn it 8 ways from sunday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CP's are extremely effective when used in combinations with Disads. You must be able to prove to the judge that your CP is the only way to solve the problem and CANNOT be done with the aff's plan. (this gets rid of the perm the aff could have been planning to do) . Also use DA's at the aff, but you have to be sure that they hurt ONLY the aff's plan and NOT your CP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you can master a generic counterplan (consultation, unilat, alternate agent, etc...) you're on your way to winning a lot of rounds. They're really good "fall back" strategies if you're getting smacked on other flows.

 

I don't see what's so wrong with this statement. Is it the best strategy? No. Can you pick up a lot of rounds if you debate these positions well? Definitely.

 

ZoEn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

because those arguments depend on an external argument (the nb disad) to win the flow. in the absence of the disad, the counterplans are meaningless and easily perm'ed. so basically a good aff does what i illustrated above. just masks the real 1ar attack by forcing the neg into arguing other things in the block... and then hitting the disad straight up 8 minutes. few judges today buy consult bad theory arguments. alt agent bad theory arguments... so by forcing the neg into arguing it... and then dumping it because i mean lets face it... if i say "consult is bad because of x,y,z" are you really gonna turn the theory? how is that any different from an rvi on T? so i am forcing a positive time tradeoff and killing the advantage the negative has by having a 13 minute block. i negate your entire spread.

 

THATS why its a terrible strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
because those arguments depend on an external argument (the nb disad) to win the flow. in the absence of the disad, the counterplans are meaningless and easily perm'ed. so basically a good aff does what i illustrated above. just masks the real 1ar attack by forcing the neg into arguing other things in the block... and then hitting the disad straight up 8 minutes. few judges today buy consult bad theory arguments. alt agent bad theory arguments... so by forcing the neg into arguing it... and then dumping it because i mean lets face it... if i say "consult is bad because of x,y,z" are you really gonna turn the theory? how is that any different from an rvi on T? so i am forcing a positive time tradeoff and killing the advantage the negative has by having a 13 minute block. i negate your entire spread.

 

THATS why its a terrible strategy.

 

Clearly counterplans depend on an "external argument." All counterplans have some sort of net benefit (my first post in this thread highlights different counterplans that DO have net benefits external to implementation). Just because they aren't on a different flow doesn't mean you don't evaluate them. Consultation counterplans aren't bad because they don't have an external net benefit (other than relations). If you really think an affirmative will get up in their 2AC and straight turn the counterplan (whether it be unilat, consultation, courts, etc...) you're just wrong. Unless the 2A is extremely fast and the 1A is extremely smart you're screwed. No one straight turns consultation becuase the block would get up and read 15 new impacts. If you're looking to straight turn politics against an alt agent counterplan that's cool. However, the block usually outspreads the 1A. Sure, it's a way to get offense against the net benefit (which you should always do), but that doesn't mean generic counterplans are bad strats.

 

Secondly, the crux of your argument is that a good 2AC will put offense on the net benefit and then drop some theory here and there. You concede however that most judges do err neg on counterplan theory which is why the block tends to disregard aff theory blips. If the 1A wants to get up and go for 5 minutes of PICs bad, fine. Most teams put at least 10 answers on theory args in the block. Depending on the 2AC, there really isn't a way to "mask the 1ARs intentions." If the block is theory heavy, the block spends more time on theory. If there is one theory argument on the 2AC block, the neg still covers it to the point where it isn't a viable option in the 1AR. There is no positive time tradeoff between a good 2NC and a good 2AC.

 

Game over. :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I agree, a really good 1AR can get up and straight turn the net benefit for five minutes. BUT, THE BLOCK DOESN'T JUST TAKE THE COUNTERPLAN. A good block will take at least three args. The 1A doesn't have the time to blow off T and the K to effectively straight turn the counterplan. :S:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you might be misunderstanding me a bit Sam.

 

Clearly counterplans depend on an "external argument." All counterplans have some sort of net benefit (my first post in this thread highlights different counterplans that DO have net benefits external to implementation). Just because they aren't on a different flow doesn't mean you don't evaluate them. Consultation counterplans aren't bad because they don't have an external net benefit (other than relations).

 

Not all counterplans depend on "external arguments"... there is such a thing as an intrinsically net beneficial counterplan. such as port state control CP on the standard ban FOC case (oceans resolution). the counterplan itself has more benefits than the aff case while solving for the same harms in a different non-topical fashion.

and yes... there are people out there who still draft intrinsically beneficial counterplans. people like me.

 

you absolutely do not evaluate a consult counterplan if the disad is won by the affirmative. the fact that they are on different flows doesnt matter. it is physically impossible to continue to evaluate the counterplan without the disad unless the negative ran argument saying the act of consultation is good for XYZ... but that never occurs unless the affirmative argues that consultation is bad (and affirmatives almost never do that because of the inherent neg block turns they risk... which you also point out). so at the end of the day, you are left with a consult counterplan which has no intrinsic value and a net benefits disad. when the negative loses the disad the counterplan ceases to matter.

 

If you really think an affirmative will get up in their 2AC and straight turn the counterplan (whether it be unilat, consultation, courts, etc...) you're just wrong. Unless the 2A is extremely fast and the 1A is extremely smart you're screwed. No one straight turns consultation becuase the block would get up and read 15 new impacts.

 

Not saying that at all. If I were the aff, I would go straight defense theory on consult, consult solvency etc. Make you spend precious block time answering the counterplan. If you opt to undercover it in the block, then you leave the door open for the aff to slam you in the 1ar, so you are forced to answer it back. turning consult is bad idea. Never advocated.

 

If you're looking to straight turn politics against an alt agent counterplan that's cool. However, the block usually outspreads the 1A. Sure, it's a way to get offense against the net benefit (which you should always do), but that doesn't mean generic counterplans are bad strats.

 

This is closer to what I am getting to. The 2a must answer everything. and in forcing the block to spend precious time on the counterplan, that means less of the block is being spent on the disad. So the 2a is about equally time committed on everything. on the disad, on the counterplan, on t, solvency and whatever else you ran.

 

Secondly, the crux of your argument is that a good 2AC will put offense on the net benefit and then drop some theory here and there. You concede however that most judges do err neg on counterplan theory which is why the block tends to disregard aff theory blips. If the 1A wants to get up and go for 5 minutes of PICs bad, fine. Most teams put at least 10 answers on theory args in the block. Depending on the 2AC, there really isn't a way to "mask the 1ARs intentions." If the block is theory heavy, the block spends more time on theory. If there is one theory argument on the 2AC block, the neg still covers it to the point where it isn't a viable option in the 1AR. There is no positive time tradeoff between a good 2NC and a good 2AC.

 

The tradeoff isnt between the 2ac, and the 2nc. its between the block and the 1ar. The 2ac by soaking up block time on counterplan, decreases block time on disad.

 

Then 1ar gets up and goes straight disad. drops the counterplan... so however minutes you spent on the counterplan in the block is wasted. whether it was one minute or three minutes or five minutes. its 100% wasted time. No affirmative should EVER go counterplan in the 1ar. They should go straight up against the disad and maul it.

 

Say the round goes like this (pretty common too):

 

1AC: Case

1NC: T, Disad, Consult, Solvency

2AC: T, Disad, Consult, Solvency

2NC: Disad & Consult

1NR: T & Solvency

1AR: T & Solvency & Disad

 

No where do you see the 1ar hitting the counterplan. All time spent on the counterplan is wasted. You get no offense on it coming out of the block because the counterplan itself in a vacuum is meaningless. It only has meaning with the disad. Good affirmatives know this. While the neg may (or may not) still hold a time advantage, the difference between the block 13 minutes versus the 1ar 5 minutes is now reduced by however much time the neg spent on consult. Even if its 2 minutes or 30 seconds... you decreased the negative's edge from 13:5 to 11:5. You just made the aff's job EASIER.

 

Thats why its a bad strategy. You are not utilizing the block effectively because the entire block doesnt generate offense which must be answered. The only way to do that is to initially claim intrinsic net benefits to the act of consultation, like multilateralism good coming out of the 1nc. But negatives dont do that. And THAT is what I am getting at.

 

 

Also, I agree, a really good 1AR can get up and straight turn the net benefit for five minutes. BUT, THE BLOCK DOESN'T JUST TAKE THE COUNTERPLAN. A good block will take at least three args. The 1A doesn't have the time to blow off T and the K to effectively straight turn the counterplan.

 

Correct. They dont blot off T and the K to straight turn the CP. They take T and K and ignore the CP because without the K, the CP doesnt mean anything

 

 

 

==========

And so in the 2nr, the neg is almost certainly going to go straight disad because the counterplan was conceded by the aff. thats one egg in your basket. all the neg needs is the disad. so the 2nr goes straight disad, and so does the 2ar... there is no time tradeoff now... whatever the 2nr goes for on the disad can be equi answered on time allocation by the aff.

 

 

 

 

its nonsensical to look at aff neg trade offs. you look neg aff tradeoffs (in respect to speech order)... because the 1ac doesnt answer anything. the 1ac only chooses ground. its an elaborate way fo saying "here. this i what we are talking about today." thats why you dont look at 2ac 2nc tradeoff. you look block/1ar and 2nr/2ar and 1nr/2ac.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does this strategy change when the neg is making the argument that 1) consultation is good in and of itself, and 2) it solves better. For a number of judges, better solvency is enough of a net benefit to vote neg on the counterplan. In this case, the negative wouldn't have to be going for a DA net benefit. Or, if the neg were going for the DA plus the solvency competition, then wouldn't the 1AR still be forced to answer both?

 

ZoEn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How does this strategy change when the neg is making the argument that 1) consultation is good in and of itself, and 2) it solves better. For a number of judges, better solvency is enough of a net benefit to vote neg on the counterplan. In this case, the negative wouldn't have to be going for a DA net benefit. Or, if the neg were going for the DA plus the solvency competition, then wouldn't the 1AR still be forced to answer both?

 

ZoEn

 

1) If consultation itself has benefits then the counterplan itself is a reason to vote neg because the consultation (assuming results in plan action) captures the affirmative advantages AND produces an additional benefit, thus proving it is a better policy option. If you lose the disad (without having proven the coutnerplan itself is good), then there is no evidence that consultation is better than the plan. Must vote aff.

 

2) Correct. In this case the neg doesnt need to go for the net benefit disad because the solvency alone proves reasoning to negate the affirmative policy. You illustrate a better policy option. The disad is merely a "bonus."

 

3) If you are going for a combo instrinsically beneficial counterplan AND a disad, the 1ar must answer both because both are reasons to reject the affirmative.

 

Under the way most neg debaters run consult CPs, there is absolutely no reason to vote for the counterplan. Because the CP is dependent on the NB disad (traditionally), the judge must first look to the disad before evaluating the counterplan. There are four possible permutations:

 

Case 0: Neg loses disad, neg loses counterplan --> aff

Case 1: Neg loses disad, neg wins counterplan --> aff (CP alone is not reason to reject aff)

Case 2: Neg wins disad, neg loses counterplan --> neg (assuming DA outweighs)

Case 3: Neg wins disad, neg wins counterplan --> neg

 

But in case three, you never get to evaluate the counterplan. You already vote neg on the disad. The neg winning the counterplan is irrelevant.

 

What is in the negative's best interest is to change the balance to favor their argument. They want to make the CP in a vacuum a reason to vote neg. Then case 1 goes neg and the only way for the aff tow in is to argue both. Currently, the aff only needs to defeat the disad to win the counterplan.

 

 

 

 

 

Here's an analogy for you. Which would you vote for? Case 1 or Case 2?

 

Case 1:

Ob1: Inherency

Ob2: Harms

Plan

Ob 2: Solvency

Neg comes back and wins the harms, either that they dont exist or that they arent bad....

 

or

 

Case 2:

Ob1: Inherency

Ob2: Harms

Plan

Ob2: Solvency

Ob3: Advantage

Neg comes back and wins the harms, either that they dont exist or that they arent bad....

 

Obviously you go for case 2. Why? Because the first case is not a reason to reject the status quo. My philosophy on counterplans is the same thing. If the counterplan itself is a reaosn to vote neg, only then does the aff need to answer it.

 

To me, smart affs should recognize this and focus on the disad. Correspondingly, the negative should change their consult shells to make the act of consultation a benefit all by itself to force the aff to answer the counterplan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few quick points. First, most teams will run the combo you talk about. An intrinsically net beneficial counterplan and a disad. Some teams will just run intrinsically beneficial counterplans. I see a consultation counterplan as being intrinsically beneficial because implementation gets you the net benefit. A counterplan like Courts competes (most of the time) through a politics disad which means it isn't intrinsically beneficial (unless the neg decides to claim superior solvency, or an independent net benefit). I understand this.

 

I agree that a 2AC should have a diversity of answers on the counterplan (defense and offense).

 

Here, however, is where I view the debate differently.

 

Under the way most neg debaters run consult CPs, there is absolutely no reason to vote for the counterplan. Because the CP is dependent on the NB disad (traditionally), the judge must first look to the disad before evaluating the counterplan.

It is not a good strategy for the 1AR to just straight turn the net benefit. Yes, I agree, if the aff turns the net benefit, they win the counterplan. I don't even have to look at the counterplan flow (if it isn't intrinsically net beneficial). But for a 1AR to get up after a speedy block (taking lets say at least four sheets of paper, T, K, the CP, and the DA) and spend sufficient time straight turning the counterplan is recipe for disaster.

 

I think we disagree about what a good 1AR should do when answering a generic type counterplan in his/her speech. You should always put defense on the counterplan flow in the 1AR. Attempting to straight turn the net benefit for 2 minutes is not the way to roll. The negative will have answered your two to three turns in the block (with at least 5 answers). For a 1AR to get up and attempt to straight turn the net benefit is nonsense. In any normal situation, Ankur's strategy would not work.

 

Now realize that I am assuming a round in which all variables are set equal. Both teams are well prepared, fast, and competent. In this scenario, JUST putting offense on the net benefit in the 1AR and not extending any defense (perms, theory, etc...) is not a good option. At best (if done well), you force the neg to go for the K or T which you undercovered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not a good strategy for the 1AR to just straight turn the net benefit. Yes, I agree, if the aff turns the net benefit, they win the counterplan. I don't even have to look at the counterplan flow (if it isn't intrinsically net beneficial). But for a 1AR to get up after a speedy block (taking lets say at least four sheets of paper, T, K, the CP, and the DA) and spend sufficient time straight turning the counterplan is recipe for disaster.

 

I think we disagree about what a good 1AR should do when answering a generic type counterplan in his/her speech. You should always put defense on the counterplan flow in the 1AR. Attempting to straight turn the net benefit for 2 minutes is not the way to roll. The negative will have answered your two to three turns in the block (with at least 5 answers). For a 1AR to get up and attempt to straight turn the net benefit is nonsense. In any normal situation, Ankur's strategy would not work.

 

Sure it does. Why would you want to put offense on the counterplan flow using up precious 1ar time if you know that none of that offense will amount to anything? Its wasted time! There is no way to sugar coat it Sam. Its wasted time. IMO, no aff should EVER spend time on the counterplan in the 1ar because if they can win the disad they can defeat the CP all in one. See below about extending 2ac defense on the CP....

 

 

Now realize that I am assuming a round in which all variables are set equal. Both teams are well prepared, fast, and competent. In this scenario, JUST putting offense on the net benefit in the 1AR and not extending any defense (perms, theory, etc...) is not a good option. At best (if done well), you force the neg to go for the K or T which you undercovered.

 

Now I realize that the "modern" world of debate doesnt actually require you to give warrants why I extend argumentation you made in the 2ac when its answered back in the neg block... but in the real world of debate, you dont get to extend anything that wasnt dropped. You must first answer the opposing argumentation.

 

2ac: No link

2nc/1nr: Yes link, yes link, yes link, yes link, yes link (5 answers)

1ar: Extend 2ac.

 

uhhh, i dont think so. In order to extend you must answer those "yes links" and THEN extend... I think the new way of debating which is completely clashless is asanine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure it does. Why would you want to put offense on the counterplan flow using up precious 1ar time if you know that none of that offense will amount to anything? Its wasted time! There is no way to sugar coat it Sam. Its wasted time. IMO, no aff should EVER spend time on the counterplan in the 1ar because if they can win the disad they can defeat the CP all in one. See below about extending 2ac defense on the CP....

You want to put offense or defense on the counterplan flow for three reasons. One, so that the 2AR has a variety of options to go for (assuming the negative goes for the counterplan). Two, so that the 2NR has a harder job of covering your offense on the net benefit or covering your defense/offense on the counterplan. And three, because effectively straight turning the counterplan in the 1AR is extremely difficult.

 

Now I realize that the "modern" world of debate doesnt actually require you to give warrants why I extend argumentation you made in the 2ac when its answered back in the neg block... but in the real world of debate, you dont get to extend anything that wasnt dropped. You must first answer the opposing argumentation.

 

2ac: No link

2nc/1nr: Yes link, yes link, yes link, yes link, yes link (5 answers)

1ar: Extend 2ac.

 

uhhh, i dont think so. In order to extend you must answer those "yes links" and THEN extend... I think the new way of debating which is completely clashless is asanine.

A good 1AR will just choose two or three args on the counterplan that they are winning and extend those. They will have time to answer the line by line there as well. My interpretation of a good 1AR would look like (assuming the neg takes T, the K, the CP, and the DA in the block):

 

T and K (two minutes fifteen max)

 

Counterplan flow (one min fifteen seconds max)

 

Disad flow (one min thirty max)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"1) If consultation itself has benefits then the counterplan itself is a reason to vote neg because the consultation (assuming results in plan action) captures the affirmative advantages AND produces an additional benefit, thus proving it is a better policy option. If you lose the disad (without having proven the coutnerplan itself is good), then there is no evidence that consultation is better than the plan. Must vote aff."

 

I'm sorry, I'm not seeing where the disad is coming into play here? If the reason why consultation is good on the counterplan is that "Genuine Consultation leads to better policy making", means better solvency, means better policy, then why is the neg going to have to win a disad? As we've noted before, no one is going to straight turn consultation. So why does this mean vote aff?

 

ZoEn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the negative doesn't have to win a disad for consultation. Consultation itself is the net benefit. Ankur and I are arguing about counterplans that aren't intrinsically net beneficial and how the 1AR should handle them (when there are external net benefits to implementation, like politics).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got it. I think something just got lost in the translation. That, or I just shouldn't post stuff when I don't sleep.

 

I think Ankur's making a fairly compelling case for going straight DA in the 1AR if the neg has to win the DA. However, it just seems that there should be some counterplan in the 1AR so that the 2AR has some variety unless the 1AR is getting completely spread out. In that case, the aff should make use of every strategic second, ie going straight DA/Net Benefit.

 

ZoEn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adam,

You hafto make the argument that consult --> better policymaking and that better policymaking itself is a benefit. I mean whats so much better about it? What does your evidence suggest? What is so intrinsically good about consulting other nations?

 

 

Sam,

One, so that the 2AR has a variety of options to go for (assuming the negative goes for the counterplan).

Well its not like the 2ar should waste time on an argument which cant win the round. See Case 3 previous. Only the disad can win the round. You dont need variety.

Besides, the 2ar goes for everything the 2nr does.

 

Two, so that the 2NR has a harder job of covering your offense on the net benefit or covering your defense/offense on the counterplan.

But the time tradeoff is not between the 1ar/2nr. Its 2nr/2ar. So whatever ease the 2nr gets, you get back in the last speech.

 

 

And three, because effectively straight turning the counterplan in the 1AR is extremely difficult.

Youre not turning the CP. Your turning the disad. Or just beating it with no link, no impact etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You hafto make the argument that consult --> better policymaking and that better policymaking itself is a benefit. I mean whats so much better about it? What does your evidence suggest? What is so intrinsically good about consulting other nations?

 

Consulting other nations usually prevents some sort of nuclear war, stops prolif, prevents collapse of democracy, etc...I mean most teams don't run consultation with a superior solvency net benefit (as any perm would capture the net benefit). Rather most teams claim that consultation itself is uniquely good because it stops conflict.

 

Well its not like the 2ar should waste time on an argument which cant win the round. See Case 3 previous. Only the disad can win the round. You dont need variety.

Besides, the 2ar goes for everything the 2nr does.

The 2AR isn't wasting time on an argument that won't win a round. As far as I know, defense on the counterplan flow is pretty damning (perms, theory, etc...).

 

But the time tradeoff is not between the 1ar/2nr. Its 2nr/2ar. So whatever ease the 2nr gets, you get back in the last speech.

As I said before the time tradeoff swings negative if the 1AR just straight turns the net benefit for two minutes. The 2NR gets five minutes to answer four or five arguments. This means that a variety of answers on both the counterplan and the net benefit are best. All time tradeoff is correlated to some extent. If there is positive aff time tradeoff between the 1AR and the 2NR there will be positive time tradeoff between the 2NR and the 2AR. If A leads to B and B leads to C, A leads to C.

 

Youre not turning the CP. Your turning the disad. Or just beating it with no link, no impact etc.

 

K, yeah, I meant to say turning the net benefit. My argument was that it may be easy to simply go to the net benefit in the 1AR and try to beat it straight out but that makes my life easier in the 2NR because I just need to win a risk of the net benefit and game over. Without a perm, theory, or offense on the counterplan the neg has a much easier time handling the net benefit debate.

 

I think we agree to disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

meh. i was going to respond. but now i am bored and my efforts are focused on my thread in case & case neg.

peace

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...