Jump to content
sublime_thought

Counterplanning Out of 2AC Impact Turns

is it?  

102 members have voted

  1. 1. is it?

    • yes
      43
    • no
      59


Recommended Posts

perm them...

Read the rest of the thread more carefully...

 

i prefer not to call it hypocrisy, but more strategic competition... i do that. we usually CP plank out of impact turns we're expecting to come but we aren't ready for. I've never heard a good answer to the do the plan through executive order + military should not abuse the environment CP :-P. It's less abusive if you're straightforward about it out of the 1NC and you waste your OWN time pre-emptively spiking out of offense. You're jacking the 2AC if you run a 2NC CP, but the 2AC is jacking itself if it mishandles a planked CP.

I feel like your analysis is assuming that the aff has infinite good answers to every neg position. That's not true. You're spiking out of their best responses (if you're smart), leaving them with answers you have an easier time beating. Obviously, that kind of maneuvering is inevitable, but the way you do it is arbitrary; other ways aren't.

 

2AC add-ons are equally as unpredictable as... 1NC's. It's virtually the same thing. Both are new, intentionally unpredictible offense meant to generate a strategic advantage that the other team is less ready to answer than direct engagements of their advocacies.

Hmmm. The same could probably be said of the 1AC, too. I think you might also get in trouble with the role of the negative versus the role of the affirmative. I'll have to think about this more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im saying if the negative runs non-competitive add-ons to their CP, like say they say "and disam nuclear weapons", and your not packing your disarm bad files, the aff must permute the cp, unless you like losing.

 

So what you grant the negative the ability to kick the counterplan, any decent 2AC should be able cover 2 worlds, its 2006, CP theory has shifted neg, they are allowed those worlds, affs will rarely win a conditionality bad debate, and are even less likly to win a dispo bad debate. You just have to give up the straight turn option and defend your affirmative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Im saying if the negative runs non-competitive add-ons to their CP, like say they say "and disam nuclear weapons", and your not packing your disarm bad files, the aff must permute the cp, unless you like losing.

 

So what you grant the negative the ability to kick the counterplan, any decent 2AC should be able cover 2 worlds, its 2006, CP theory has shifted neg, they are allowed those worlds, affs will rarely win a conditionality bad debate, and are even less likly to win a dispo bad debate. You just have to give up the straight turn option and defend your affirmative.

 

we're not saying you shouldn't perm. we're wondering whether it's legitimate to have those non-competitive planks in the first place. because in some cases a perm is the only thing you can really say against it, and that's not offense. if the aff is stuck answering offense and the neg has this shield against impact turns, a perm isn't enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are a significant amount of judges who would find a quick counterplan out of an impact turn to be okay.

 

Since when has popular opinion been a good gauge of anything? I'd contend that judges who find it okay should not be in the back of the room. It's allowing the neg to reverse their advocacy 180 degrees without any kind of check.

 

Especially since it's just meant to make that position go away, not function as a new advocacy that solves the case or anything.

 

Double-bind here: Either the CP doesn't actually solve case and can't be used to moot the offense of the 1AC, or the CP is an entirely new advocacy that completely contradicts everything you just said, forcing the affirmative to respond in turn. This screams abuse.

 

It could be argued that new counterplans in the 2NC are necessary to counter unpredictable offense from the affirmative. This is more applicable to new advantages but if they Spark in the 2AC or run a different independent impact turn scenario it usually isn't as big of a concern.

 

Define unpredictable offense. What's your bright line? What if the offense isn't unpredictable, is it still okay? Who determines predictability of offense, anyway? There's really no good standard for predictability of aff offense. All this does is muddle the round completely. Also, this position screams of object fiat. That's the only way to make the CP work. What would you say? "Do plan but make sure the tax cuts don't pass, because we agree they're bad?" That's an aff voting issue in itself, right there.

 

New arguments in the 2 are usually a bigger boon for the affirmative because they only really have to read one turn and then you're stuck with it in the 2NR. Where you have to do all the work on it that you normally would in the 2NC.

 

This made me laugh a little bit. You say it's a bigger boon, but because of the 1AR's unique position, s/he can't really afford to take the time to answer new offense on the level of a counterplan. This is for several reasons.

  1. To do the turn, the aff needs to read ev. That takes more time, given the time deficit the 1A is already working with, than the 1AR can afford under even the best of circumstances.
  2. The aff also still has to explain the warrants of the card, why they're better than the neg, and why their source is better.
  3. The 2NR isn't "stuck" with it. As has been said earlier, CP theory has shifted drastically neg in the past couple of years. Neg conditionality is considered acceptable by most, if not all, judges these days. If you can jettison your 1NC CP after the 2AC, what's going to stop you from jettisonning your 2NC CP after the 1AR? The answer: nothing.

The negative should have considered everything that possibly could have happened from the plan before the 1NC? That's impossible.

 

What you're talking about and what Will's talking about are two entirely different things. I'm fairly certain he's talking about the branching implications of a given IL story. For example, the different effects of a "Bush Bad" DA. Especially with something as commonplace and easy to debate as politics, the main example used throughout this thread, the negative should be prepared to defend the entirety of their advocacy, not just a specific portion that works for them. They shouldn't be able to say in the 2NC, "CP: Do plan and fiat that the India deal happens but tax cuts don't." If the aff can find something else that comes about from your internal link story, you should be prepared to defend your disadvantage in its entirety rather than moot a minute or more of offense with a five-second CP text.

 

Well... no. If they straight-turn your CP you can just jettison it. That's not an independent reason to vote aff.

 

This isn't the topic for that. ;)

 

This situation is not representative of what a real debate would look like since most, if not all, of that offense could probably be reasonably applied to the socialism cp).

 

Technically, yes it is. Socialism and communism are radically different. The late Orwell was a living demonstration. He was a diehard socialist, yet he hated communism with a fiery passion. From what you're saying, you sound like the only offense against socialism and communism is "OMGZ! CAP GUD!" This is hardly the case. Socialism and communism both have their individual strengths, flaws, and little nuances that separate them. Look into it, and you'll realize how easy it would be for a savvy debater to uphold the in-round advocacy of their 1NC cap bad K while kicking a Communism CP for a Socialism CP.

 

You haven't been involved in many counterplan debates, have you?

 

Subtle ad hom FTW!

 

Almost all counterplan 2AC's have tons of arguments that never become the focus of a 1AR. This includes tons of theory and solvency deficit arguments that most teams forget about. All you really need to do is read a short turn and then move on. A counterplan isn't that hard to answer in a short amount of time.

 

This was answered above for the most part. However, on the theory and solvency deficit stuff, there's a reason behind that. The aff needs something to create a time skew for the neg to break back even on time. The neg gets to read a 5-second CP text that forces the aff to make answers to the CP itself, to the net benefit, etc. that the neg is now allowed to just drop at any given moment. Those aff positions create a much-needed time tradeoff by taking longer to answer than to run. Without that time tradeoff, the affirmative's chances of winning a CP debate decrease dramatically.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why I missed this thread earlier.

 

The aff is going to have a hard time complaining about new constructive arguments in the neg's second constructive speech - especially when they seem to have made constructive arguments (i.e. an impact turn) in their own second constructive speech.

 

2NC counterplans are vicious, but the aff ought to be prepared. Don't expect "theory" to protect you from the best neg responses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know why I missed this thread earlier.

 

The aff is going to have a hard time complaining about new constructive arguments in the neg's second constructive speech - especially when they seem to have made constructive arguments (i.e. an impact turn) in their own second constructive speech.

 

Since when is an impact turn the same thing as a new world of advocacy?

 

2NC counterplans are vicious, but the aff ought to be prepared. Don't expect "theory" to protect you from the best neg responses.

 

I hate it when affs use "theory" to protect themselves. World Peace CP every round FTW. Where are those World Peace bad cards now, aff?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hate it when affs use "theory" to protect themselves. World Peace CP every round FTW. Where are those World Peace bad cards now, aff?

 

Sorry, I left my Caldwell cards at home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know. I was just being funny. If you'll look at my posts throughout the topic, you'll realize that.

 

I also believe that counterplanning out of 2AC M-turns is one of those arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First My interpretation is that the 1AC gets one unconditional plan text, and the 1NC gets one unconditional counter-advocacy text, be it the status quo, a counterplan or a kritik alternative. This interpretation is responsive because as I will explain below new 2NC counterplans are defacto conditionality.

 

1. The Timeskew arguments as explained above by others have never been answered by anyone- in a world of the 2NC counterplan all aff offense can be mooted, and the affirmative will never win. If you consider substantive abuse stories "aff whinning" then you're probably not a very objective judge.

 

2. Moreover, all the reasons why 2NC counterplans are "needed" are exactly the reasons they should NEVER be allowed. You say they are key to check 2AC add-ons? That's code for "they're key to moot both affirmative constructives."

 

3. they kill any possible education: They kill any kind of depth in debate by making the first 3 speeches irrelevant, and by forcing new arguments in the 1AR, preventing the 1AR from expanding on arguments already made. This reduces what is normally 52 minutes of expansive argument development into 15-20 minutes of confusion and disorder as every single speech is forced to make new arguments. Observe: 2NC- new counterplan. 1AR- new turns. 2NR- new responses to turns. 2AR- new responses to responses.

 

4. There is absolutely NO justification for new 2NC counterplans- there are only 2 objective standards to evaluate theoretical discussions.

A. Resolutional basis- the resolution requires both sides to engage in a singular stable advocacy as per the word "resolved." a new 2NC counterplan violates this because it shifts the 1NC advocacy, even if it only adds on to it. You will no doubt argue that the negative is not bound to the resolution and should not be held to these terms, my second subpoint answers this, however, the colon in the resolution also answers this. The world resolved is seperate from the resolution and is thereby a framing of how the entire discussion should take place, not merely what the affirmative should have to defend.

B. Reciprocity- Since the affirmative is bound to one unconditional advocacy the only way to ensure a fair division of ground is to allow one unconditional negative advocacy- allowing new 2NC counteplans, as noted above (by others) justifies 1AR intrinsicness perms, and is thereby theoretically unjustifiable. One unconditional advocacy for each side ensures a fair and equal division of ground.

 

This proves that the only objective and therby predictabily interpretation is one that disallows dispo/condo advocacies.

 

5. Finally there is simply no reason the negative needs conditionality, dispositionality, or new 2NC counterplans. The predictabile nature of the affirmative due to the fact that they have to be topical allows the negative to be prepared iwth either case specific turns/da's to defend the status quo with or Plan inclusive counterplans which can easily capture the affirmative side bias by mooting almost all of if not all of the 1AC and shifting the debating ono the question of the net benefit, on which the negative is almost certainly more prepared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

98% of the time 2NC CPs are ill-advised and bad debate, but that is saying something else entirely than 2NC CPs are “unfair” or “against the rules.” They are unstrategic for the neg because most of the time they will be underdeveloped and work against formulating a coherent 2NR. The teams you will beat with such a strategy are, more often than not, likely to be mediocre ones. Good teams will see 2NC CPs for what they are (in most situations): a desperation move by a negative that is behind on the debate with little chance of winning without resorting to “tricks.”

 

First My interpretation is that the 1AC gets one unconditional plan text, and the 1NC gets one unconditional counter-advocacy text, be it the status quo, a counterplan or a kritik alternative. This interpretation is responsive because as I will explain below new 2NC counterplans are defacto conditionality.

 

You say this as if conditionality is the most evil thing in debate and a warrant unto itself (conditionality=vote aff). However, saying the neg “justifies conditionality” or is, in fact, conditional is not a winning argument without first establishing that conditionality is bad. This is a debatable point and far from settled in the community.

 

1. The Timeskew arguments as explained above by others have never been answered by anyone- in a world of the 2NC counterplan all aff offense can be mooted, and the affirmative will never win. If you consider substantive abuse stories "aff whinning" then you're probably not a very objective judge.

 

I guess I’m not an objective judge. Somehow I’m not losing any sleep over this fact.

 

The only warrants I see to this argument (in this thread at least) is that the 2AC makes a response that is somehow mooted by the 2NC CP and this forces the 1AR to make new responses instead of developing the original 2AC response.

 

In other words, the aff has a preferred response to argument X. The neg denies the aff access to this preferred response. Therefore, the neg is unfair because it does not let the aff choose the ground for the debate.

 

You say this is abusive. I say this is strategic. If you’re not shifting the debate to advantageous ground (for you) in each and every round (denying access to these preferred responses), you have a lot to learn about this activity. Debate is a game, not an attempt to uncover truth.

 

I will agree there is a time skew problem inherent to 2NC CPS, but it’s for the neg, not the aff.

 

First, if you’re using a 2NC CP to answer a turn, you’re most likely undercovering the turn itself (since good answers are a better strategy than the CP). This means the 1AR/2AR only has to beat the CP to gain access to unanswered offense in the 2AR. This is a bad thing for the neg.

 

Second, running a 2NC CP means you are doing one of two things. Scenario A: you’re not taking the time to develop the argument fully because you don’t want to waste the time you need to beat the 2AC (the five second CP everyone is complaining about). However, a five second CP is unlikely to be a winning position (easily turned, permed, or taken out with five seconds of analytics by the 1AR) and you’re still probably not answering the original turn. This is a bad thing for the neg. Scenario B: you’re taking the time to develop a fully coherent position but, in so doing, you’re undercovering portions of the 2AC (if this is not true, then most likely, you’ve just heard a really crappy 2AC). The 1AR should be licking his or her chops at this point looking for arguments that will only have to be extended instead of developed, freeing up time to beat the new position, and, since the only real “answer” to the original turn is likely to be the CP, the 2AR is now in the drivers’ seat since all he or she has to do is beat the CP to gain access to unanswered offense on the flow. This is a bad thing for the negative.

 

Third, as evidenced from all the examples in this thread, most 2NC CPs will have a host of problems that have nothing to do with the strategy of running them in the first place—uncompetitive, no solvency advocate, unresponsive to the original turn, etc. If the argument was good, it would have been run in 1NC to give the block a chance to develop the argument. Developing arguments is what wins neg debates. Spreading your opponent out of the round (in terms of number of arguments) only works against mediocre teams. Running bad positions trades off with the time you need to develop the good ones. This is a bad thing for the negative.

 

2. Moreover, all the reasons why 2NC counterplans are "needed" are exactly the reasons they should NEVER be allowed. You say they are key to check 2AC add-ons? That's code for "they're key to moot both affirmative constructives."

 

The key word is “constructive.” The 2NC is also a constructive speech. There are few “rules” in debate. This is one of them.

 

3. they kill any possible education: They kill any kind of depth in debate by making the first 3 speeches irrelevant, and by forcing new arguments in the 1AR, preventing the 1AR from expanding on arguments already made. This reduces what is normally 52 minutes of expansive argument development into 15-20 minutes of confusion and disorder as every single speech is forced to make new arguments. Observe: 2NC- new counterplan. 1AR- new turns. 2NR- new responses to turns. 2AR- new responses to responses.

 

I agree it is almost always going to be bad debate, but such debates are almost always won by the aff (assuming relative parity in debating skills).

 

4. There is absolutely NO justification for new 2NC counterplans- there are only 2 objective standards to evaluate theoretical discussions.

A. Resolutional basis- the resolution requires both sides to engage in a singular stable advocacy as per the word "resolved." a new 2NC counterplan violates this because it shifts the 1NC advocacy, even if it only adds on to it. You will no doubt argue that the negative is not bound to the resolution and should not be held to these terms, my second subpoint answers this, however, the colon in the resolution also answers this. The world resolved is seperate from the resolution and is thereby a framing of how the entire discussion should take place, not merely what the affirmative should have to defend.

 

The resolution requires no such thing. Negation theory answers this.

 

B. Reciprocity- Since the affirmative is bound to one unconditional advocacy the only way to ensure a fair division of ground is to allow one unconditional negative advocacy- allowing new 2NC counteplans, as noted above (by others) justifies 1AR intrinsicness perms, and is thereby theoretically unjustifiable. One unconditional advocacy for each side ensures a fair and equal division of ground.

 

Aff and neg are doing different things and do not have the same burdens. Moreover, the aff is free to run all the advocacies they want, but the neg response to the aff abandoning a parametric defense of the resolution almost guarantees a neg ballot. The reason affs don’t defend the whole resolution anymore has nothing to do with the fact that it is a rule. They don’t do it anymore because it is a framework that almost guarantees a neg ballot.

 

5. Finally there is simply no reason the negative needs conditionality, dispositionality, or new 2NC counterplans. The predictabile nature of the affirmative due to the fact that they have to be topical allows the negative to be prepared iwth either case specific turns/da's to defend the status quo with or Plan inclusive counterplans which can easily capture the affirmative side bias by mooting almost all of if not all of the 1AC and shifting the debating ono the question of the net benefit, on which the negative is almost certainly more prepared.

 

These are separate issues. Nobody needs any kind of argument, which is something else entirely than claiming that such arguments are illegitimate. Bottom line: PICS bad/conditionality bad is not going to win many debates against good teams. Just because something is annoying and inconvenient to answer does not make it abusive.

 

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know. I was just being funny. If you'll look at my posts throughout the topic, you'll realize that.

 

I also believe that counterplanning out of 2AC M-turns is one of those arguments.

someone took you seriously...I was talking to them.

 

They are unstrategic for the neg because most of the time they will be underdeveloped and work against formulating a coherent 2NR. The teams you will beat with such a strategy are, more often than not, likely to be mediocre ones. Good teams will see 2NC CPs for what they are (in most situations): a desperation move by a negative that is behind on the debate with little chance of winning without resorting to “tricks.”

"Most of the time, this argument is run badly" is not terribly persuasive. When you justify this argument, you justify it being run by a good team that will run it to its full potential.

 

The only warrants I see to this argument (in this thread at least) is that the 2AC makes a response that is somehow mooted by the 2NC CP and this forces the 1AR to make new responses instead of developing the original 2AC response.

No there's are a couple arguments you're missing. The education argument: getting rid of speeches cuts out an hour of the debate, which, if nothing else, is a gigantic waste of time. I've also outlined an unanswered fairness claim that shows how non-competitive CP planks can be used to moot any impact turns the aff generates. That leaves the aff with no way to generate impact offense against a disad, period. If you want to look at my example, go ahead. Impact debates are good for fairness and education: if you want warrants, just ask.

 

the aff has a preferred response to argument X

Most affs DO prefer to generate offense. The world of the 2NC counterplan grants the neg a 10 second answer to moot all offense to a DA in the world where the aff impact turns in the 2AC.

 

If you’re not shifting the debate to advantageous ground (for you) in each and every round (denying access to these preferred responses), you have a lot to learn about this activity.

The neg already gets to do this by picking which generics to run. They do not get to do this by waving a magic wand to eliminate aff offense.

 

Debate is a game, not an attempt to uncover truth.

Why is this a better interpretation than "debate is a game that should be educational?"

 

First, if you’re using a 2NC CP to answer a turn, you’re most likely undercovering the turn itself (since good answers are a better strategy than the CP). This means the 1AR/2AR only has to beat the CP to gain access to unanswered offense in the 2AR.

That's just all not true. You aren't undercovering the turn, because you just fiated away the turn. Good answers aren't a better strategy than the CP in a world where the CP is legitimate, because the CP takes WAY less time. The 1AR can't beat the CP, because the neg can pick their mechanism for fiating away the impact turn to be something that the neg will never have in their box. Using my heg example, the mechanism for appeasing the muslims could be (since you clearly don't care about multi-actor fiat) that every Muslim decides to like the United States. Or that New Zealand decides to give the muslim world several trillion dollars and sign the check "George Bush." Sorry, I forgot to bring my New Zealand spending DA.

 

Second, running a 2NC CP means you are doing one of two things. Scenario A: you’re not taking the time to develop the argument fully because you don’t want to waste the time you need to beat the 2AC (the five second CP everyone is complaining about). However, a five second CP is unlikely to be a winning position (easily turned, permed, or taken out with five seconds of analytics by the 1AR) and you’re still probably not answering the original turn. This is a bad thing for the neg. Scenario B: you’re taking the time to develop a fully coherent position but, in so doing, you’re undercovering portions of the 2AC (if this is not true, then most likely, you’ve just heard a really crappy 2AC). The 1AR should be licking his or her chops at this point looking for arguments that will only have to be extended instead of developed, freeing up time to beat the new position, and, since the only real “answer” to the original turn is likely to be the CP, the 2AR is now in the drivers’ seat since all he or she has to do is beat the CP to gain access to unanswered offense on the flow. This is a bad thing for the negative.

That's all above.

 

uncompetitive, no solvency advocate, unresponsive to the original turn, etc. If the argument was good, it would have been run in 1NC to give the block a chance to develop the argument. Developing arguments is what wins neg debates. Spreading your opponent out of the round (in terms of number of arguments) only works against mediocre teams. Running bad positions trades off with the time you need to develop the good ones.

They don't have to be competitive, your world allows the neg to fiat solvency, and they can be written to be responsive to the original turn very easily. This isn't spreading your opponent out of the round, it's picking an abusive position that moots all aff offense.

 

The key word is “constructive.” The 2NC is also a constructive speech. There are few “rules” in debate. This is one of them.

Weren't you complaining about warrants above? Why does the word "constructive" mean "any new advocacy, regardless of how impossible it makes the debate for the affirmative?"

 

I agree it is almost always going to be bad debate, but such debates are almost always won by the aff (assuming relative parity in debating skills).

1. A bad debate is undesirable. You concede that by calling it bad.

2. This bad debate would almost always be won by the neg; that's above.

Moreover, the aff is free to run all the advocacies they want, but the neg response to the aff abandoning a parametric defense of the resolution almost guarantees a neg ballot. The reason affs don’t defend the whole resolution anymore has nothing to do with the fact that it is a rule. They don’t do it anymore because it is a framework that almost guarantees a neg ballot.

That's not true. In a world where the aff advocates multiple conditional plans in the 1AC, then pick one to go for in the 2AR, the neg will almost always lose becase they have to adequately cover 20 plan texts in the block. They undercover one, the 1AR goes for it, and suddenly the 2NR is way behind.

 

Nobody needs any kind of argument

Essariel was setting up defense against dispo good.

 

Just because something is annoying and inconvenient to answer does not make it abusive.

But if something is a magic wand and impossible to answer...odds are it makes debates bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Most of the time, this argument is run badly" is not terribly persuasive. When you justify this argument, you justify it being run by a good team that will run it to its full potential.

 

Which is how, exactly? Your five second New Zealand CP? I contend this is exactly what most 2NC CPs are like: silly, no solvency advocate, uncompetitive. No good team runs these types of arguments to their full potential because good teams understand you have to develop arguments to win them. Unless there are add-ons in the 2AC, there is no conceivable reason to run a 2NC CP.

 

The education argument: getting rid of speeches cuts out an hour of the debate, which, if nothing else, is a gigantic waste of time.

 

Education in debate is about forming argumentation (response to response), not content.

 

I've also outlined an unanswered fairness claim that shows how non-competitive CP planks can be used to moot any impact turns the aff generates.

 

Why would 2NC CPs have any less of a theoretical burden than a 1NC CP? You're constructing a strawman.

 

Most affs DO prefer to generate offense. The world of the 2NC counterplan grants the neg a 10 second answer to moot all offense to a DA in the world where the aff impact turns in the 2AC.

 

Assuming, of course, that the aff just sighs, "Aw, shucks," and curls up into a fetal position for the rest of the round. In the real world a good team is going to dispose of ten second CP in about as much time as it took to make the argument. They're also going to point out that the original turn is either unanswered (except for the mighty New Zealand CP) or undercovered.

 

I've been at least tangentially involved in this activity for a number of years (about fifteen) at just about every level of competition, and I could count on one hand the number of rounds that were decided by an argument whose original articulation took 5-10 seconds. I wonder why that is? Probably because 5 second arguments (and I don't want to overgeneralize, but here it is) suck. The New Zealand CP is exhibit A.

 

 

Why is this a better interpretation than "debate is a game that should be educational?"

 

The education is in learning how to make strategic argumentation.

 

The 1AR can't beat the CP, because the neg can pick their mechanism for fiating away the impact turn to be something that the neg will never have in their box.

 

Assuming, of course, that magically the theoretical burdens of CPs were to suddenly disappear because they were run in the 2NC. Strawman.

 

They don't have to be competitive, your world allows the neg to fiat solvency, and they can be written to be responsive to the original turn very easily. This isn't spreading your opponent out of the round, it's picking an abusive position that moots all aff offense.

 

Assuming, of course, that magically the theoretical burdens of CPs were to suddenly disappear because they were run in the 2NC. Strawman.

 

Why does the word "constructive" mean "any new advocacy...

 

Uh, yes.

 

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kanmalachoa

Since when is an impact turn the same thing as a new world of advocacy?
Well, leaving aside whether a counterplan is an advocacy, the point is that they're both constructive arguments.

Tell you what. You run all your whole new world of an impact debate in the 1AC, and I'll only test opportunity costs in the 1NC. Deal?

...a magic wand and impossible to answer...
I'm just not impressed. All that is different is the order in which the arguments are made. Yes, it's pretty mean and gnarley to wait until I hear your disad answers to decide where your case has the biggest opportunity costs. Give me mean and gnarley answers then. Deal with it.

 

mld

Just because something is annoying and inconvenient to answer does not make it abusive.
DING! DING! DING! DING! DING!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would competition check abuse? Not that 2NC counterplans ever are or need to be for their skeevy purposes. Just wondering if that would do anything for anyone....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I contend this is exactly what most 2NC CPs are like: silly

Good argument.

 

no solvency advocate

Another round winner.

 

uncompetitive

You clearly just haven't been paying attention. Go back and read my other posts.

 

Education in debate is about forming argumentation (response to response), not content.

That's an argument for me. Fewer speeches=less response to response.

 

Why would 2NC CPs have any less of a theoretical burden than a 1NC CP? You're constructing a strawman.

This'll be below.

 

Assuming, of course, that the aff just sighs, "Aw, shucks," and curls up into a fetal position for the rest of the round. In the real world a good team is going to dispose of ten second CP in about as much time as it took to make the argument.

That's funny, because so far, the best you've been able to come up with is "that's silly."

 

Remember an analytic DA won't cut it, because its impacts have to compete with a carded DA that now has no responsive turns on it.

 

Also, rememer I don't think this argument is really sweet. I think it's illegitimate in the same way the world peace CP is.

 

've been at least tangentially involved in this activity for a number of years

Oh, sorry. I didn't realize that you were involved in debate. I take back everything.

 

5 second arguments (and I don't want to overgeneralize, but here it is) suck. The New Zealand CP is exhibit A.

I hope you expect better warrants from the kids you judge...

 

The education is in learning how to make strategic argumentation.

That justifies the "no one hurts anyone else ever again" counterplan.

 

Assuming, of course, that magically the theoretical burdens of CPs were to suddenly disappear because they were run in the 2NC. Strawman.

I'm applying the argumentation you've already made in the thread. You've said that substantive abuse stories are aff whining (I'm not paraphrasing when I use the term substantive abuse story), that denying key aff responses is simply strategic, and that the counterplans I've outlined above are merely annoying and inconvenient. That all seems to justify basically any (ab)use of neg fiat.

 

Not to mention, the scenario I outlined doesn't even require extra abuse of neg fiat, assuming international fiat is ok (and that's a pretty easy debate for the neg).

 

TOMAK

leaving aside whether a counterplan is an advocacy

Why are we doing that?

 

You run all your whole new world of an impact debate in the 1AC

Since when are impact turns a "whole new world of an impact debate?" Your argument is that the aff should predict in the 1AC what DAs the neg will run with what impact scenarios.

 

I'll only test opportunity costs in the 1NC.

How does a non-competitive counterplan test opportunity costs?

 

Give me mean and gnarley answers then. Deal with it.

There's no reason an aff should have the cards to support these mean and gnarly answers. Plus, when the neg can word the counterplan to spike out of any mean and gnarly answers they want, the aff runs into some pretty deep shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's an argument for me. Fewer speeches=less response to response.

 

No, there's still response to response. It's just new response to new response with the aff getting the last word in this (hypothetical) round. My contention is that this activity is about strategic argumentation, not learning new stuff. The new stuff you learn every year is just the chess board. Actually learning to move the pieces effectively is what debate is (or should) be about.

 

That's funny, because so far, the best you've been able to come up with is "that's silly."

 

I thought this would be self-evident and my thinking readily extrapolated from my nutshell defense. Apparently I was wrong.

 

There is never going to be a solvency advocate for a New Zealand cp because nobody writes cards that New Zealand has billion dollar slush funds to pay off "terrorists" (whatever that means). Further, there are never going to be solvency advocates for the idea that writing checks from New Zealand bank accounts is going to stop violence. If such cards do exist, I contend they will not be very good and easily indictable and/or turned with common-sense analytics. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say your typical New Zealand cp will be uncarded. I find it hard to believe somebody would spend time researching a cp that has such shaky theoretical underpinnings and counter-intuitive scenario in response to an anticipated turn, when it would have been so much more effective to just research the damn turn in the first place. Further, I just can't envision a good 2N choosing to blow this type of argument up in the 2NR unless something has gone horribly, drastically wrong.

 

The cp is uncompetitive because the judge acts as a decision-maker in the round: should we enact the affirmative advocacy? There is no decision-making model that has the resources of the U.S. and New Zealand at hand; there is no opportunity cost because there is no scarcity of resources. You wouldn't have to give anything up to do both.

 

Assuming you want to argue this point from a best policy option stance, you would point out that a negative should only get reciprocal fiat, otherwise you get things like anarchy or world government counter-plans. I think this is a weaker argument, but best policy option cp theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny in the first place.

 

It is also uncompetitive because there is no conceivable reason why you couldn't do both. All the 1AR has to say is, "Perm: do both," and let the 2AR fill in the warrants. The neg just gave the aff a free pass to do this unless the neg spent a lot of time in the 2NC making pre-empts.

 

If the neg is going to all the trouble to establish true competition and read carded scenarios in response to a 2AC turn, then they are undercovering something else. Further, they're putting all their eggs in one basket unless they also answer the turn. If they're taking the time to answer the turn, run a fully developed cp, and they're not undercovering something else, then the 2AC was either horrible or the neg is just toying with you and is so amazingly good they could win with any argument.

 

2NC cps might beat the 1AR (although not a good one), but they won't beat the 2AR who will get the chance to blow up any number of objections in totally unpredicatable ways (for the negative). This is reason enough not to run new 2NC positions (and why good teams don't do it any more). It's not custom (in fact the opposite is true-- it's a comparatively recent development to blow up everything from your 1NC advocacy), it's not politeness, and it's not because it's against the rules. It's because good negatives don't try to beat the 1AR (hoping he or she will allocate time poorly); they try to beat the 2AR.

 

Note I am not defending object fiat or fiating solvency. Nor do I defend 2NC cps as good strategy or good debate (in fact, the opposite is true as far as I am concerned).

 

My only contention is that any theoretically legit cp that could be run in the 1NC could also be run in 2NC as they are both constructive speeches. If you want to punt out of a turn (or counterplan out uniqueness for that matter), this is an option that is open to you. It is up to the affirmative to shut it down, and if you spend your time whining about how unfair it is that it was run in the 2NC, you're trading off with the time you need to shut it down. However, since the first articulation will be in the 2NC, the 1AR is given a free pass to be blippy or sandbag warrants for the 2AR because he or she will be the first responder. 2NC cps are not silver bullets.

 

I'm applying the argumentation you've already made in the thread. You've said that substantive abuse stories are aff whining (I'm not paraphrasing when I use the term substantive abuse story), that denying key aff responses is simply strategic, and that the counterplans I've outlined above are merely annoying and inconvenient. That all seems to justify basically any (ab)use of neg fiat.

 

Again, if the cp is theoretically legit, then, yes, you should have the option to run it. It's no different than PIC'ing out of an advantage. Yes, it sucks for you when the other team tries to take away the ground you preferred to defend. Your options at that point are to either contest it or shift your attack to something else. If you haven't built in that flexibility, you need to ask yourself if you are really prepared on the aff.

 

Not to mention, the scenario I outlined doesn't even require extra abuse of neg fiat, assuming international fiat is ok (and that's a pretty easy debate for the neg).

 

I disagree. I think it's an easy for the 2AR to win because the 2NR won't be able to predict his or her development of the argument (and can't complain about this since the 1AR was the first responder).

 

I also disagree that there is such a thing as neg fiat per se. Under an opportunity cost model this concept is irrelevant.

 

Matt

 

--- EDIT ---

 

I was thinking about this today (mainly because it's summer and I don't have anything better to do), and I don't really think we're that far apart on this issue. You claim your New Zealand cp is an example of why neg's shouldn't be able to do these kinds of things, and I agree that the New Zealand cp is suspect on a variety of levels. I spend time telling why I think the cp is suspect not because I want to out-debate you in a high school debate forum (frankly I could care less if I "win" that argument), but because I want to illustrate that nine out of ten times these are not arguments you need to worry about as an aff. They are beatable if you don't panic and revert to whine mode. In fact, they might even be a good thing for the aff.

 

The difference between us seems to be that I want to see a debate on object fiat or opportunity cost or competition and most of the time what I hear is a debate about how the mere fact of running an argument is unfair, whether it's a conditional advocacy, a 2nc cp, or whatever else one side or other would prefer not to debate. It's frustrating to hear because it's almost always so much more productive just to roll with it and beat the argument on merit (including theoretical reasons why such-and-such an argument doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny). If I have not made this (my main concern) clear (or clear enough), I apologize.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why are we doing that? (leaving aside whether a CP is an advocacy)
To cut down on typing, I will concede that if the neg treats their CP as an advocacy, it probably should be in the 1NC. Here, I am treating CPs as tests of opportunity costs.

 

Since when are impact turns a "whole new world of an impact debate?" Your argument is that the aff should predict in the 1AC what DAs the neg will run with what impact scenarios.
...and your argument is that the neg should predict in the 1NC what impact turns the aff will will run, and counterplan out of them then.

 

How does a non-competitive counterplan test opportunity costs?
Of course, the counterplan still has to be competitive. The aff still has the right to perm all they want.

 

There's no reason an aff should have the cards to support these mean and gnarly answers.
All that is different here is the order of presentation. Your evidence doesn't magically disappear.

 

Plus, when the neg can word the counterplan to spike out of any mean and gnarly answers they want, the aff runs into some pretty deep shit.
The neg can always tailor their counterplan to avoid unpleasant turns. I don't see why there ought to be any restriction on waiting until I'm certain what your are running.

 

 

 

I understand that a lot of negs who would run 2NC counterplans would do so only because they think it will make life difficult for the 1AR. I don't think this is uniquely different from running a solvency dump in the 2NC. If they're bad arguments, they're easy and fast to answer; they're only hard to answer if they're genuniely good arguments. But there are plenty of times when a counterplan really is the most logical response to a 2AC impact turn. Perhaps an example or two will help.

 

Suppose the 1NC runs a plethora of genuinely good disads, including one economy DA. Suppose the 2AC runs dedev. The most realistic and cogent response is that there are much more effective ways to dedevelop than pass a worthless and disadvantageous piece of legislation that will also inadvertantly crash the economy. Running some sort of dedev counterplan in the 2NC would be a very logical answer. The debate focuses back on the advantages and disadvantages of the plan via the net benefits debate.

Are you going to tell me that the neg had to see the aff's ridiculous argument coming in the 1NC? Or are you going to claim that they had to debate straight-up against an impact turn that is also an opportunity cost to the plan?

 

Another example. Suppose the 2AC concedes that they link to all the disads, and then runs Spark. If Spark had been run in the 1AC, my favorite neg answer is to run disarm, CTBT, NFU, or some other hippie non-prolif counterplan, and argue that nuclear war is preventable if we do such-and-such a plan that the Spark authors don't take into account (hey, it might even be true!).

Are you saying that since the aff waited until the 2AC to make their impact turn, I'm simply not allowed to make what I think is the most logical answer? I just don't see how that's reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw a readiness/deference debate this year and it included how Bush was going to test mini-nukes. The 2AC garnered a shitload of offense on the neg's hege DA because of the nukes, so the 2NC cp'd to ban mini nukes. It was probably the best panel I had seen all year (Sems of state districts) and they all voted neg. Seems legit to me. It's not like the 1AR could answer the CP anyway... maybe read theory or something but they can't put any real arguments on it. It's just a strategical thing to do. Especially if there isn't much evidence saying mini-nuke testing good. -_-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was thinking about this today (mainly because it's summer and I don't have anything better to do), and I don't really think we're that far apart on this issue. You claim your New Zealand cp is an example of why neg's shouldn't be able to do these kinds of things, and I agree that the New Zealand cp is suspect on a variety of levels. I spend time telling why I think the cp is suspect not because I want to out-debate you in a high school debate forum (frankly I could care less if I "win" that argument), but because I want to illustrate that nine out of ten times these are not arguments you need to worry about as an aff. They are beatable if you don't panic and revert to whine mode. In fact, they might even be a good thing for the aff.

We'll start here, because the specifics of the New Zealand example aren't really important. What is important is that a good neg who decides to run this type of argumentation would have ample time to come up with a CP to solve the impact in a better way. (I'm focusing on your "money won't solve muslim violence" argument, because I think the others are less valid concerns). Perhaps the Iranian government comes out in favor of plan. Or, Osama Bin Ladin makes some remarks to the effect of "just kidding!" I'm not going to put in the time to come up with the ideal counterplan (I AM busy this summer), the one that would give the muslim community enough of an nudge to only disagree with american foreign policy as much as they do now, but I hope you'll agree that a creative negative would and could.

 

No, there's still response to response. It's just new response to new response with the aff getting the last word in this (hypothetical) round. My contention is that this activity is about strategic argumentation, not learning new stuff. The new stuff you learn every year is just the chess board. Actually learning to move the pieces effectively is what debate is (or should) be about.

1. I'm not sure why that's a good interpretation. Debate would be a less good activity if debaters didn't learn all that new stuff every year. Learning to move the pieces is part of the equation, but there's no reason it should be all of the equation.

2. Late development of an issue makes for a bad chess game, with fewer strategic choices. Not to push the chess metaphor too far, but to abbreviate the opening of a chess game is to leave out the most important strategic decision a chess player makes. Likewise, a 2NC counterplan rushes the debate, resulting in the debaters being able to make fewer "moves."

 

I just can't envision a good 2N choosing to blow this type of argument up in the 2NR unless something has gone horribly, drastically wrong.

The CP requires a little explaining, but most of that will be fleshed out in cross-ex. Really, it's a device to make turns go away, which means that the focus of the 2NR will be the DA.

 

there is no conceivable reason why you couldn't do both. All the 1AR has to say is, "Perm: do both," and let the 2AR fill in the warrants. The neg just gave the aff a free pass to do this unless the neg spent a lot of time in the 2NC making pre-empts.

Please refer above to why the perm doesn't solve the problem. I'll be the first to admit these counterplans are uncompetitive. That doesn't reduce their strategic usefulness for the neg.

 

My only contention is that any theoretically legit cp that could be run in the 1NC could also be run in 2NC as they are both constructive speeches.

Again, I don't know why the word "constructive" means "new advocacies are fine." The term constructive was applied to these speeches long before the idea of "off-case arguments" became part of debate. Thus, saying that a rule of debate is that constructive means new positions seems somewhat ludicrous. There is no offensive reason why a world in which 2NCs can run new advocacies is better than a world in which the stock positions of the debate are established in the first two constructives.

 

Your options at that point are to either contest it or shift your attack to something else. If you haven't built in that flexibility, you need to ask yourself if you are really prepared on the aff.

That's not an option in this case. The aff can't shift its attack to something else (the something else would have to be the link) because they've already articulated impact turns (which the neg presumably conceded). We've already talked about contesting it.

 

I disagree. I think it's an easy for the 2AR to win because the 2NR won't be able to predict his or her development of the argument (and can't complain about this since the 1AR was the first responder).

This will become a yes-no debate, but I'll at least put out there that I think a negative, particularly if they roll out a few points of offense in the time they save by not answering impact turns, should have a relatively easy time closing doors for the 2AR. The neg has at least 4 minutes to spend on a theory debate that they are probably on the right side of (if you disagree that the neg is on the right side of the theory debate, that's fine. I'm not interested in getting into an IFiat good/bad debate here).

 

TOMAK:

...and your argument is that the neg should predict in the 1NC what impact turns the aff will will run, and counterplan out of them then.

No, my argument is that counterplanning out of impact turns is almost always illegitimate, but that the time tradeoff for the aff of just deciding to link turn instead of impact turn in the 2AC makes them better in the 1NC.

 

Of course, the counterplan still has to be competitive. The aff still has the right to perm all they want.

See previous posts for why this counterplan is uncompetitive and a perm is non-responsive.

 

All that is different here is the order of presentation. Your evidence doesn't magically disappear.

Review the beginning of this thread. I'm not sure you understand fully the scenario we're discussing. If you think you do, I apologize, and I'll explain further.

 

The neg can always tailor their counterplan to avoid unpleasant turns. I don't see why there ought to be any restriction on waiting until I'm certain what your are running.

Again, we're talking about tailoring the counterplan to spike out of turns in a non-competitive way. That's uniquely different than tweaks in wording.

 

RE: the dedev and spark examples

 

You are almost certainly better off defending your 1NC impact. First, spark and dedev require enough 2AC development that you have more than enough time in the block to answer them. Second, it's probably a better debate for you to defend the assumptions you make in the 1NC instead of simply throwing them away. Third, you picked particularly squirrelly impact turns, but the fact is that this type of counterplan can be used on ANY impact turn, and can be worded in a way that makes it extremely difficult to answer. Fourth, your argument about mean and gnarly answers seems much more applicable to an argument like dedev than a contrived and unpredictable counterplan.

 

The difference between responding to the 1AC and responding to the 2AC is that spark in the 1AC is unpredictable, whereas by running a nuclear war impact in the 1NC, you assume the risk that the aff will respond with spark. There's a level of predictability that allows you to prepare (with relative ease) a defense to spark.

 

EDIT: To bring focus away from the New Zealand-style counterplan and back to the broader issue of whether 2NC counterplans are good, there needs to be an offensive reason that debate is better with 2NC counterplans. The only one offered thus far is that tomak thinks they're the most reasonable answer to spark and dedev. Even if that's true, the impact to being able to make the "most reasonable" answer instead of simply defending 1NC assumptions is minimal at best. There's at least a risk that 2NC counterplans are bad for education, since there's no offense there, either. That means that odds are, debate is a better place without them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we're talking about tailoring the counterplan to spike out of turns in a non-competitive way.

NO WE ARE NOT

 

Will you PLEASE stop refering back to your two non-competitive counterplans. There is absolutely NO reason putting them in the 2NC makes them more or less legitimate. If they're run in the 1NC they're still illegitimate. An illegitimate counterplan is an illegitimate counterplan NO MATTER WHEN YOU RUN IT.

 

I want new answers to my first four points.

 

First, spark and dedev require enough 2AC development that you have more than enough time in the block to answer them. Second, it's probably a better debate for you to defend the assumptions you make in the 1NC instead of simply throwing them away.
If I can counterplan out of these impacts, why the hell should I have to answer them AT ALL? ? I want to throw them away. It's the best way to prove that the aff's plan is a terrible idea. If I can counterplan, it proves that the impact turns are irrelevant, and we can focus back on the other disads.

 

Third, you picked particularly squirrelly impact turns, but the fact is that this type of counterplan can be used on ANY impact turn, and can be worded in a way that makes it extremely difficult to answer. Fourth, your argument about mean and gnarly answers seems much more applicable to an argument like dedev than a contrived and unpredictable counterplan.
Well, it's applicable to legitimate counterplans.

 

the impact to being able to make the "most reasonable" answer instead of simply defending 1NC assumptions is minimal at best
What's wrong with making allowable the most logical responses? Isn't that the whole point of debate theory - to foster good debates?

 

there needs to be an offensive reason that debate is better with 2NC counterplans

I have an idea. You seem to more-or-less like my two examples. Let's take the next baby steps. We'll play a game: you tell me what disads the 1NC ran and what the 2AC impact turn was, and I'll tell you the 2NC counterplan I would run.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s a scenario where I think new 2NC CPs are totally sweet and legit-

1AC- NSA wiretaps, no WOT adv.

1NC- WOT DA

2AC- Link t/s on the WOT DA about how NSA wiretaps trade off with more better ways to catch/stop terrorists

2NC CP- U.S.F.G. should gives all necessary resources to whatever program(s) NSA wiretaps are pulling resources from.

I don’t think this is a very obscure scenario- seems like there are a ton of analogous situations.

 

My interp (sorta)- 2NC CPs are legit ONLY when whatever is being CPed out of didn’t come up till the 2AC. This doesn’t include CP amendments which are B.S.

 

These 2NC CPs are sweet-

I think that teams with good strategic affs will rarely if ever lose because of a 2NC CP- In my mind all of the advantages, add-ons, link turns to neg DAs, etc. for a well written strategic affirmative should be intrinsic to that plan (only the plan can access them). Intrinsic reasons why ur aff is good can’t be CPed out. This is true when the CP is read in the 1NC, it would still be true if the neg read a new CP in the 2NR.

Allowing CPs in the 1NC forces affs to write good strategic cases, if they don’t they’ll lose to a smart neg team who finds another way to solve the harm that avoids some DA. Banning the military cause hege is bad might win some debates. Banning the military SOLELY because the DOE needs some $ for research solar power and arguing that the U.S.F.G. will (because of current budgeting priorities) send $1,000, that it saved because of the plan, to fund that research won’t. The CP to pull that money from somewhere else with a hege DA seems unbeatable if that’s the aff’s only advantage.

Forcing the aff to write good strategic cases is good for education- it focuses debate on relevant issues i.e. the ones activists, congressppl, lobbyists, etc. consider (whether the military is good or bad) and not the ones only debaters consider (the solar power argument).Why should this stop after the 1ac. The aff is essentially forced to write a strategic 1AC or they’ll lose to a smart 1NC CP, but in the 2AC they can start reading irrelevant/non-intrinsic add-ons and link turns and maybe even win because of them? The threat of 2NC CPs checks back this stupidity and à more educational debates.

 

AT Unfair

Marking smart arguments solve this- if you’re add-on or link turns are intrinsic to ur aff, a 2NC CP shouldn’t improve the neg’s chances of winning in the slightest.

 

AT Kills in depth debate

-Our offense short-circuits this- What’s the point of an in depth debate if its about useless stuff. I think a somewhat less in depth debate about something educational (why the U.S.F.G should do X cause its sweet) would probably be better than a really in depth debate about something a lot less educational (why the U.S.F.G. should do X for stupid reasons like in the solar power example)

-Turn- In depth research- Debating about why policies should be pass for relevant reasons forces us to do the most educational kind of research. Instead of looking for a 2 line card on lexis about how solar power is currently a top budget priority and if any money is pulled from any program in the near future will surely be sent there, which probably doesn’t teach us much about how policies are actually made, we end up looking into the reasons policymakers have for wanting to do and not do certain things (good case args/disads. etc.). That research is more educational (you’re terminal impact), and more in-depth (better lit base).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NO WE ARE NOT

Sure we are. There's absolutely no distinction between the New Zealand example I gave and the de-develop by other means CP. Perhaps I was confusing when I said non-competitive. What I meant was that the counterplan was not mutually exclusive, and that the net-benefit was non-intrinsic to the plan. I suppose the counterplan competes by net-benefits, but it's hardly competition in the normal sense of the term, since the aff isn't being competed with.

 

If they're run in the 1NC they're still illegitimate.

That's interesting, because I don't understand what theoretical distinction we can draw between the two examples I gave and the two you gave.

 

I'll also contest that they're equally illegitimate in the 1NC (this argument, btw, was above and unanswered). Counterplanning out of a potential impact turn 1NC gives the aff a hell of a lot more strategic ground (any) than counterplanning out of an actual impact turn in the 2NC. If the counterplan appears in the 1NC, the aff can simply link turn instead, and gain the time tradeoff of however long it took to read the CP. If it's worth that risk to the neg to keep the aff from impact turning, fine. In the 2NC, the aff has no offensive responses, because link turning leaves them with a double turn.

 

I want new answers to my first four points.

Sorry.

 

If I can counterplan out of these impacts, why the hell should I have to answer them AT ALL? ? I want to throw them away. It's the best way to prove that the aff's plan is a terrible idea. If I can counterplan, it proves that the impact turns are irrelevant, and we can focus back on the other disads.

It doesn't prove ANYTHING about the aff plan. All it proves is that there's an alternate way to access the impact turns, which will be true of ANY impact turn the aff could ever run. In fact, countcrackula's post demonstrates that it's often true of link turns. You in effect deny the aff most, if not any, access to offense on the disad.

 

In addition, this argument's circular: you take for granted that you are allowed to counterplan out of these impact turns, which is what you're trying to prove.

 

Well, it's applicable to legitimate counterplans.

You ignore both my third and fourth points here. Had you not ignored my third point, we would have each been saved a lot of (virtual) breath, since it articulates the argument I made in this post about there being no distinction between New Zealand and CTBT. By ignoring my fourth argument, you're granting me substantial defense against your "right" to counterplan out of impact turns. De-dev's not even all that mean and nasty. You don't NEED, as a neg, to counterplan out of it, do you? Give me mean and nasty answers.

 

Really, as long as I have this defense, the education argument will outweigh anything else.

 

What's wrong with making allowable the most logical responses? Isn't that the whole point of debate theory - to foster good debates?

I never said there was something wrong with it; my argument was defensive. It's still valid, though: there's no impact to the most logical responses, nor is there a way to determine what those responses are. I think the most logical response to spark is to debate it on-face, because it's probably not true, and even if it is, most judges will give you the benefit of the doubt. You avoid an uphill theory battle (even if you think 2NC CP's are the most legit thing in the world, they're far from conventional neg moves), meaning that the judge is looking for ways to vote for you rather than against you.

 

Whether or not what I just said is completely accurate is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the "most logical response" is a completely arbitrary label.

 

I have an idea. You seem to more-or-less like my two examples. Let's take the next baby steps. We'll play a game: you tell me what disads the 1NC ran and what the 2AC impact turn was, and I'll tell you the 2NC counterplan I would run.

That's a cute game, but it doesn't respond to the argument it follows. That argument was important, so I'll reiterate it: there needs to be an offensive reason debate is better with 2NC counterplans, and thus far, there isn't.

 

 

COUNTCRACKULA

2NC CPs are legit ONLY when whatever is being CPed out of didn’t come up till the 2AC. This doesn’t include CP amendments which are B.S.

That'll include both of my examples and both of Tomak's, so this debate is all above.

 

Forcing the aff to write good strategic cases is good for education- it focuses debate on relevant issues i.e. the ones activists, congressppl, lobbyists, etc. consider (whether the military is good or bad) and not the ones only debaters consider (the solar power argument).

This is the first decent offense I've seen all thread, but I don't think it's accurate.

 

1. It limits out generic DAs with nuclear war scenarios. If your standard for a relevant issue is one that policy-makers consider, even your average politics DA (one of the more likely to be germane to the life of a policy-maker) certainly doesn't qualify.

 

2. The solar power argument is closer to something a policy-maker MIGHT be considering. Back in the day, when we cared about a balanced budget, policy-makers made decisions about where to give funding, knowing that they would trade off with other areas.

 

3. Your argument amounts to giving the negative the power to debate in the ideal status quo--one in which solar power has all the funding it needs, one in which all anti-terrorism programs are working in tip-top condition, etc. The reason there are restrictions on the concept we call "negative fiat" is so that the negative doesn't get away with that.

 

4. Your argument also limits out the kritik debate. If you're not going to allow that the kritik debate is good, start a thread in the kritik forum and we can debate it there.

 

Marking smart arguments solve this- if you’re add-on or link turns are intrinsic to ur aff, a 2NC CP shouldn’t improve the neg’s chances of winning in the slightest.

By running an off-case argument, the neg assumes the resposibility for taking the debate away from the case. If the aff is making non-intrinsic answers, it's the neg's fault.

 

Also, this isn't responsive to the scenario of counterplanning out of an impact turn or----this is a new way these counterplans can be abusive----counterplanning out of an impact to a link-turned DA.

 

AT Kills in depth debate

-Our offense short-circuits this- What’s the point of an in depth debate if its about useless stuff. I think a somewhat less in depth debate about something educational (why the U.S.F.G should do X cause its sweet) would probably be better than a really in depth debate about something a lot less educational (why the U.S.F.G. should do X for stupid reasons like in the solar power example)

This is mostly answered above; your definition of "useless" also seems arbitrary.

 

Debating about why policies should be pass for relevant reasons forces us to do the most educational kind of research. Instead of looking for a 2 line card on lexis about how solar power is currently a top budget priority and if any money is pulled from any program in the near future will surely be sent there, which probably doesn’t teach us much about how policies are actually made, we end up looking into the reasons policymakers have for wanting to do and not do certain things (good case args/disads. etc.).

Like a politics DA? Plus, your solar power example is going to require impact and internal link research, which gives valuable education on the effectiveness/lack thereof of a given program to stopping climate change, in addition to the importance/lack thereof of climate change in the first place (assuming climate change is your impact).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's absolutely no distinction between the New Zealand example I gave and the de-develop by other means CP.
Answer me this: why is the NZ CP illegitimate? Would it be legitimate if it were run in the 1NC? I can't engage you on this until you explain.

 

Perhaps I was confusing when I said non-competitive. What I meant was that the counterplan was not mutually exclusive, and that the net-benefit was non-intrinsic to the plan.
The net benefits are the other disads you've run in the round. If they link, they're intrinsic to the plan.

 

I suppose the counterplan competes by net-benefits, but it's hardly competition in the normal sense of the term, since the aff isn't being competed with.
Oh my... You should really talk to your coach about this. If doing the counterplan is superior to doing the plan and counterplan or any other permutation of the two that includes the entire plan, the counterplan is competitive. It would be a bad idea to do plan because the best world is one that does not include it. If this isn't clear, start a new thread in the "help me" forum about competition via net benefits and I would be glad to explain further.

Either way, this is irrelevant. I agree that if the counterplan is shown to be non-competitive, the aff beats it. Being introduced in the 2NC does not make a counterplan non-competitive; that depends on the content of the counterplan itself and the perm debate.

 

I'll also contest that they're equally illegitimate in the 1NC (this argument, btw, was above and unanswered)
You never argued that they were illegit in the 1NC. You arguments were:

1. The aff spent time running dedev/spark, so the neg isn't losing the time trade-off. (I conceded long ago that the aff may have time allocation problems answering a 2NC counterplan.)

2. It's better debate for the neg to "defend their 1NC assumptions," (I answered: the counterplan proves that the impact turns are irrelevant, and the debate can focus back on the other disads.)

3. It is possible counterplan out of any impact turn. (I doubt, but concede anyway to save time.)

4. "Fourth, your argument about mean and gnarly answers seems much more applicable to an argument like dedev than a contrived and unpredictable counterplan." (I don't think this actually is an argument against anything at all)

 

None of these say that running CTBT against a case that is claiming Spark as an advantage is illegitimate.

 

But feel free to contest away.

 

Counterplanning out of a potential impact turn 1NC gives the aff a hell of a lot more strategic ground (any) than counterplanning out of an actual impact turn in the 2NC. If the counterplan appears in the 1NC, the aff can simply link turn instead, and gain the time tradeoff of however long it took to read the CP. If it's worth that risk to the neg to keep the aff from impact turning, fine.
I would go as far as saying that the neg would be wasting their time counterplanning out of an impact turn that the aff probably won't run. It only makes sense for the neg would only run a dedevelop CP in the 1NC if the aff ran dedev as an advantage in the 1AC. The aff chose to wait until the 2AC to make life difficult for the neg.

If the neg is going to CP out of an advantage that doesn't come until the 2AC, they can only realistically do this in the 2NC. If this is a debate that should happen at all, which you don't seem to contest here, it MUST come later.

 

In the 2NC, the aff has no offensive responses, because link turning leaves them with a double turn.
Don't give me that. The aff has an entire 1AC of offense against the counterplan. Presumably, they've also answered the other disads the neg has run, so they're sitting pretty good in the net benefits debate.

Also note that the impact turn is NOT likely to be a net benefit to the 2NC counterplan. The aff's plan and the counterplan both claim it as an advantage - they cancel each other out. Link turning the counterplanned-out impact wouldn't do either team any good. The net benefits are the OTHER disads that the neg ran. If the aff beats or outweighs them, they still win.

 

It doesn't prove ANYTHING about the aff plan. All it proves is that there's an alternate way to access the impact turns
That's a pretty big thing to prove! There's an alternate policy option that gets the same advantage. It is superior to the plan because it doesn't link to the other disads (which the neg will have to prove) and the disads outweigh case (which the neg will also have to prove). The aff is going to find it difficult to justify mooting out this debate.

 

In addition, this argument's circular: you take for granted that you are allowed to counterplan out of these impact turns, which is what you're trying to prove.
Uhh... No. My argument is: "It's the best way to prove that the aff's plan is a terrible idea." I think that's a pretty good justification!

 

... no distinction between New Zealand and CTBT
I'll answer this after you tell me why the NZ CP is illegit only if run in the 2NC.

 

De-dev's not even all that mean and nasty. You don't NEED, as a neg, to counterplan out of it, do you? Give me mean and nasty answers. Really, as long as I have this defense, the education argument will outweigh anything else.

Well, the neg doesn't technically need any counterplans at all to win rounds. Tactical necessity is not their justification. We allow counterplans because:

The commonsense view that the value of an action is the difference

between the worth of taking that action and the worth of continuing to

not take that action, all other things being equal, is incorrect. The

value of an action is the difference between the worth of taking that

action and the worth of the best action which could be taken otherwise,

but would have to be foregone if the posited action were taken.

-Korcok "Roads Still Not Taken"

 

I am arguing that this does not change after the 2AC, and that for the aff to choose impact turns that only work in comparison to the status quo is poor debate.

 

Group these:

the "most logical response" is a completely arbitrary label.
there's no impact to the most logical responses, nor is there a way to determine what those responses are
LOL!!! Are you serious!? THIS is what you're going to argue?

Showing that the impact turn is only an advantage to the case when the plan is compared to the status quo is a pretty logical response. Period.

This is a pretty strange argument for you to be making after all you've said about the importance of education and clash.

 

I think the most logical response to spark is to debate it on-face, because BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH
But the reason Spark isn't true is that there are things that we can do that WILL prevent arms development - like ratify CTBT, enforce NPT, etc. That IS debating it on-face. Feel free to make saying "nu-uh!" your own strategy, but there's much more solvency evidence for CTBT and NPT. The whole point of NPT and CTBT is to prevent new generations of nuclear weapons.

Really though, I couldn't care less what you think is the best answer to Spark. You have to admit that mine is at least relevant. Should a Spark debater get away with not having to research and debate this simply by putting it in the 2AC?

 

there needs to be an offensive reason debate is better with 2NC counterplans
Actually, the burden of proof falls on you; you're claiming that a certain facet of constructive arguments may not be run in the second negative constructive. So far, I've seen you make the following claims to justify:

1. Puts time pressure on the 1AR since they have to answer a new argument and their 2AC offense is useless. (Conceded, unimportant)

2. The aff spent all kinds of time running the impact turn, so it's more educational to pretend it's an advantage and only let the neg compare it to the status quo. (Debate in process - My claim is that proving that the impact is irrelevant and debating the other disads is best for debate)

3. There are sooooooo many different kinds of counterplans that suck up aff advantageds and spike out of aff answers, and running them in the 2NC is uniquely bad... somehow (You never really explained this)

4. It's an advocacy shift. (Mutually dropped)

5. Non-competitive 2NC counterplans are somehow justified if you allow competitive 2NC counterplans. Or maybe it's that any counterplan that's competitive in the 1NC is magically non-competitive if run in the 2NC. You haven't been clear enough for me to tell which point you're trying to make. (Probably irrelevant to the legitimacy of 2NC counterplans, but you can still elaborate)

6. It's more strategic for the neg to defend against the turns straight-up anyway. (Answered this post)

7. "Contrived and unpredictable" counterplans are contrived and unpredictable because they're run in the 2NC. (Simply wrong)

8. Look at me! I can come up with examples of illegitimate counterplans, and there's "no distinction" between my examples and yours. (Waiting for clarification before I answer)

9. The aff can't go back and link turn the disad they just impact turned, so they're being abused. (Answered this post)

10. You also said in passing something about "the role of the negative versus the role of the affirmative," but never elaborated. (Dropped, addressed to someone else)

 

Am I missing one? Because I don't think you're going to win any of these.

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...