Jump to content
heggo

Multiple Plans as Planks

Recommended Posts

So what does everybody think about this by way of topicality, theory, and overall legitimacy:

The idea would be to run one over arching plan with planks that could rightfully be plans on their own.

For instance, a plan text could go as follows:

 

"Thus we stand resolved that the (USFG or some other actor) should establish a policy substantially increasing participation in the United States Armed Forces.

Plank 1: (End Strength)

Plank 2: (Special Operations)

Plank 3: (Linguists)"

 

All of the planks are part of an overall idea of improving the military and US hege as a whole, but could stand alone also. So would this be legitimate? The only problem I can think of would be the topicality violation "a" and that their may be a legit abuse story. Also, would a good response to the "a" topicality violation be that the end strength, spec ops, and linguists are all part of one large policy and that real world policies arent 1 pointed? A definition of policy as a goal could support that interpretation.

 

(Please dont lecture me about how this would be terrible because hege is bad or because it links to militarism or some other reason specific to the strategy as a whole. Please keep it on theory and t.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you want to do this?

 

If I were you, theory or topicality would be the least of my worries. What do you plan on doing when the Negative runs a counterplan to exclude one of those planks? What happens when they run an even more specific counterplan to exclude a very small portion of one of the planks?

 

If you want to engage in hegemony debates, choose one of those cases and prepare it. If you like them all, then work on them all and run them in different rounds. However, there is no strategic reason to combine them.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm only interested in the theory and topicality aspect of this debate. You see, this is just an example and I already have something interesting worked out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The theory you can win if you know the right arguments, in other words, its winnable. I have two planks to my plan, no one has said I cant have more, but if they did one answer would be the aff can choose the ground as long as its topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yea too many planks becomes really susceptible to pics. its legit as an idea, but all the neg has to do is straight turn one of the planks, which you probably only spent about 2 mins on in the 1AC since you read 3 of them...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PIC's would destroy it, plus a good T debater would stick you with extra-t

 

Extra-T... my ass. If the 1NC reads a PIC and 8 minutes of offense against one plank, they can't really claim a legitimate abuse/ground skew problem... at best, the T debate comes down to competing interps, which the aff can say that the PIC reciprocates the depth vs. breadth analysis from the neg, which will be the core reason why the neg has a T voter. T wouldn't be that big of a deal, in my opinion.

 

But yes, PICs would kill it.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

extra t would be an argument you run with a few diffrent d.a.'s because then the aff would read something about how one of their planks solves for the d.a., which gives you a good story to go with, but of course you wouldnt need to run t when you can just pic out of one of the planks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as all of those options are topical, it's a 100% theoretically legitimate affirmative. Terrible idea, but a legitimate affirmative. If they are all topical then there's no real theoretical reason why anything would be extra-topical. The advantages stem from plan planks that are within the resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh and T- Policy is singular would be nice to run too.
There are still Negs foolish enough to run that? Can you send them to my part of the country, please? ;)

 

With regard to the original inquiry: Multiple independent plan planks (each with a corresponding justification/advantage) had a brief heyday back when folks still thought the purpose of the debate was to "affirm" or "negate" the resolution. Nowadays, when counterplans offering trivial tweaks to plan text are considered legitimate, it doesn't make much sense...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As long as all of those options are topical, it's a 100% theoretically legitimate affirmative. Terrible idea, but a legitimate affirmative. If they are all topical then there's no real theoretical reason why anything would be extra-topical. The advantages stem from plan planks that are within the resolution.

 

The idea was whats being discussed here. Multiple planks are usually bad and would hurt you, but in some cases, like mine, they are necessary and gaurantee solvency. As long as they are both topical, theres no reason you'd lose on topicality :S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody that advocates running "a"-T or "policy"-T care to justify how doing the proposed plan text would violate either. I mean, if a policy is a plan or course of action, and the aff can only have one (via the word a), how is the above plan not a single course of action.

 

Like, just because it has more than one part, how does cause it to suddenly be more than one policy. I think the most damning thing to this topicality is that in the resolution, the policy has to increase numbers of people serving. Based on that, even if it is a three-prong approach, doing the hypothetical plan text talked about earlier in the thread is still a SINGLE policy to increase people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the most damning thing to this topicality is that in the resolution, the policy has to increase numbers of people serving. Based on that, even if it is a three-prong approach, doing the hypothetical plan text talked about earlier in the thread is still a SINGLE policy to increase people.
Furthermore, the phrase "one or more" in the rez explicitly authorizes this sort of approach, if Affs want to avail themselves of it. To paraphrase a frequently-heard argument from constitutional law: The resolution cannot be interpreted to prohibit what its text explicitly permits...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NO problem on the T debate at all. Policy-increase troops in 1-yatta, 2-yatta, 3-yatta. I mean a Policy can have tons of implications a single policy can send food to africa and get food from florida in one fail swoop, 2 things being done, 1 policy. i mean so many things can be passed inside of a policy. Was the patriot act a policy? i dont know if its classified as one but if it is, then yeah it would serve as a good example, or maybe im dumb. I do have an idea tho, just run a plan that increases people in military period. then claim all the advantages from linguists, special operations or w/e, and end strength. and say those troops increased in plan would be distributed accordingly.

 

But regardless of all previous statements cuz they could be completely theoretically unsound. PIC would kill all they have to do is show one plank bad and PIC out of it and you cant do anything about it.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"one or more" refers to multiple programs rather than multiple ways of solving for one...right?
Correct, but my point is that "policy = singular" can't be sustained when the rez itself indicates that "a policy" could include multiple actions and multiple forms of national service. If Affplan's focus is on just one type of national service (in the original example, the armed forces), this type of violation makes even less sense...
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what does everybody think about this by way of topicality, theory, and overall legitimacy:

The idea would be to run one over arching plan with planks that could rightfully be plans on their own.

For instance, a plan text could go as follows:

 

"Thus we stand resolved that the (USFG or some other actor) should establish a policy substantially increasing participation in the United States Armed Forces.

Plank 1: (End Strength)

Plank 2: (Special Operations)

Plank 3: (Linguists)"

 

All of the planks are part of an overall idea of improving the military and US hege as a whole, but could stand alone also. So would this be legitimate? The only problem I can think of would be the topicality violation "a" and that their may be a legit abuse story. Also, would a good response to the "a" topicality violation be that the end strength, spec ops, and linguists are all part of one large policy and that real world policies arent 1 pointed? A definition of policy as a goal could support that interpretation.

 

(Please dont lecture me about how this would be terrible because hege is bad or because it links to militarism or some other reason specific to the strategy as a whole. Please keep it on theory and t.)

 

Sigh, I hit this, but there were 4 plans...However, the weakness was that the plans were random (Space Corps, Peace Corps, Draft, Americorps). THe 2AC severed out of all but the Peace Corp plan (which we had the least on-case stuff on, and the sketchiest link).

 

The affs argument was that the point of debate was to prove the resolution a good idea, and if ANY part was a good idea, aff should win. It was kinda like the exact opposite of hypotesting (where the entirity of the rez must be defended). So we ran hypotesting good on framework, claimed our DA links still applied to ALL 4 plans. Along with a little Aff conditionality bad and Severence bad. The point was to force the plan to spend tons of money and PC so our links would be magnified.

 

We also ran 4 Ts, one specific to each plan. We claimed that all 4 original Plans had to be topical, since T otherwise the aff was being abusive. We also gave a compeling abuse reciprocity story.

 

"If the aff is allowed to run 4 plans, the neg must be allowed to attack them all. Various reasons were given, the most important being fairness, which was key to education and the activity."

 

The aff advocated game theory, but we had an excellent turn that debate had to be educational if the game were to be continued to be played, in that schools would not sponsor it if it were not.

 

We went for theory/framework (the debate had become fairly muddled), and spent a minute and a half on the dropped draft T. We won aff cond. bad, but the judge voted on the T, since w/o aff conditionality the aff has to defend all 4 plans.

 

The problem with 3 plans is that you grant the neg bigger links, without really increasing your impacts. If you sever out of 2 in the 2AC, you will probably lose on abuse theory. If not, you will lose becauseof how you magnify the links. In addition, each plan will likely be underdeveloped, and if you sanbag in the 2AC, the 1NC or 2NC will CP you. I would simply say do Spec Ops and End Strength, but not linguists, and run a specific DA or K to linguists, along with lots of linguist case turns.

 

However, that brings up an interesting argument for you - PICs check any abuse by the aff. Also, try to be careful on Extra-T, 10 point XT good, b/c you clearly are XT. Roll with it, try it out, have fun and see where you end up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what does everybody think about this by way of topicality, theory, and overall legitimacy:

The idea would be to run one over arching plan with planks that could rightfully be plans on their own.

For instance, a plan text could go as follows:

 

"Thus we stand resolved that the (USFG or some other actor) should establish a policy substantially increasing participation in the United States Armed Forces.

Plank 1: (End Strength)

Plank 2: (Special Operations)

Plank 3: (Linguists)"

 

All of the planks are part of an overall idea of improving the military and US hege as a whole, but could stand alone also. So would this be legitimate? The only problem I can think of would be the topicality violation "a" and that their may be a legit abuse story. Also, would a good response to the "a" topicality violation be that the end strength, spec ops, and linguists are all part of one large policy and that real world policies arent 1 pointed? A definition of policy as a goal could support that interpretation.

 

(Please dont lecture me about how this would be terrible because hege is bad or because it links to militarism or some other reason specific to the strategy as a whole. Please keep it on theory and t.)

I would think of this as topical, though generally unwise and questionable on legitimacy. The only exception would be if the plans all served the same goal - As in P1 - Linguistics (armed forces) and P2 - USCG (Port Security) and then the case is entirely about stopping terrorism through better intelligence and more and better port security. In sucha case, I would be inclined to disregard extra-topicality, as the policy is to stop terrorism, and it has multiple ways of reaching that goal. You still have the tactical problem of openning up more DAs, however, which is far more harmful than any additional solvency could be helpful. (of course, this is talking about how a debate round plays out, and not how policies are actually created)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s take a look at how this case would turn out. You would have to have 3 Significances for each sub-plan, 3 Inherencies, and 3 solvencies. In the end, you would have to talk less about each plan, present fewer cards on them. This will make each of them weaker and easier to pull apart. Your plan will, in the end, be weaker due to it being built of weak parts. Note though, I see nothing rule wise wrong with this.

 

Moral 1: Dividing and conquering is not always the best way.

Moral 2: If this was a good way to debate, everyone would be doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow. Some anonymous bottom-feeder neg-repped me for something I wrote in this thread? WTF, man... :confused:

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
extra t would be an argument you run with a few diffrent d.a.'s because then the aff would read something about how one of their planks solves for the d.a., which gives you a good story to go with, but of course you wouldnt need to run t when you can just pic out of one of the planks

How would this plan be extra T at all?

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...