Jump to content
tennisguy1313

Consult CP bad

Recommended Posts

Jacks aff ground because the only remaining ground is to impact turn, but there's just no lit saying the US should have bad relations with X.

 

And it isn't predictable because of all of the potential countries.

 

There was a great thread on this a while back, I posted my whole block. Search for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There was a great thread on this a while back, I posted my whole block. Search for it.
I'll save everyone some trouble. The thread Micah refers to can be read here...
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll start a debate on this even though the thread obviously doesn't call for it...

 

Jacks aff ground because the only remaining ground is to impact turn, but there's just no lit saying the US should have bad relations with X.

 

1. Conditional nature of consultation structurally ensures aff ground - we grant you ground to make delay/"says no" arguments

2. These arguments would be damning - countries refusing to consult would kill relations/not solve the aff

3. This isn't unique to consult CPs: here are other arguments you could have made against the net-benefit, just like any other disad

a) relations low now

B) plan helps relations

c) consultation hurts relations

 

And it isn't predictable because of all of the potential countries.

 

1. Counter-interpretation - we can only consult with countries with which we already have an existing framework for consultation

2. This limits the consultation debate severely - ex: NATO, JASA are organizations which we have consulting mechanisms with. We do not have consulting mechanisms with Uganda, etc.

3. There's only literature for consultation with certain organizations

4. We have evidence specific to your plan - proves there's aff literature too, you should have found that

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll start a debate on this even though the thread obviously doesn't call for it...

1. Conditional nature of consultation structurally ensures aff ground - we grant you ground to make delay/"says no" arguments

2. These arguments would be damning - countries refusing to consult would kill relations/not solve the aff

3. This isn't unique to consult CPs: here are other arguments you could have made against the net-benefit, just like any other disad

a) relations low now

B) plan helps relations

c) consultation hurts relations

1. This leaves us with defensive arguments with no impact. That's a bad division of ground. Offense v. Defense means offense will always win.

And for the most part the majority of consult teams will have evidence indicating the country says yes.

2. Saying no to plan is not the same as failure to consult, that leaves the disad intact and a chance of the disad means judge votes neg.

3. A) more defense

B) The link turn lit just doesn't exist. Moreover, the counterplan helps relations more with a chance of a disad, there's still little ground here.

C) uhh that's a bad arg, and is torn apart by the counterplan solvency.

 

Also, this completely jacks aff ground because it's moving target fiat. It says that the changes to plan are so small to keep aff solvency, but large enough to avoid the disad links.

 

1. Counter-interpretation - we can only consult with countries with which we already have an existing framework for consultation

2. This limits the consultation debate severely - ex: NATO, JASA are organizations which we have consulting mechanisms with. We do not have consulting mechanisms with Uganda, etc.

3. There's only literature for consultation with certain organizations

4. We have evidence specific to your plan - proves there's aff literature too, you should have found that

1. That still bites the predictability argument. We consult a slew of countries in the squo...

2. Cross apply # 1...

3. And there's still a ton of actors even with the lit... which for the most part errs neg

4. And this aff literature says what? That we should have bad relations? No. All of the aff literature is defensive, this bites the ground argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. This leaves us with defensive arguments with no impact. That's a bad division of ground. Offense v. Defense means offense will always win.

 

Your aff has no impact? Your problem.

 

And for the most part the majority of consult teams will have evidence indicating the country says yes.

 

OH NOES, TIME TO GIVE UP

 

2. Saying no to plan is not the same as failure to consult, that leaves the disad intact and a chance of the disad means judge votes neg

 

You can't find any evidence that says if all we did was propose massively unpopular things to other countries, that might hurt relations?

 

3. A) more defense

B) The link turn lit just doesn't exist. Moreover, the counterplan helps relations more with a chance of a disad, there's still little ground here.

 

1. You don't understand how link turns work, do you - if you control uniqueness, offense can only go in your favor

2. All you have to do is find a card that says X would like it if we did the plan and you win. They will never have a card that is both a) more specific and B) that says lack of consultation, even on popular issues, kills relations

3. This is where your aff comes in - even if you're just beating them to a tie on the link turn debate, marginal risk of a solvency deficit means you weigh the impacts of your aff. That is how ANY CP/DA debate will go down

 

C) uhh that's a bad arg, and is torn apart by the counterplan solvency.

 

Politics DAs often suck - doesn't mean that's not core neg ground. Any aff that strapped into that argument would win. You still have the potential to win with that argument - sides equalize as long as there's opportunities for ground

 

Also, this completely jacks aff ground because it's moving target fiat. It says that the changes to plan are so small to keep aff solvency, but large enough to avoid the disad links.

 

1. No

2. We don't fiat that X makes changes or even agrees to consult. If you have ev that says otherwise, we'll debate about it

 

1. That still bites the predictability argument. We consult a slew of countries in the squo...

 

No. That's not true - at least not for BINDING consultation, which is what our CP is about. Do some reading about US consultation in general first.

 

3. And there's still a ton of actors even with the lit... which for the most part errs neg

 

There's really no way to resolve this debate at this point because I'm too lazy to go find evidence on this right now. This is wrong. And you're telling me there seriously aren't enough "unilat good" authors out there to satisfy you?

 

4. And this aff literature says what? That we should have bad relations? No. All of the aff literature is defensive, this bites the ground argument.

 

My argument was about predictability - not lit bias. "Aff lit is bad" as an independent argument forces us to run stupid arguments because it's too hard for you to win otherwise - you don't vote down CPs because they're too true

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your aff has no impact? Your problem.

Do you not understand the premise of a consult counterplan? The point is to solve aff plan. Leveraging advantages against the counterplan is pointless.

 

You can't find any evidence that says if all we did was propose massively unpopular things to other countries, that might hurt relations?

That's a bad argument because all the neg has to do is cross apply the counterplan solvency and the warrants in the card. Also, the aff doesn't even access this argument unless they find a card saying the plan is unpopular. Furthermore, I don't think this lit exists because consultation by very nature is designed to boost relations [inseart cp solvency here ]Moreover, it's not strategic against a team that runs consult consistently because they're familiar with the evidence, whereas the aff isn't.

 

1. You don't understand how link turns work, do you - if you control uniqueness, offense can only go in your favor

2. All you have to do is find a card that says X would like it if we did the plan and you win. They will never have a card that is both a) more specific and B) that says lack of consultation, even on popular issues, kills relations

3. This is where your aff comes in - even if you're just beating them to a tie on the link turn debate, marginal risk of a solvency deficit means you weigh the impacts of your aff. That is how ANY CP/DA debate will go down

1. No shit? I didn't know that! ... Oh wait.. And the counterplan generates uniqueness for itself, the aff can't access the offense.

This still doesn't respond to the fact the link turn lit just doesn't exist.

2. That's the counterplan solvency... the solvency says they like plan and will says yes. The aff doesn't access this argument because it isn't consultation... although that's debatable.

3. Cross apply the above. The link turn lit doesn't exist. So there's only solvency deficit arguments.

 

Politics DAs often suck - doesn't mean that's not core neg ground. Any aff that strapped into that argument would win. You still have the potential to win with that argument - sides equalize as long as there's opportunities for ground

1. Wait.. since when are consult counterplans core neg ground?

2. Sides don't equalize when the only remaining ground is the impact turn and if that lit doesn't exist, then the aff's ground is hosed.

 

1. No

2. We don't fiat that X makes changes or even agrees to consult. If you have ev that says otherwise, we'll debate about it

hahaha. If you run it that way it's game over, solvency deficit, and the plan outweighs the disad.

Also, that swamps your link, if X doesn't make modifications to the plan then they could care less if we pass plan without consultation.

 

No. That's not true - at least not for BINDING consultation, which is what our CP is about. Do some reading about US consultation in general first.

Hey, thanks for implying my ignorance... I've run consult before and gotten to finals a few tournies with it, thanks.

Moreover, the list of countries with binding consultation is still huuuuuuuuugggge.

For instance, the US has binding consultation under the CWC to consult every country under the charter about anything related...

There's really no way to resolve this debate at this point because I'm too lazy to go find evidence on this right now. This is wrong. And you're telling me there seriously aren't enough "unilat good" authors out there to satisfy you?

What are you talking about? The counterplan is unilateral action...

Unless of course you mean the isolationist perspective...

 

My argument was about predictability - not lit bias. "Aff lit is bad" as an independent argument forces us to run stupid arguments because it's too hard for you to win otherwise - you don't vote down CPs because they're too true

Literature determines predictability. If things aren't based in lit they aren't predictable.

The counterplan isn't "too true", all of our crappy defensive arguments disprove this... but then again these defensive arguments have no real impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First - this has gotten way off topic - tis supposed to be a theory debate

 

Do you not understand the premise of a consult counterplan? The point is to solve aff plan. Leveraging advantages against the counterplan is pointless.

 

Yes, and the point of solvency deficit arguments is to prove that the CP doesn't solve your aff. That makes advantages into offense.

 

That's a bad argument because all the neg has to do is cross apply the counterplan solvency and the warrants in the card. Also, the aff doesn't even access this argument unless they find a card saying the plan is unpopular. Furthermore, I don't think this lit exists because consultation by very nature is designed to boost relations [inseart cp solvency here ]Moreover, it's not strategic against a team that runs consult consistently because they're familiar with the evidence, whereas the aff isn't.

 

I'm not going to go find evidence for you. This doesn't implicate the theoretical legitimacy of the CP at all.

 

1. No shit? I didn't know that! ... Oh wait.. And the counterplan generates uniqueness for itself, the aff can't access the offense.

 

Wrong. "Relations high now" means that the CP avoids the link - plan would kill relations because it doesn't consult - "relations low now" means you have "plan popular" ground which helps to prove relations not key. Even if it isn't as much offense as you want, it takes out the net-benefit, which means aff wins - any risk of solvency deficit

 

2. That's the counterplan solvency... the solvency says they like plan and will says yes. The aff doesn't access this argument because it isn't consultation... although that's debatable.

 

Again - there's no specific lit for this - all you have to do is cut one card for your case to prove consultation not key and make other solvency deficit arguments.

 

It's not impossible to make solvency deficit arguments and link turns at the same time if you do the research - ex: NATO's 1-party veto system

 

1. Wait.. since when are consult counterplans core neg ground?

 

Not at all what I was talking about.

 

2. Sides don't equalize when the only remaining ground is the impact turn and if that lit doesn't exist, then the aff's ground is hosed.

 

Why do only you have this illustrious knowledge of the inner workings of this elusive "lit"? I've seen hundred-page files of EU relations bad, Japan impact turns ready to go...

 

hahaha. If you run it that way it's game over, solvency deficit, and the plan outweighs the disad.

 

This is the only way to run it without it being multi-actor and intl fiat. This is no different than fiating that X participates, unless you have a card that is like "X would totally ignore us when we consulted them"

 

Also, that swamps your link, if X doesn't make modifications to the plan then they could care less if we pass plan without consultation.

 

No... That is the whole "form outweighs substance" debate... and even if this is true, it proves aff offense on the CP defeats theoretical issues

 

Hey, thanks for implying my ignorance... I've run consult before and gotten to finals a few tournies with it, thanks.

 

Calm down, I wasn't trying to provoke you.

 

Moreover, the list of countries with binding consultation is still huuuuuuuuugggge.

For instance, the US has binding consultation under the CWC to consult every country under the charter about anything related...

 

...about anything related to chemical weapons.

 

What are you talking about? The counterplan is unilateral action...

Unless of course you mean the isolationist perspective...

 

???? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the argument for the perm is that consultation is normal means and

And if consult isn’t normal means, there are three implications, none of which are good for the negative.

A: There’s no link, X doesn’t expect to be consulted.

B: Rising Expectations: If we consult X now they’ll expect to be consulted on future decisions, but that won’t happen. Over the long term, therefore we collapse any marginal gains wrought and turn the net benefit.

C: This impact is empirically denied, We haven’t been consulting on past policies, including much bigger ones than the plan. Where’s the impact?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
permutation--do the cp

 

Finally. geez.

 

Oh and, double bind:

 

A. They say yes and the perm solves.

B. They say no and there's a solvency deficit to the CP...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
whats your warrant for that perm? (text comp.... consultation can happen during plan implementations etc...)

 

the argument for the perm is that consultation CPs aren't remotely competitive under any interpretation of competition. resolved means the topic comittee voted on the topic. the plan doesnt mandate immediacy or certainty.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know about that, I mean the resolved debate is up for interpretation, and I dont feel like looking around for a shit load of definitions. But how could you justify that permutation but say that affirmatives could not advocate their plan in the future? It seems like affirmatives have to defend immediate implementation which would jack the genuine nature of consultation.

 

Oh andd Msacko, I think most affirmatives would lose the consultation is normal means debate, unless they have a special aff (like I know stephen's peacekeeping aff had an ok shot at winning that argument). But for 99% of the affirmatives out there, we wont genuinly consult any one.

 

I think there are other arguments to be made for the perm, im not a die hard consult fan. I just think saying the plan does not happen immediatly is not a very good interpretation of fiat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont know about that, I mean the resolved debate is up for interpretation, and I dont feel like looking around for a shit load of definitions. But how could you justify that permutation but say that affirmatives could not advocate their plan in the future? It seems like affirmatives have to defend immediate implementation which would jack the genuine nature of consultation.

 

Oh andd Msacko, I think most affirmatives would lose the consultation is normal means debate, unless they have a special aff (like I know stephen's peacekeeping aff had an ok shot at winning that argument). But for 99% of the affirmatives out there, we wont genuinly consult any one.

 

I think there are other arguments to be made for the perm, im not a die hard consult fan. I just think saying the plan does not happen immediatly is not a very good interpretation of fiat.

 

well, if we say that there can be a delay to the plan's passage or implementation, then that can be incredibly abusive-spiking out of politics links becomes easy then. plus, if you can say plan doesn't happen (as in, not defending certainty) the neg loses all its ground. saying plan isn't certain with fiat is ludicrous.

 

plus, the perm still violates certainty, because the plan might not be done under the cp, depending on how the consult concludes. The aff can't perm this or its mega-severance. As long as the neg has some offense on non-binding consultation vs. binding consultation, the perm should fail.

 

I think the argument for the perm is that consultation is normal means and

And if consult isn’t normal means, there are three implications, none of which are good for the negative.

A: There’s no link, X doesn’t expect to be consulted.

B: Rising Expectations: If we consult X now they’ll expect to be consulted on future decisions, but that won’t happen. Over the long term, therefore we collapse any marginal gains wrought and turn the net benefit.

C: This impact is empirically denied, We haven’t been consulting on past policies, including much bigger ones than the plan. Where’s the impact?

 

1. Not True: The shell ev says that we do not genuinly consult on things like the plan now in a genuine fashion.

2. It’s unpredictable because there is no legal requirement to consult nor any precedents in the status quo.

3. Not in the Plan Text:

A. Makes it a moving target because it now includes things that are not specified in the text. The aff should be held to the plan because doing otherwise skews fairness, destroys prep, and constitutes bad advocacy

B. It’s a Voter: the actual abuse of eliminating many of our arguments justifies a neg ballot. Even if you don’t vote, it justifies neg leniency on other issues

4. Bad Interp of Normal Means:

A. Our interp: normal means only covers implementation and is accomplished through minimal means necessary

B. Their interp is bad because it invites plan spikes that eliminate most neg args, destroying ground and undermining fairness

C. It’s a voter: it creates in-round abuse by eliminating neg args and justifies future abuse

5. It’s Irrelevant: normal means only allows for false consultation because fiat dictates that they ignore any input into the policy, proving they still link to the net benefit

6. Counterplan is Different than the Plan: We do the plan as modified by 'x' input. Not only is it not done until after consultation, unlike the plan, but the CP is a fundamentally different action.

 

the empirically denied is a different arg, and a debate that will only be resolved in individual debates depending on the evidence. but the neg should have some sort of brink card. they also should have a spillover card, so consultation will continue as a result of this consultation.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plan happens immediately. There is not a part of the plan text which mandates that this occurs. If the negative changes the nature of how the plan is implemented, the permutation can change that for the plan. It doesn't hurt your ground because the aff can't "spike out" of a DA unless a CP introduced an element of time.

 

Think about what you've just said. So the Delay CP is competitive? Thats a great interpretation of debate.

 

 

The affirmative also defends that the plan will happen. There is not a part of the plan text which mandates certainty. If the negative introduces an element of conditionality into a CP text, it is permutable.

 

Allowing the negative to base competition for their CP off "normal means" or implementation measures of the plan creates artifically competitive CPs because the negative gets to "create" or "fiat in" the METHOD of competition. (I.E. A Consultation, A Condition, Veto-Cheato, Line-Item Veto etc). This means aff offense vs these CPs is EXTERNAL to the plan text, which jacks affirmative predictability because the negative can always create a new form of normal means. If the affirmative writes their plan, it is reasonable for them to prepare to defend against PICs out of part of the plan, because that is a literature base that

A) Actually exists as a RESPONSE to the plan and

B) Is predictable because the affirmative gets to choose what they put in their plan.

 

The link to fairness is clearly larger in the aff's direction--the number of arguments in the negative arsenal these days is astounding and negative strategy (unless you're abominably lazy) isn't DEPENDANT on process CPs.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The plan happens immediately. There is not a part of the plan text which mandates that this occurs. If the negative changes the nature of how the plan is implemented, the permutation can change that for the plan. It doesn't hurt your ground because the aff can't "spike out" of a DA unless a CP introduced an element of time.

 

Think about what you've just said. So the Delay CP is competitive? Thats a great interpretation of debate.

 

Ok, your interpretation seems to be a lot similiar to textual competition, which is something I dont really feel like getting into. But a few arguments. Your interpretation would limit out legitimate PICs. For example, gitmo. You should be able to PIC out of the ughyurs (sp) if the affirmatives says all detainess will be tried or whatever. This is not in the plan text, only the negative introduces the question of ughyurs. Your distinction between process and plan text seems to break down at this point, and seems kinda arbitrary. Your interpretation also allows affs to spike out of politics DAs by saying it happens late. The DA begged the question of when / how the plan goes down, so the affirmative by your interpretaiton can say, no wait normal means is next session of congress. You will say the perm changes this because the text of the CP changes this. I think functional competition is better for debate, if you disagree, then we can agree to disagree.

 

Yes, I do think the delay CP is competitive. If the delay CP is bad for debate (which I will agree with you that it is) you should be able to defeat it on theory.

 

 

Allowing the negative to base competition for their CP off "normal means" or implementation measures of the plan creates artifically competitive CPs because the negative gets to "create" or "fiat in" the METHOD of competition. (I.E. A Consultation, A Condition, Veto-Cheato, Line-Item Veto etc). This means aff offense vs these CPs is EXTERNAL to the plan text, which jacks affirmative predictability because the negative can always create a new form of normal means. If the affirmative writes their plan, it is reasonable for them to prepare to defend against PICs out of part of the plan, because that is a literature base that

A) Actually exists as a RESPONSE to the plan and

B) Is predictable because the affirmative gets to choose what they put in their plan.

 

The link to fairness is clearly larger in the aff's direction--the number of arguments in the negative arsenal these days is astounding and negative strategy (unless you're abominably lazy) isn't DEPENDANT on process CPs.

 

Sure, I think negs should find other strategies. But theoretical objections to these CPs should be made external to competition arguments. These CPs are bad for debate. But allowing the affirmative to shift the meaning of their plan text upon the introduction of the negative strategies jacks neg ground. I mean, if your interpretation is just the negative cant inroduce a conditional timeframe to the plan, that seems to be a bit arbitrary. If what the negative introduces is different that what affirmatives should defend otherwise (temporality, enforcement, etc) than the CP should not change that. This would otherwise make most PICs not competitive, along with CPs to ban the plan (because the action of banning was only introduced by the negative) or even change the actor (courts CP if the aff says USFG), because the negative CP would only clarify what the aff said in the 1AC.

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...