Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Felix Hoenikker

China Counterplan

Is a China agent counterplan legit?  

124 members have voted

  1. 1. Is a China agent counterplan legit?

    • Yes
      106
    • No
      18


Recommended Posts

Counterplan: China does X.

 

Is it legit? Or does this stray into the realm of object fiat? This seems to me a discussion that needs to happen since I see this counterplan having the potential to become popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's legit, I've got a half dozen such counterplans in my files from previous years. It's a pretty predictable agent, and there's good solvency evidence for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way this wouldn't work is if the aff is down on their international fiat bad arguments. The only persuasive thing I've heard is predictability because all of the possible ocuntries that can do the plan. But I think that's a case where the literature would check back because only countries that can do the plan and would do the plan have solvency authors.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well my question is in regards to the international fiat debate and the object fiat debate (ie if the impact to the nb is China flips out and nukes shit is solving the net benefit object fiat if China is the actor?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely legit. As long as the counterplan is competitive you're fine. Teams will read theory against you, but that is something you just have to have blocked out answers to. As long as you word the counterplan text right so it's competitive you should be fine. Woodlands ran a China funding CP this year at Emory that didn't compete against the perm at all, so just make sure you don't make a mistake like that. The link cards for the net benefit should be pretty hot this year. International fiat isn't that great of an argument, but teams will run it nonetheless; I'd write a good block to the object fiat debate, it's absolutely winnable on the negative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well my question is in regards to the international fiat debate and the object fiat debate (ie if the impact to the nb is China flips out and nukes shit is solving the net benefit object fiat if China is the actor?).

 

I guess in that sense it's a lot like consultation counterplans. jap gets mad if we don't consult, so we consult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a more compelling net benefit may be that US influence kills Chinese soft power (the cards are money on that question) and in order to make up for the decline in soft power China invades Taiwan to boost its hard power and then impact it with Straits Times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't there multiple net benefits to this counterplan? U.S. politics, African resistance to U.S. intermeddling, increased U.S. soft power bad, China needs to win the competition for Africa, China needs to improve it's international standing, U.S. spending equals economic collapse, spending by China leads to overthrow of the government, which is good . . .

 

I think actor counterplans are going to be very difficult to beat next year. I really don't see why the United States needs to be involved in most cases. You might find some "U.S. is key" evidence, but I'm wondering what the warrant would be.

 

I think an enterprising brief writer could offer a Thursday file every week with a different actor counterplan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aren't there multiple net benefits to this counterplan? U.S. politics, African resistance to U.S. intermeddling, increased U.S. soft power bad, China needs to win the competition for Africa, China needs to improve it's international standing, U.S. spending equals economic collapse, spending by China leads to overthrow of the government, which is good . . .

 

Yes, there are a lot of trivial net benefits as well as all the generics like politics and spending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, there are a lot of trivial net benefits as well as all the generics like politics and spending.

 

I'm not sure I would call those trivial net benefits. But assume they are. If plan is just to provide funding and infrastructure, there's no reason China can't do it. If counterplan sucks up all affirmative significance, how much of a net benefit do you need? It would be most strategic to run an obscure net benefit that isn't going to get impact turned, even if it is relatively small.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure I would call those trivial net benefits. But assume they are. If plan is just to provide funding and infrastructure, there's no reason China can't do it. If counterplan sucks up all affirmative significance, how much of a net benefit do you need? It would be most strategic to run an obscure net benefit that isn't going to get impact turned, even if it is relatively small.

 

I didn't say they were all trivial and I didn't say trivial net benefits are bad--they're what win Consult CP debates. I just said that they can be run because it looked like you were asking a question. The whole point is that if the CP wins the solvency debate and their net benefit they win either way.

 

However, it isn't necessarily "strategic" to be sketchy. If the affirmative reads say a U.S. hegemony add-on in response to the CP (or something that China clearly can't solve and is pretty crucial) you can either spend a a minute reading a new net benefit because yours doesn't outweigh or you can extend your net benefit that outweighs--trivial ones usually don't. Yes, you can impact turn their new advantage but you're still losing a valuable minute or two. And Straits Times is strategic, Chinese invasion of Taiwan will draw in all the global players and start World War III, an overstretched U.S. will try and stop China but inevitably lose killing its hegemony and turning most of the advantages that affs will claim this year. Needless to say, engaged in WWIII the U.S. won't be too concerned with public health assistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the plan calls for funding or other actions that simply need money the China CP would be effective, but on deeper issues of health the Chinese arent essentally that competitive with the US in Africa. China

primarily seeks resources not necessarily to give humanitarian aid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the plan calls for funding or other actions that simply need money the China CP would be effective, but on deeper issues of health the Chinese arent essentally that competitive with the US in Africa. China

primarily seeks resources not necessarily to give humanitarian aid.

 

Uh...why doesn't the perm solve there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't say they were all trivial and I didn't say trivial net benefits are bad--they're what win Consult CP debates. I just said that they can be run because it looked like you were asking a question. The whole point is that if the CP wins the solvency debate and their net benefit they win either way.

 

However, it isn't necessarily "strategic" to be sketchy. If the affirmative reads say a U.S. hegemony add-on in response to the CP (or something that China clearly can't solve and is pretty crucial) you can either spend a a minute reading a new net benefit because yours doesn't outweigh or you can extend your net benefit that outweighs--trivial ones usually don't. Yes, you can impact turn their new advantage but you're still losing a valuable minute or two. And Straits Times is strategic, Chinese invasion of Taiwan will draw in all the global players and start World War III, an overstretched U.S. will try and stop China but inevitably lose killing its hegemony and turning most of the advantages that affs will claim this year. Needless to say, engaged in WWIII the U.S. won't be too concerned with public health assistance.

 

Okay. I didn't mean to suggest that Taiwan Straits is a bad net benefit; I think it's excellent.

 

I'm not sure what you think is sketchy about running a small net benefit, though. By the time 2AC answers T, the small net benefit and politics (or whatever), there will probably be 3 or 4 minutes of heg good on the flow. The block answers any dispositive theory and kicks everything else, then spends 10 or 11 minutes on heg bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay. I didn't mean to suggest that Taiwan Straits is a bad net benefit; I think it's excellent.

 

I'm not sure what you think is sketchy about running a small net benefit, though. By the time 2AC answers T, the small net benefit and politics (or whatever), there will probably be 3 or 4 minutes of heg good on the flow. The block answers any dispositive theory and kicks everything else, then spends 10 or 11 minutes on heg bad.

 

By sketchy I mean something trivial or random, like Chinese assistance to Africa key to its fish markets or something. And yes, if you want to spend 10 or 11 minutes on heg bad then feel free, I don't think you'd have to go that far though. I'm not saying your strategy is bad, I'm just saying that getting into a position where you have to spend excess time on something like heg bad isn't necessarily "strategic." If you have a net benefit that outweighs hegemony all you have to do is make some cross-applications and maybe read a piece of heg bad evidence. This is the same logic that causes affs to put pre-empts into their 1ACs. By trying to prevent clash on your net benefit you put yourself at a disadvantage on other flows. Everyone has their own strategies though, and just as the K can be helpful to small squads so can the bullet-dodging trivial net benefit. So don't get me wrong, I'm not insulting yours or any other teams strategy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think that what makes it legit is the net benefit. it almost seems pic-ish, in a sense, but in reality as long as the relations/politics nb is good, this is a fine arg.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the problem i have with international fiat is that it is entirely unpredictable, illegit if used by the affirmative (meaning there is no CHANCE of reciprocity), and of course has all the problems of normal pics (ground, clash, legitimizes EXTREMELY trivial net bens)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the problem i have with international fiat is that it is entirely unpredictable, illegit if used by the affirmative (meaning there is no CHANCE of reciprocity), and of course has all the problems of normal pics (ground, clash, legitimizes EXTREMELY trivial net bens)

 

It's illegit if used by the affirmative because they are resolutionally bound, this is true. But it's reciprocal because the aff gets the USFG, and the negative gets China as a test of competition. And China is totally predictable, it's practically budies with Africa. And the PICs debate will be won by the more technical team who puts the most clash on the flow.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing particularly interesting about this CP. It has the same theoretical problems as any other agent-changing counterplan.

 

Korcok argued convincingly against international fiat in the last section (titled "New Paths") of his now famous essay Roads Still Not Taken. Most arguments for international fiat can be summarized in my post here.

 

I voted "yes," since there's nothing uniquely abusive about this CP. But in general, I think agent-changing is bad.

Well my question is in regards to the international fiat debate and the object fiat debate (ie if the impact to the nb is China flips out and nukes shit is solving the net benefit object fiat if China is the actor?).
That isn't object fiat. The object of the aff's plan is Africa. Your point is just an extreme example of why agent-changing is stupid.
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And China is totally predictable, it's practically budies with Africa.

 

In all seriousness though, I think this CP is legit but I think the perm solves a bunch of the offense (like the relations NB). Most of the CP solvency authors conclude that US-Sino cooperation in Africa is good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen stuff that says china can give health assistance and it wants to. I dont know why people would even consider it illigit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, if china is an instance of the problem, then it's illegit.

 

example: ehh ok sudan

inherency--sudan government is destroying aid attempts; china backing prevents international action from succeeding

plan--whatever

etc.

 

if the neg then counterplans to have china do plan or in some other way access solvency, then that's where object fiat falls into play, because china is identified as a problem in the squo. that wouldn't be legit. but generic have china force do something instead of u.s. peace corps or whatever would be legitimate.

 

also i'm just going to throw this out there.. there's really good evidence in an article that came out 6-25 ish that i saw on google news about south africa realigning towards china. methinks you could spin that if you want to cut this counterplan. talk to me if you're after some of that, alex, i can help a brother out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO, a China CP is certainly legitimate - especially against affirmative cases which fail to specifically link the "need" for public health assistance to SSA directly to something unique about the U.S, and/or or U.S. policy interests.

 

Having said that, there are two reservations I have:

 

(1) It's pretty obvious - particularly given the gazillion tons of info that's out there about China's rapidly-growing interraction with SSA.

 

(2) It's pretty dangerous - there's also tons of stuff condemning China as a new colonial power, and warning that Chinese hegemony over Africa would be bad for the USA and the rest of the "free" world.

 

Suggestion: use the China CP and then show that the affirmative plan would be a disaster for whatever the nation implementing it was. In other words, argue that deeper involvement in SSA could become China's Afghanistan - leading to China's "downfall," just like Afghanistan led to the USSR's "downall."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Suggestion: use the China CP and then show that the affirmative plan would be a disaster for whatever the nation implementing it was. In other words, argue that deeper involvement in SSA could become China's Afghanistan - leading to China's "downfall," just like Afghanistan led to the USSR's "downall."

 

I don't suggest this, because it removes a lot of the strategic reason for running the China CP.

 

For example, say the Aff advantages were US hegemony and AIDS.

 

You run a China CP, a China DA, and turns on the hegemony advantage (saying US hege bad).

 

The hege bad arguments provide an independent DA to the plan and the perm, giving the Neg three reasons to prefer the China CP that the perm would not be able to solve: the China DA, the net benefit (maybe Chinese softpower or hege), and the US hege bad turns.

 

If the counterplan tried to solve US hege (by saying that China would decline), the perm would have supercharged solvency and the Aff would only have to beat the China DA or win an external DA to the CP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...