Jump to content
Audit

Plan Flaw

Recommended Posts

Can somebody please post 1NC shell of plan-flaw or an example of how the argument would be structured?

 

I've sadly heard of a lot of people running plan-flaw and I've seen a lot of plans with "Federal Government" and "it's". Honestly, our plan had a typo until recently. It would be nice to be able to throw this out occasionally, especially in front of the procedurally based judges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plan flaw is usually something written up before the round, after disclosure. Here's the type of thing it might generally look like:

 

A. They wrote their plan text wrong, _____

B. They should lose.

1. It takes out solvency, their advocates say ___ should happen, their plan doesn't do this, it does ___.

2. Justifies the CP: (plan text without the error).

3. Make them win offense as to why the plan including the error is superior than not including it.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plan flaw is usually something written up before the round, after disclosure. Here's the type of thing it might generally look like:

 

A. They wrote their plan text wrong, _____

B. They should lose.

1. It takes out solvency, their advocates say ___ should happen, their plan doesn't do this, it does ___.

2. Justifies the CP: (plan text without the error).

3. Make them win offense as to why the plan including the error is superior than not including it.

 

 

i think they should usually have a not topical claim in the sheel too, in this instanc emaybe include it in the n o swolvency arg - if they `dont send the correct thing (speeled wrong or soemthing) than they donr actually increase pha to the region

 

grammar standards are cool too, especially with some good impact work and an intent to at least esxtend it into the block

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol' date=' dumb arg! But winnable ^^

 

[/quote']

 

AS IF.

Plan Flaw is a tight argument.

Hooked on Phonics 101.

And Zane, you ironically typed that post with TERRIBLE grammar. Just saying. haha.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AS IF.

Plan Flaw is a tight argument.

Hooked on Phonics 101.

And Zane, you ironically typed that post with TERRIBLE grammar. Just saying. haha.

 

I try - i just got a new keyboard, qand, add that to my horrific typing, and, voila (probably wrong)

 

 

 

lol' date=' dumb arg! But winnable ^^[/quote']

i forgot that it doesn't say the word Spanos, Vietnam, or Humanism anywhere - lol :)

 

;) christos, you know i love Willie V.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can somebody please post 1NC shell of plan-flaw or an example of how the argument would be structured?

 

I've sadly heard of a lot of people running plan-flaw and I've seen a lot of plans with "Federal Government" and "it's". Honestly, our plan had a typo until recently. It would be nice to be able to throw this out occasionally, especially in front of the procedurally based judges.

 

 

i have a plan flaw shell that I am 7-1 with. Unfortunately, you will never get to see it.

 

however I am willing to offer you 30 pages of answers to plan flaw..

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one gives a shit about how your shitty ass plan flaw argument, has won a few rounds in your shitty local district on the JV circuit.

 

 

Heres all the answers to plan flaw you need

1.Plan text is a repersentation not literal

2. Fuck off- Debate is a oral activity, the fact that I let you see my plan text is a god damn courtsey. Only evaluate what was spoken, plan flaw goes away.

3.No impact-Seriously make them prove ground lose.

Hey, i picked up at St. Marks on plan flaw: text says "trasfer"

 

group 1 and 2 its the only stable advocacy we have in the round

3: hey your plan text says trasfer, you don't actually increase public health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one gives a shit about how your shitty ass plan flaw argument, has won a few rounds in your shitty local district on the JV circuit.

 

 

Heres all the answers to plan flaw you need

1.Plan text is a repersentation not literal

2. Fuck off- Debate is a oral activity, the fact that I let you see my plan text is a god damn courtsey. Only evaluate what was spoken, plan flaw goes away.

3.No impact-Seriously make them prove ground lose.

 

easy args--

1. reasonability- our text is reasonably understandable, basically no impact.

2. not real world- real world policies are checked through by other branches, and are pages and pages long- our 1 line plan text just represents that, its not the final version. The only way they can get links to disads is if we assume all proper plan mechanisms meaning our interp is key to neg ground.

3. CX checks abuse (obvious warrants)

 

Also, a really good arg for the neg to make- in CX, try to get them to say "yes, our plan actually does _________" (with fixed plan) and ask if this is their "actual" plan. If they say yes, add an aff conditionality bad plank onto the plan flaw 1nc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it depends on how you run it. i think that having it as a counterplan is probably a better idea if it's somehow competitive, IMHO "they misspelt United States so that means no one gives the assistance!" seems like a weak reason for a neg ballot

i think you should just answer plan flaws by not writing in any, i don't really think "our plan is a metaphorical idea of what we think should be done, therefore we should get to reclarify "plan: public health bigger sub-saharan africa"" would look very compelling. just look over your plan text and make sure you're ready to defend it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
easy args--

1. reasonability- our text is reasonably understandable, basically no impact.

2. not real world- real world policies are checked through by other branches, and are pages and pages long- our 1 line plan text just represents that, its not the final version. The only way they can get links to disads is if we assume all proper plan mechanisms meaning our interp is key to neg ground.

3. CX checks abuse (obvious warrants)

 

1. Not reasonable- plan text writing is sacred:

a. key to counterplan writing: The plan text has to be written perfectly so that the neg has counterplan ground and there should be reciprocity hold the counterplan to the same standard

b. key to pre-round prep: Miswritten plan text means we can't create a strategy before the debate, pre-round prep is the internal link to clash and education

c. No solvency Advocate- Solvency advocate doesn't match the plan which is uniquely bad because it means the aff isn't researchable and we can't meet our burden of rejoinder.

d. IS real world- Plan text is a stable advocacy meaning it would be the FINAL version of plan, only thing that doesnt mutate in the debate. And if your text wasn't immediate that severs out of the immediacy of the plan which allows you to spike out of disads

2. Non-responsive:

a. You don't get the argument- our argument is that plan gets rolled back because agent doesn't enact it (if its USFG) OR plan happens and you have no solvency advocate (incorrect grammar or vagueness)

3. Cross-x doesnt check

a. You wasted the first 9 (8) minutes of the 1nc making it all a moot point, that kills education and neg ground

b. You shouldn't be able to make clarifications or amendments to the plan because that makes you a moving target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Heres all the answers to plan flaw you need

1.Plan text is a repersentation not literal

2. Fuck off- Debate is a oral activity, the fact that I let you see my plan text is a god damn courtsey. Only evaluate what was spoken, plan flaw goes away.

3.No impact-Seriously make them prove ground lose.

 

All answered above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1a-1.C/I-CP text is repersentation, solves all the offense on this 2. Turn-The ground you allow for his infi regressive, justifies old english grammar standards for Counter-plans that no one uses anymore destory aff win ability 3.Turn-that ground is moronic and boreing, while also being invi

 

2a-1.Not warranted-this argument isn't even sensical, just because something is mis spelt or the is spelt "teh" you can still see it 2. The brain reads regardless of errors solve mispreception X____ 3.No IL-you are able to ask questions about advs, plan can be added.

 

3A.-1.C/I-plan is spoken not written, solves your offense 2. No impact or why a solvency advocate key 3. Infinitly regressive

 

4A.-1.No its not speed proves 2. Pics prove otherwise, Pics don't turn arguments IRL 3.Kritks aren't discussed in congress 4. Debate is not about what the congress would do no impact

 

 

 

I'm not gonan end it. But CA my arguments, extend the number 2

 

No. Just...no.

Let's do these one by one...

1a-1.C/I-CP text is repersentation, solves all the offense on this 2. Turn-The ground you allow for his infi regressive, justifies old english grammar standards for Counter-plans that no one uses anymore destory aff win ability 3.Turn-that ground is moronic and boreing, while also being invi

 

That doesn't solve our offense, if text is representation that justifies shifting advocacies, plan text is the only written stable advocacy in the debate and if your interp is true then we can change what plan means after giving it to you pre-round. And, that's some shitty answer to T doesn't apply to plan flaw. Ground is moronic? Are you fucking joking? That justifies running the same shitty generic K EVERY debate because its the only way to capture offense is their discourse.

 

2a-1.Not warranted-this argument isn't even sensical, just because something is mis spelt or the is spelt "teh" you can still see it 2. The brain reads regardless of errors solve mispreception X____ 3.No IL-you are able to ask questions about advs, plan can be added.

 

Yeah, I can still SEE it, but you can reinterpret it or spike out of counterplans which ruins counterplan ground I should be able to write a coherent counterplan, you're not answering my reciprocity argument. Even if the brain reads something it doesn't mean the brain is right, for example, the constitution which is supposed to be EXACTLY correct has loose interpretations that COMPLETELY change it...and we can only ask questions about advantages after the 1ac (in high school) because most high school teams don't disclose advs.

 

3A.-1.C/I-plan is spoken not written, solves your offense 2. No impact or why a solvency advocate key 3. Infinitly regressive

 

doesn't solve ANY offense, all of our offense is predicated on plan being a stable written advocacy that is written correctly, spoken plan means you can change what you said and we can't stick you to it. No impact to solvency advocate? How about you can make a utopian plan text that solves for everything and not have someone to back it up? And, on top of that, solvency advocate is key to PIC ground because we should be able to counterplan out of something solvency advocate says. What's infinitely regressive? Certainly not havin your plan text.

 

4A.-1.No its not speed proves 2. Pics prove otherwise, Pics don't turn arguments IRL 3.Kritks aren't discussed in congress 4. Debate is not about what the congress would do no impact

 

Speed proves what? Nothing. PICs good. and, yeah Ks aren't discussed in congress, but you justify us running them every round. And, debate is about the effects of the plan that DOESN'T get passed if it isn't coherent. Congress rejects incoherent bills all the time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. You have dropped that this ground isn't usefull or educational, reps Solve all offense from it, additionally shitty Derrida Ks, mean we get the education for grammar and language invietably, means its irrelvant if you get it here. 2. Spoken is stable, copying down what we said results in it, are you fucking retarded? 3. You are conceeding the Infi regressive, argument, means all of this goes away the affrimative can't win, proves why your interp is bad, and is a indepdenant reason you vote for ours, GAME OVER.

 

 

1. you are terrible at debate-if the negative gets the same leeway, means the CP can be re interupted to solveing the offense of new 2ac re interps 2. There isn't a reason words can't be re interpted you fucking idiot. 3. The brain argument is important and you mishandle it, A. Proves that people in congress wouldn't notice either B. Means that it isn't key to negative strat unless plan flaw IS your strat, solves all of your offense C. You can't generate a reason why Plan flaw arguments are key to engative strat, we have won reasons why they are bad ground that you aren't responding to

 

 

doesn't solve ANY offense, all of our offense is predicated on plan being a stable written advocacy that is written correctly, spoken plan means you can change what you said and we can't stick you to it. No impact to solvency advocate? How about you can make a utopian plan text that solves for everything and not have someone to back it up? And, on top of that, solvency advocate is key to PIC ground because we should be able to counterplan out of something solvency advocate says. What's infinitely regressive? Certainly not havin your plan text.

 

-1. This argument isn't even coherent, judges hearing the plan text, means they see it this way, means all of your arguments are inveitable. 2. Your response to solvency advocate doesn't make sense, thats fundamentally differnt, B. If we can warrant as to why this would result from topical action ( t checks back) than we should win the round C. We are the solvency advocate

 

 

Speed proves what? Nothing. PICs good. and, yeah Ks aren't discussed in congress, but you justify us running them every round. And, debate is about the effects of the plan that DOESN'T get passed if it isn't coherent. Congress rejects incoherent bills all the time...

 

1.Speed proves its not real world dumb fuck, which means its only a game no impact to your real world argument 2. No impact to running Ks every round, Our old english standard justifies one type of grammar violation, which is worse than repettive Ks as Ks have to be more specific. 3.Debate isn't about the effects of the plan, this is fundamentally un warranted, Debate is about a ethical endorsment and how we interact with the world 4. Our bill isn't incoherent, all of your others arguments prove, and Our Brain reading write checks this back, means we can understand the argument without it.

 

 

You look like a moron. Stop now.

 

ouch... someone's ass must hurt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh yeah, if you read a big response in the block, we would also K grammar, and win a genocide secnario. You will lose

 

Which is clearly the best argument in debate.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2. Justifies the CP: (plan text without the error).

 

I don't see the strategy in counterplanning out of plan flaws--it just lets the aff perm out of their shitty plan writing

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see the strategy in counterplanning out of plan flaws--it just lets the aff perm out of their shitty plan writing

 

I agree. It also disproves "plan text key to advocacy" because you knew what they were saying. Also, they could easily say text comp bad, func comp good, and the CP proves that the plan text couldn't shift around very much, how many words can "teh" or "United Stats" become?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the strategy in counterplanning out of plan flaws--it just lets the aff perm out of their shitty plan writing

 

I guess you could pull off an arg similar to the answers to some perms on Kritiks: parallel to "The affirmative merely tries to co-opt their _________ through the perm, this should not be justified because ______ (discourse, doesn't solve the already finished mooting of the 1NC, etc..) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess you could pull off an arg similar to the answers to some perms on Kritiks: parallel to "The affirmative merely tries to co-opt their _________ through the perm, this should not be justified because ______ (discourse, doesn't solve the already finished mooting of the 1NC, etc..) 

This thread is almost six years old. The people who originally posted have (hopefully) already graduated from high school...

  • Upvote 1

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...