Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
KookiePhoenix

Multiple CPs to solve each Adv

Recommended Posts

This year a lot of cases claim some sort of US leadership/Soft power advantage, would it be wise/legit to have a CP to ratify a treaty (or Repeal Mexico City Policy) or something of that sort to solve the internal link to US leadership. How would you deal with such a scenario if you were aff? And if you were neg how would you respond to Multiple CPs bad?

 

Discuss

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you mean have a cp where the US does something to solve soft power and country X does the other part of the plan? Or literally 2 seperate counterplans?

 

2 separate CPs. US Repeals GGR to increase SP(i know its a bad example). And EU does GHS or family planning portion of the plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the end of the 2NR, you usually only get to have one policy advocacy. That's why multiple CPs are okay, in most instances. So, having one that only solves part of case is going to have a clear solvency deficit in the 2AR. I think it would be hard to come up with compelling reasons why you should get multiple advocacies at the end of the round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 separate CPs. US Repeals GGR to increase SP(i know its a bad example). And EU does GHS or family planning portion of the plan.

 

If you plan on making them that similar why don't you just make them 1 CP? Makes the CP alot less theoretically illegitimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 separate CPs. US Repeals GGR to increase SP(i know its a bad example). And EU does GHS or family planning portion of the plan.

 

you need to run extra topicality on the repeal...then say this is teh adaquate punishment...you get multi actor fiat to get out of the extra T portions of the plan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

gag rule affs usually claim de facto, not de jure, overturn.

Second, nothing wrong with multiple advocacies -- out of the 2NR you just have to claim to advocate everything in its entirety. (better aff arg would be multiple fiat bad).

There is no difference between one counterplan text that fiats US/Japan action and two counterplans that fiats the same actions. It comes down to more of a structural organization thing.

 

And yes, I think especially for this year's topic (int'l topic), a multi actor cp is legit. It's key to test the word "increase" in the resolution (ie why US increase is key). Its unfair for the neg to defend bad things in the status quo (gag rule).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no difference between one counterplan text that fiats US/Japan action and two counterplans that fiats the same actions. It comes down to more of a structural organization thing.

That's not true. There's always a strategic advantage to kicking out of say, Japanese action vs. defending both Japan/U.S. action or defaulting to the status quo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CP conditional.

You can kick out of any part of the cp just as the aff can perm any specific part or else neg can always tack on "don't do the aff" to gurantee competition. Affs can perm the preceding part, and neg can kick out of it.

Perms can be all or part of CP, and thus Neg can kick out of all or part of cp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always question whether or not multiple conditional worlds is fair. I suppose if you read 3 CPs I understand how that is not all that abusive, but the idea that you could just read like 60 CP texts and in the block pick one or two to elaborate on.

 

Overall... I've heard the strategy a lot. But, usually I've seen it more strategic when you can turn every advantage except one. For example, then run an aff which solves for poverty, famine, and like Kenyan-US relations. You turn poverty (aid -> inflation) and famine (food aid -> food price inflation) or something like this and then you have a CP to solve for the advantage you don't have cards to turn.

 

I still think a PIC that solves all of the aff can be more strategic. If you are digging the multiple conditional worlds, I think it is more strategic to run multiple PICS (eg. delay, int'l actor, XO or whatever).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think arguing theory/no abuse on multiple-CPs would be difficult. You'd still have to argue the merits of each as well as the theory behind it, and it doesn't make sense to add an additional thing to defend when you don't have to. It'd probably be easier and less risky to just argue against the soft power adv. itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I always question whether or not multiple conditional worlds is fair. I suppose if you read 3 CPs I understand how that is not all that abusive, but the idea that you could just read like 60 CP texts and in the block pick one or two to elaborate on.

1) There is no "idea" that you could read 60 cp. That would be suicidal for the neg. You still have 8 min 1NC, which means if you want to read the 60 CP texts, bring it on. It would not be abusive at ALL to the Aff, in fact, I'd take that debate any day. Read your 60 CPs, which would probably be different actors, and your ptix DA. My 2AC will be:

1) Perm Do Both -- Do the Plan and all negative advocacies

2) I wouldn't read theory about mult cps bad..but cps must have solvency advocates and/or some carded reason.

3) Spend the rest of the 7:20 secs straight turning your ptix DA and/or reading us heg.

 

 

I think arguing theory/no abuse on multiple-CPs would be difficult. You'd still have to argue the merits of each as well as the theory behind it,

 

I've already explained this. It's key to test "usfg should substantially increase". Not fair to neg to stick them with bad US squo policies that don't rely on increase. That's a pretty good theoretical reason for:

USFG should repeal the gag rule and EU should increase it's family planning to SSA.

 

and it doesn't make sense to add an additional thing to defend when you don't have to. It'd probably be easier and less risky to just argue against the soft power adv. itself.

 

Are you serious? It's a lot easier to win this theory debate then heg bad. How much of the block do you think you will spend in a heg debate? 3 mins at the least? How long for theory? 1-2 min?

Plus, 1AR will always have carded answers for heg ready -- that's definitely not the case for a theory debate. 1NR takes the theory and it's game over.

Solves 100% of aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you serious? It's a lot easier to win this theory debate then heg bad. How much of the block do you think you will spend in a heg debate? 3 mins at the least? How long for theory? 1-2 min?

Plus, 1AR will always have carded answers for heg ready -- that's definitely not the case for a theory debate. 1NR takes the theory and it's game over.

Solves 100% of aff.

 

You should stop approaching debate in terms of "what tricks can I use to spread out the 1ar best" and instead focus on making good arguments. Fiating multiple actors ALWAYS lets the neg fiat one actor to solve the solvency deficit to another. That means the aff can never get a solvency deficit, and meaning the neg always wins -- the only ground left is impact turns on the net benefit, which is unpredictable and artificial education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should stop approaching debate in terms of "what tricks can I use to spread out the 1ar best" and instead focus on making good arguments. Fiating multiple actors ALWAYS lets the neg fiat one actor to solve the solvency deficit to another. That means the aff can never get a solvency deficit, and meaning the neg always wins -- the only ground left is impact turns on the net benefit, which is unpredictable and artificial education.

 

I'm pointing out the strategic benefits in answer to "its easier to answer this".

I was not "focusing" on spreading out the 1AR, as you neglected to read the rest, or the entire thread.

 

Counter interp: Neg can fiat one US action and 1 int'l actor action.

Solves any infinite regression args. Only way to test why US increase is key -- not bad squo policies like gag rule.

 

Fiating mult actors does NOT let neg get out of all solvency deficits (assuming no object fiat). I agree, it does let neg get out of MOST, but that's only a flaw in the resolution -- why is US pha key as opposed to any other int'l actor?

 

Ex of US key:

Patents Aff- us controls patents

Congo prolif- reactors in congo are U.S. -- key to cred, prolif, npt, etc

GHS - US leadership

 

go check on the Glenbrooks wiki....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm pointing out the strategic benefits in answer to "its easier to answer this".

I was not "focusing" on spreading out the 1AR, as you neglected to read the rest, or the entire thread.

 

Counter interp: Neg can fiat one US action and 1 int'l actor action.

Solves any infinite regression args. Only way to test why US increase is key -- not bad squo policies like gag rule.

 

Fiating mult actors does NOT let neg get out of all solvency deficits (assuming no object fiat). I agree, it does let neg get out of MOST, but that's only a flaw in the resolution -- why is US pha key as opposed to any other int'l actor?

 

Ex of US key:

Patents Aff- us controls patents

Congo prolif- reactors in congo are U.S. -- key to cred, prolif, npt, etc

GHS - US leadership

 

go check on the Glenbrooks wiki....

 

99% of your standards are solved by basic international fiat, which dodges every single argument against multiple actor fiat to boot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
99% of your standards are solved by basic international fiat, which dodges every single argument against multiple actor fiat to boot.

omg...

 

Family planning aff --Gag rule, us increase to abortion clinics results in de facto overturn. CP: us repeal, x country send aid

 

 

Somaliland Aff -- US diplomatic recognition key to relations, us aid would be defacto recognition

CP: us dip rec somaliland, x country send aid

 

 

None of this type of affs relies on a reason why US increase of aid is good -- only there is a bad US policy, which can be solved not reliant on an increase. Not germane to aff ground.

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...