Jump to content
Sir Blocksalot

Multiple CP's in one round

Is multiple CP's in one round legal?  

68 members have voted

  1. 1. Is multiple CP's in one round legal?

    • Yes
      57
    • No
      11


Recommended Posts

ok, so we hit a team that ran three different CP's, none of them PIC's, but all of which they claimed "solved case" with seperate net benefits,

 

first off, is this theoretically legitimate and secondly, is it advisable to do this and finally, if you guys think this is a good strat for next year, what should that statuses be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why isnt it strategic...?

Because the counterplans often make contradictory claims in their solvency cards.

 

It's theoretically legit if you can defend them all. They'd have to be run conditionally, obviously (because your opponent could straight-turn more than one in the 1AR and leave you in a tenuous and theoretically shaky position).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh??

What if i run a country pic, an international cp, and an offsets CP...

 

Isnt it obvious that one must not run multiple contradictory Cps? i dont se why multiple cps are "often" making contradictory claims

My mistake. I'm assuming you're running multiple complex PICs instead of say, Consult NATO and a generic actor CP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Uh??

What if i run a country pic, an international cp, and an offsets CP...

 

these are all contradictory

one says X country should receive no aid, which the international Cp bites

the other says the US shouldnt do it which the country PIC bites

and the last says US aid should not be increased at all which the country pic bite by increasing aid everywhere else.

 

the net benefits would link to at least one of these CPs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess the litmus test for "contradictions" is where i could combine the three Cps in a sensical manor, in this case I can:

 

Cp text: EU should do the plan minus country X. US should offset fundz from Y.

Having EU do plan includes X country. The PIC cps out of x country. They're mutually exclusive in my books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plans are mutually exclusive but all successfully attack case. The aff can't grant the neg two of the CPs and get a double-turn. In the end, the neg only needs to win one CP, and this wins the round (assuming it competes with round and is theoretically legit).

 

Personally, I feel this should be theoretically legit, but if the neg runs this the aff should be able to go for multiple affs, too. I wouldn't neccessarily recommend either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No no, you misread. The CP has the EU do the plan except for the X country. The fact that I can combine my multiple CPs into one proves they dont disprove each other.

 

Except you don't have a solvency advocate for the EU excluding X country.

 

You have a solvency advocate for the EU doing the plan.

 

You have a solvency advocate for excluding X country.

 

You are, however, not screwed over by this.

 

The reason the contradiction doesn't matter is that the CP wouldn't link to the NB of one of your CP's any more than the plan would. Therefore, your positions may be "contradictory", but as long as you win that the CP/NB outweighs, then you win the round.

 

Personally, I feel this should be theoretically legit, but if the neg runs this the aff should be able to go for multiple affs, too. I wouldn't neccessarily recommend either.

 

Just... no. Reciprocity does not equate to fairness in this case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my interpretation... three separate advantage counterplans (or whatever they were) are theoretically illegitimate because I don't think the negative has the right to claim multiple advocacies in the 2NR as that is not reciprocal. If they were "solves all the case" but not PICS, then if the 2NR only goes for one of them, I find it fully theoretically legitimate but you still have the claim to condionality bad and multiple conditional worlds bad. I, as a critic, would probably never vote on either of those two arguments unless there was like 5 CPs. Two to three is always a good number.

 

I'd say multiples of the same "type" of counterplan is abusive because then the affirmative is forced to justify the squo fg over like EU, an XO, and Russia. I find that partially illegitimate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aff conditionality is much worse than neg conditionality, the warrants are obvious. Also, a counterplan is essentially a opportunity cost to the plan AKA a Disadvantage.

 

Multiple affs doesn't make sense here, it's like saying "you ran 3 DAs, I get 3 different affs"

 

Well, in either case conditionality "makes sense" in that they effectively affirm or negate the resolution. The reason conditionality may be good or bad has to do with the actual fairness of it. The primary reason in my mind aff condo is probably more abusive is because the 2N gets screwed if there are still multiple affs coming out of the 1AR; however, when I thought about this in another thread about it, I figured that most of the time the aff is only hurting itself by reading multiple plans, so it actually isn't abusive at all!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd say multiples of the same "type" of counterplan is abusive because then the affirmative is forced to justify the squo fg over like EU, an XO, and Russia. I find that partially illegitimate.

 

 

I disagree with this. I think you're missing one of the primary reasons multiple counterplans is abusive: because one counterplan can suck up all the offense from the other one. The problem with multiple counterplans and fairness is that the 2ac is forced to make huge time commitments to both that that don't apply to the other. In most instances the work, especially impact/advantage work, a 2ac does on one flow can be cross-applied to another, while if the negative runs an actor counterplan and a consult counterplan in the same round and the 2ac spends a ton of time making us key and no solvency arguments on the actor counterplan, the 2nc can just get up and say "okay you're right, going for consult instead," and the 2ac strat has just been damaged. Your scenario isn't as abusive (in my opinion) because the offense the 2ac garners against any one of those actor counterplans applies to the others (at least in the context of EU and Russia).

 

all that said, i still think multiple counterplans is probably okay, and definitely defensible. the aff should be required to defend their case in multiple manners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the 2nc can just get up and say "okay you're right, going for consult instead," and the 2ac strat has just been damaged. Your scenario isn't as abusive (in my opinion) because the offense the 2ac garners against any one of those actor counterplans applies to the others (at least in the context of EU and Russia).

 

This is reciprocal -- the affirmative is never obligated to defend all of their advantages. If I run a heg disad that straight turns your soft power scenario, you can still win the round with your AIDS impacts being systemic and outweighing the turn and my other disadvantages due to your weird policy-derived framework.

 

I don't think my argument is conveyed very well in the above. But, my point is, the affirmative is never bound to a position and in my interpretation it is reciprocal to the negative never being bound to an advocacy. As long as I prove a better policy option or solution, I feel as if the negative wins the debate round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't think my argument is conveyed very well in the above. But, my point is, the affirmative is never bound to a position and in my interpretation it is reciprocal to the negative never being bound to an advocacy. As long as I prove a better policy option or solution, I feel as if the negative wins the debate round.

actually, advanatges are dispo...if an advantage is straight turned it means that you have to defend that advanatge as being good or else there is a coneded disad to the plan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what alex said is true. you may be right (audit) that they can still win with their other advantages, but they must at least defend their soft power position. the difference with the two counterplans is that the actor counterplan goes away entirely and the affirmative loses the majority of their offense, which is now sucked up by the consult cp (just an example - their are others).

 

also, what do you mean my "weird policy derived framework"??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
actually, advanatges are dispo...if an advantage is straight turned it means that you have to defend that advanatge as being good or else there is a coneded disad to the plan

 

I made that claim... I said the AIDS advantage outweighs because of the systemic framework. The same scenario exists with the counterplan... my agent counterplan doesn't solve for US Soft Power, and thus, is a disadvantage to the plan, etc.

 

I think any instance of multiple counterplans abuse, is reciprocal. It is not my fault the affirmative isn't strategic and doesn't make manipulative strategic decisions to encourage their win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

AT: "Offense is sucked up"

No, when you read a DA to the CP you need to make sure it's a unique DAso that if they kick the CP you get an extra advantage. It's the aff's burden to read unique disads against cps.

doesnt assume the fact that if there are multiple CPs one is almost assuredly a PIC, which means any new advantages to the plan are captured by the PI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think any instance of multiple counterplans abuse, is reciprocal. It is not my fault the affirmative isn't strategic and doesn't make manipulative strategic decisions to encourage their win.

 

Ok, so then you agree that multiple aff cases are justified? If reciprocity is really what it's all about, then surely you must agree there. After all, it's not the aff's fault if the neg isn't strategic and doesn't make manipulative strategic decisions (like running Ks and theory, non-T CPs, and DAs that link to multiple plans) to encourage their win.

 

AT: "Offense is sucked up"

No, when you read a DA to the CP you need to make sure it's a unique DAso that if they kick the CP you get an extra advantage. It's the aff's burden to read unique disads against cps.

 

Ok, clearly not all unique DAs will be captured by the plan. A net-benefit advantage for the plan is an advantage regardless, but a DA to the CP could be something unique in the status quo, which means there's no harm to solve. If I run a DA on China saying Chinese econ good now, plan hurts Chinese econ, Chinese econ key to preventing global nuke war and extinction, that can be a powerful DA, but when the neg kicks the CP that offense is all gone. Of course, I've beaten that CP which is hopefully what I was going for, but because of the way PICs operate the neg can run many more CPs than the Aff can respond too; after all, they capture advantages the aff might have taken 5 or 6 minutes to read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the people above me cleared most things up, but just a few things:

 

@ audit: it's still not reciprocal because even if an advantage like soft power is a da to the actor counterplan, the consult counterplan absorbs it. that forces the 2ac to work within 4 to 5 different worlds and make answers to each one of them that won't be useful on other flows, but must be sufficient to win a 2ar. that's possibly abusive.

 

@ bigmistake: first of all, like i said in my first post, i personally think multiple counterplans are okay. i've run them and will probably do so again. but your "unique da" scenario doesn't play out if the neg is running multiple counterplans the strategic (or abusive, depending on how you look at it) way. i.e. even if a unique da that is solved by the affirmative is offense against an actor counterplan, it's not offense against a consult cp that does the entirety of the aff, or a pic that does all but a miniscule part. so the 2ac is forced to invest time into arguments that can't be cross applied and the neg can wave off with a shrug, or make broad generic arguments that can be cross applied but aren't nearly as offensive. that makes the 2ac (some would say unfairly) difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Colleyville ran 2 counterplans in octas against Cathedral Prep. St Marks ran two in quarters against Rowland Hall.

 

^ at the toc.

 

Its easy to prove they are theoretically legitimate, problem usually occurs from a lack of good solvency evidence for counterplans/or net benefits. Usually there aren't a ton of ways to solve a good affirmative. I forget the one that james read in octas, but the other was a delay counterplan -- pretty strategic with politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

multiple CPs in and of itself is legit. it's just multiple op-cost disads with specific net benefits you can turn. the only abuse is if it's a delay/consult cp which are bad for OTHER REASONS or if there are cross-aps made between multiple worlds by the neg. as long as there's no cross-aps, both sides just allocate time wisely between multiple worlds to reject the plan. usually, multiple CPs are nonstrategic for the neg because the block can't take full advantage of time difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
multiple CPs in and of itself is legit. it's just multiple op-cost disads with specific net benefits you can turn. the only abuse is if it's a delay/consult cp which are bad for OTHER REASONS or if there are cross-aps made between multiple worlds by the neg. as long as there's no cross-aps, both sides just allocate time wisely between multiple worlds to reject the plan. usually, multiple CPs are nonstrategic for the neg because the block can't take full advantage of time difference.

 

Right, well when CPs really are just read as op-cost DAs, I totally agree. The thing is when people get into the tricky business of having multiple "advocacies," or multiple "worlds," and start treating CP fiat as actual uniqueness. If this occurs, it seems the neg should just combine them into one perm (do both CPs in one plan text), since it avoids a lot of theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think multiple cp's are legit mainly for the fact that when the aff perms all it is, is a test. well its a real world standard because in a congressional committee they look at multiple plans to solve the harms. so i think its legit if we are to be modeling policy makers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
multiple CPs in and of itself is legit. it's just multiple op-cost disads with specific net benefits you can turn. the only abuse is if it's a delay/consult cp which are bad for OTHER REASONS or if there are cross-aps made between multiple worlds by the neg. as long as there's no cross-aps, both sides just allocate time wisely between multiple worlds to reject the plan. usually, multiple CPs are nonstrategic for the neg because the block can't take full advantage of time difference.

 

The issue is that if the neg kicks a CP, the aff loses the DA since ALL counterplans are uniqueness counterplans. This means that Multiple CPs become no risk neg positions. That's bad since it causes argumentative irresponsibility and a variety of bad things. I guess Dispositionality solves this

 

Also, what happens if my counterinterpretation (on the aff) is

Interp: Neg gets one conditional counterplans.

Why is a second conditional counterplan better than this interp

 

@ Ebster

The thing is when people get into the tricky business of ...treating CP fiat as actual uniqueness.

 

All counterplans are uniqueness counterplans, I cant think of an exception, maybe it's too early. Every counterplans grants uniqueness to the NB.

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...