Jump to content
C-lis214

Untopical plan, but topical plan text.

Recommended Posts

Hey, i was wondering, what happens when another teams plan text is topical like its just the resolution, but none of their evidence relates to their plan text? If this is a little shady let me know im trying to word this the best i can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you're saying makes sense. If the plan text is topical, the plan is topical. If they say "The USFG should substantially increase alternative energy incentives in the United States by assassinating God" or something that is not actually topical, then it's not topical; just saying the resolution as part of plan text doesn't make it topical.

 

I'm not sure I'm understanding what you're asking very well, though, so if this seems like a non-answer, I'm sorry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

make the argument that they have no solvency advocate for their plan text, just like you shuold do against a generic CP, and list reasons why having no solvency for their action is bad for research....etc......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then they aren't topical in light of the word "increase." They also don't have any offense, because their plan doesn't do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then they aren't topical in light of the word "increase." They also don't have any offense, because their plan doesn't do anything.

 

I disagree. You can affirm the resolution without having a plan. If they defend the resolution as a good thing, then the negative has all generic, topical ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you statement, however according to the information provided, they do have a plan. It's the text of the resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if they don't defend any incentives, then all of their arguments on their case aren't actually upholding the resolution, and you'd have no reason to vote Aff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, and if they are reading solvency evidence about specific incentives that they are not mandating, that justifies treating the entire endeavor as an adventure in hypotesting. That means that negative ground isn't just generic links, but all specific links.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, and if they are reading solvency evidence about specific incentives that they are not mandating, that justifies treating the entire endeavor as an adventure in hypotesting. That means that negative ground isn't just generic links, but all specific links.

 

counter-warrants ftw.

Seriously if a team does this and isn't doing so in some critical fashion (like say the reparations case on the SSA topic) just unload on them, reading specific disads that link to only one case

Edited by DarthChetu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read a disad to the rez, then counterplan to do what solves the case.

 

also, if you havent noticed everyone is kind of having to take shots in the dark. You should give some examples. Like, what does the case do?

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know the whole story but the plan increases "energy" in the context of a critical framework that "energy" is a religion. Its something along the line of that i think. I'm sorry cause i know its a little unclear im just trying to explain it the best i can.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the plan text is whole rez and the case is not derived off the plan, then the evidence is irrelevant and the affirmative hasn't proven a reason why the plan is better than the status quo because after the 1AC the plan seems to be the status quo.

 

If they read the plan text as whole rez and then their case is like, not a substantial increase or something, then topicality shouldn't even matter because now ANY of your disads link to the plan text and you have a lot of negative ground because now everything in your neg tubs link.

 

I think it is a general consensus that the affirmative advocates and defends the mandates of the plan-text, not the case. If the plan doesn't trigger the solvency mechanism then the harms exist post-plan just as if there is no solvency.

 

Hell, you could make a cheap shot argument that he affirmative hasn't upheld their prima facie burden by defending a case which is triggered by the plan... but I really don't see this argument winning you any rounds because if the affirmative is really that ridiculous I am sure you can beat them elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with audit. What they are really doing is having a plan to do all of the resolution while only supporting a certain part with evidence. There might be some kind of vagueness theory, but it doesn't matter since all of your K links, DA links, Massive PICS, and solvency turns apply.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PIC - I've had this type of debate many times and I've never lost going for a PIC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps you are mistaking the plan for their advocacy. If the Affirmative is presenting a "critical" framework, then their advocacy could be quite different than their framework, and probably is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've obviously never hit someone who problematized the resolution.

 

You mean someone who argues that the resolution is actually bad/flawed in some way? Embedded within this concept is the notion that you should be capable of forcing someone to defend the plan text and winning framework arguments. Or, steal their advocacy and argue that "problematizing" a certain part of the resolution is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey, i was wondering, what happens when another teams plan text is topical like its just the resolution, but none of their evidence relates to their plan text? If this is a little shady let me know im trying to word this the best i can.

 

For e.g., a plan that wipes out oil companies with incentives (only tax breaks, subsidies, etc. for alt energy) and then argues big oil bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the event that you are referring to teams who have affirmative advocacies untied to the resolution (or an endorsement of the resolution), but still read the resolution, then a popular neg argument is that the negative can concede that the affirmative's advocacy is true, and claim a marginal net-benefit based on some fundamental contradiction between the plan/res and said advocacy. Additionally, this can be made as a presumption argument (IE - aff burden is to prove the res true, they don't, vote neg).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 1NC in that round would consist of a Detalied abuse argument. Somelthing like

 

They dont advocate their plan txt:

A. this means there is no NEG ground in this debate, the AFF can just shift what they want to do

B. Destroys the limits of the debate, the AFF can literally do any thing, solve for world peace, hunger everything

C. This is also fiat abuse, by not mandating a plan text, they can fiat just about anything, this is bad for debate cause it leads to magical AFFS

D. Kills education: the AFF decided to do no work this year and run a random case, that has nothing to do with the topic. we havent learned anything about the topic

E. Anhilliates fairness, the NEG cant prepare, learn or even get lynx in this debate, the AFF will always win

F. Voting Issue, dont let them get away with the abuse coming out of the 1NC, even if they shift to defend the plan text that just proves our abuse claims the 1NC is over

G. Potential abuse is also a VI, if we dont set a clear example it encourages shady aff teams to defend only parts of their plan text or shift slightly it in the 2AC.

 

Also make no solvency arguments, their plan text does nothing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My 1NC in that round would consist of a Detalied abuse argument. Somelthing like

 

They dont advocate their plan txt:

A. this means there is no NEG ground in this debate, the AFF can just shift what they want to do

B. Destroys the limits of the debate, the AFF can literally do any thing, solve for world peace, hunger everything

C. This is also fiat abuse, by not mandating a plan text, they can fiat just about anything, this is bad for debate cause it leads to magical AFFS

D. Kills education: the AFF decided to do no work this year and run a random case, that has nothing to do with the topic. we havent learned anything about the topic

E. Anhilliates fairness, the NEG cant prepare, learn or even get lynx in this debate, the AFF will always win

F. Voting Issue, dont let them get away with the abuse coming out of the 1NC, even if they shift to defend the plan text that just proves our abuse claims the 1NC is over

G. Potential abuse is also a VI, if we dont set a clear example it encourages shady aff teams to defend only parts of their plan text or shift slightly it in the 2AC.

 

Also make no solvency arguments, their plan text does nothing

Okay, what do you do when the judge's preround paradigm says, "Abuse is just whinning. I will VOTE AGAINST YOU if you run abuse,"?

 

This is easy. The aff is claiming the resolution is their plan. So anything that links to the resolution then links to their plan. It isn't an issue of topicality. They are wide open to all kritics, D.A.'s (which in this case are counter-warrents), and solvency attacks. And you can "no link" their advantages just as if they were to try to "no link" your D.A.'s. Why waste your time with theory or T when you can crush them with substance arguements?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it gives you even more +internets if the AE you pic out of somehow impact turns their advocacy or they will have reasons why there advocacy solves your net benefit

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...