Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Zachary

Consult CP

Recommended Posts

You could perm in world where consultee says yes...

intrinsic.

 

but, theory is the easiest way to beat it. they are very illigit (and this comes from someone who loves doing illigit things). you can also run an interbranch-conflict turn. then you can always do the straight up thing and win the say no debate. but the overall easiest is to just turn the relations net benefit. unlike other cp's you can't really go for the relations net benefit without the CP.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some things you should do...

 

Read a say no solvency deficit - basically saying Nation X doesn't like the plan and therefore the nation would say no in the consultation. This means the counterplan solves 0% of the affirmative.

 

Read a delay solvency deficit - basically, consulting Nation X takes a very long time. This means that the impacts of the aff might happen before the plan is done.

 

Say that US-X Nations relations are resilient. This is defense against the Net-Benefit to the CP, it helps you way solvency deficits against the Net-Benefit. Along the same lines, you could impact turn the Net-Benefit, by saying US-Z Nations' relations are bad. But, the other team will probably spread you out with the block if you do that.

 

Hope this helps...

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing math quickly.....consult looks something like this....

 

Non-binding consult:

Plan = plan(implications)

Consult = plan(implications) + consult(implications)

Perm = plan(implications) + consult(implications)

 

Binding Consult:

Plan - plan(implications)

Consult = [(0.x %)[(consult(implications)) + (plan(implications))]] + [(1-x %)[(consult(implications)]]

Perm = [(0.x %)[(consult(implications)) + (plan(implications))]] - [(1-x %)[(consult(implications)]]

 

If you can follow the logic math, you can see that the perm fails in binding consult, but succeeds in non-binding consult... but in order for the neg to get any weight in binding consult on the failure of the perm, the neg must produce evidence saying that if we consult country X, they say no, and we ignore them and do the plan anyways, that there is a negative implication to 'ignoring the result of consult'. If the neg cant articulate the negative implications, then the perm succeeds because the minus sign in the perm turns positive....

Edited by Ankur
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
intrinsic.

 

but, theory is the easiest way to beat it. they are very illigit (and this comes from someone who loves doing illigit things)

This is the thing about theory that I hate. What is the rational basis on which we just make arbitrary theory "interpretations" like "neg can't run states CP." I firmly believe that any theory argument should propose and defend a rational theory of negative or affirmative fiat. I.E. "The negative shouldn't be able to fiat multiple actors because there is no one decision maker who can ever choose to control multiple agents." Competition is also a prior filter to theoretical objections. If a certain set of counterplans is bad for debate, we should develop of coherent theory of competition that eliminates those CPs. But granting there competitive makes it easier for the neg to win on theory.

 

In other words the argument you should be going against this is perm do the counterplan. By saying its not competitive you undermine its legitimacy

Edited by thelastmim
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read a delay solvency deficit - basically, consulting Nation X takes a very long time. This means that the impacts of the aff might happen before the plan is done.

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can you take out Consult CPs other than theory?

perms all beg the (theory) question.

 

so you turn/outweigh

-time frame important impacts + consult takes long time

-they say no.

-defense on the nb.

-and your choice of either link turns or impact turns on the nb.

 

for this topic and next years, if your aff is reasonably small i think <japan> doesnt give a fuck and will be more pissed off as a result when we dont consult on something they care about (feel betrayed), and that wasting their time with consultation about US windfarms while avoiding the NK issue as they get thier nukes ready might also piss them off are fairly reasonable arguments. hell, even if it didnt piss them off it surely wouldnt improve relations enough to stave off any unique impact.

 

edit: btw, i would suggest going for perms/theory unless the neg skrews something up; consult is cheating and it has a huge advantage in every area but theory.

Edited by REDLEADER

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, cool. The aff I run is military....would it be logical to say that Japan has no buisness with our military and it reduces U.S. heg by consulting about our military?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If your solvency evidence says the us most be unilateral to act then go ahead. but that card wouldn't be very good, probably doesnt exist, and isn't a good argument.

 

yes it would be, yes it does, and yes it is

Zach AIM layne about this or find him or me tomarrow, we'll set you straight with sum delicious [insert heg author here]

Edited by The_dude0101
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think it's important to make a distinction between *possible* arguments and *strategic* arguments against consult cps.

 

possible arguments include:

 

a) X country says no (solvency deficit)

 

B) defense on the net benefit

 

c) reading a disad to consultation/ impact turning the net benefit

 

d) perm: do both; perm: do the cp; perm: consult with X country, but do the plan no matter what (lie perm); and a bunch more silly intrinsic/ severance/ delay perms

 

 

however, strategy against a consult cp is very different. the following is merely my opinion, and i'm sure many others will disagree with my assessment.

 

in general it's very difficult for the aff to completely win the direction of a turn against a DA/ net benefit. the neg gets 13 minutes of the block to read additional impacts to their net benefit, whereas the aff is limited to covering everything in the 5 minute 1ar. when i read consult cps, i'd get excited after the 2ac if the aff's sole strategy was a combination of impact turns and disads to the cp. i'd spend a good amount of the block straight turning all of their turns, and read additional impacts that are hard to impact turn (like the environment/ biodiversity). at that point, it is very difficult for the 1ar to recover, barring a large mistake by the block. the lesson of the story is that it's very hard for the aff to win the *direction* of a negative argument (this is true for most disads). the neg is more prepared, experienced, and has much more time.

 

defense on the net benefit (without a good solvency deficit) is probably a waste of time, because the neg's always going to win a risk of offense.

 

i'm probably biased, because i've defended the consult cp many more times than i've had to answer it, but i think that most "abusive" cps (like delay, conditioning, and consult) tend to be *competitive* (though probably not *legitimate*). this is because the neg can make arbitrary distinctions that aren't really that important, but make their cp competitive. for example, when you read consult cps, you want to utilize the crossx of the 1ac to ensure competition. you want the 1A to admit that the aff will defend that the plan happens immediately, in the present tense. you also want them to agree that they will defend the plan unconditionally (there is no risk of the plan being over-turned). the answer to these questions is important to the cp's competition, because you have to prove that the CP isn't plan-plus (that it includes the entirety of the plan).

 

when the aff says "perm: do the cp," you're going to argue that the perm is severance, because the consult cp doesn't include the entirety of the plan. this is for two reasons:

 

a) the cp pics out of the immediacy of the plan - the aff defends immediate implementation, while it takes several weeks for the consultation process to occur. "perm do the cp" would mean waiting several weeks *before* the aff plan actually happens, meaning it's severance. this could be potentially abused by the aff if they were using severance to get out of time sensitive arguments, like politics.

 

B) the cp pics out of the "resolved" nature of the plan, or its unconditionality. there's always a risk that X country will "say no," meaning there's always a chance that the plan would never be implemented in the world of the cp.

 

 

answering "perm do both," is even easier:

 

a) the cp solves the aff and the net benefit by itself, meaning there's no risk of a net benefit to doing both.

 

B) "doing both" turns the net benefit. if the usfg were to pass a plan, say bomb iran, and then *later* go to japan and ask "should be bomb iran?" the japanese would get pissed because it's obvious that the consultation is illegitimate. your 1nc solvency evidence will probably say something about why "prior, binding consultation" is important. but "perm do both" would involve acting first, then consulting others. that wouldn't solve the net benefit.

 

most other perms are either intrinsic or severance, so i'd just recommend reading a quick theory shell to deal with those.

 

 

so yeah, although i think consult cp's are generally *competitive,* i admit that they're probably not *legitimate.* i think the best theory argument to make is "counterplans with the possibility of doing the entirety of the aff plan are illegitimate - they basically mute 8 minutes of 1ac offense, and turn the debate into anything that the *neg* wants. remember all the reasons why it's functionally impossible for the aff to win the direction of a negative argument? if the aff can't even use their own case to outweigh the neg's impacts, it's basically impossible to win (without theory). the neg can pick a random issue that's completely unrelated to the aff's plan, and win a risk of offense without a serious threat of dealing with a solvency deficit. you can also tack on an education standard, because cps like this are obviously bad for topic education and just create "lazy debate" (i speak from experience).

 

an argument that a lot of negs will make to answer this is "nah man, consult doesn't steal the aff, you can read evidence that X country says no, or pick some time sensitive advantages." but if you're aff, you need to call them out on this. the negative basically gets to pick any country to consult - i've heard of a team reading "consult ethiopia." because there's functionally no limit on the number of countries the neg can consult, the research burden for the aff is far too immense. the aff can't have cards saying that every country in the world would dislike their plan - but the neg gets to pick the country, so they'll always be prepared.

 

and it's basically impossible to pick a truly "time sensitive advantage." you'd have to prove that nuclear war is coming in two weeks, and only immediate action by the plan would solve it, while consulting japan would take too long.

 

 

so tl;dr version:

 

unless you're just really fast, hitting a bad team, or have some really sweet cards, impact turning the net benefit is probably a bad strategy (especially if the cp is conditional, because the neg can just kick it if the 2ac spends a lot of time reading cards). reading a bunch of perms is probably a good idea, but they may not be a winning strategy (unless you know the judge is biased against consult cps). that means your best bet is to go for theory.

 

some other sites you might want to check out:

 

http://www.the3nr.com/2009/07/13/consultation-throwdown/

 

http://consultationisgood.blogspot.com/2010/03/another-perspective-on-consulting.html

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i think it's important to make a distinction between *possible* arguments and *strategic* arguments against consult cps.

 

possible arguments include:

 

a) X country says no (solvency deficit)

 

B) defense on the net benefit

 

c) reading a disad to consultation/ impact turning the net benefit

 

d) perm: do both; perm: do the cp; perm: consult with X country, but do the plan no matter what (lie perm); and a bunch more silly intrinsic/ severance/ delay perms

 

 

however, strategy against a consult cp is very different. the following is merely my opinion, and i'm sure many others will disagree with my assessment.

 

in general it's very difficult for the aff to completely win the direction of a turn against a DA/ net benefit. the neg gets 13 minutes of the block to read additional impacts to their net benefit, whereas the aff is limited to covering everything in the 5 minute 1ar. when i read consult cps, i'd get excited after the 2ac if the aff's sole strategy was a combination of impact turns and disads to the cp. i'd spend a good amount of the block straight turning all of their turns, and read additional impacts that are hard to impact turn (like the environment/ biodiversity). at that point, it is very difficult for the 1ar to recover, barring a large mistake by the block. the lesson of the story is that it's very hard for the aff to win the *direction* of a negative argument (this is true for most disads). the neg is more prepared, experienced, and has much more time.

 

defense on the net benefit (without a good solvency deficit) is probably a waste of time, because the neg's always going to win a risk of offense.

 

i'm probably biased, because i've defended the consult cp many more times than i've had to answer it, but i think that most "abusive" cps (like delay, conditioning, and consult) tend to be *competitive* (though probably not *legitimate*). this is because the neg can make arbitrary distinctions that aren't really that important, but make their cp competitive. for example, when you read consult cps, you want to utilize the crossx of the 1ac to ensure competition. you want the 1A to admit that the aff will defend that the plan happens immediately, in the present tense. you also want them to agree that they will defend the plan unconditionally (there is no risk of the plan being over-turned). the answer to these questions is important to the cp's competition, because you have to prove that the CP isn't plan-plus (that it includes the entirety of the plan).

 

when the aff says "perm: do the cp," you're going to argue that the perm is severance, because the consult cp doesn't include the entirety of the plan. this is for two reasons:

 

a) the cp pics out of the immediacy of the plan - the aff defends immediate implementation, while it takes several weeks for the consultation process to occur. "perm do the cp" would mean waiting several weeks *before* the aff plan actually happens, meaning it's severance. this could be potentially abused by the aff if they were using severance to get out of time sensitive arguments, like politics.

 

B) the cp pics out of the "resolved" nature of the plan, or its unconditionality. there's always a risk that X country will "say no," meaning there's always a chance that the plan would never be implemented in the world of the cp.

 

 

answering "perm do both," is even easier:

 

a) the cp solves the aff and the net benefit by itself, meaning there's no risk of a net benefit to doing both.

 

B) "doing both" turns the net benefit. if the usfg were to pass a plan, say bomb iran, and then *later* go to japan and ask "should be bomb iran?" the japanese would get pissed because it's obvious that the consultation is illegitimate. your 1nc solvency evidence will probably say something about why "prior, binding consultation" is important. but "perm do both" would involve acting first, then consulting others. that wouldn't solve the net benefit.

 

most other perms are either intrinsic or severance, so i'd just recommend reading a quick theory shell to deal with those.

 

 

so yeah, although i think consult cp's are generally *competitive,* i admit that they're probably not *legitimate.* i think the best theory argument to make is "counterplans with the possibility of doing the entirety of the aff plan are illegitimate - they basically mute 8 minutes of 1ac offense, and turn the debate into anything that the *neg* wants. remember all the reasons why it's functionally impossible for the aff to win the direction of a negative argument? if the aff can't even use their own case to outweigh the neg's impacts, it's basically impossible to win (without theory). the neg can pick a random issue that's completely unrelated to the aff's plan, and win a risk of offense without a serious threat of dealing with a solvency deficit. you can also tack on an education standard, because cps like this are obviously bad for topic education and just create "lazy debate" (i speak from experience).

 

an argument that a lot of negs will make to answer this is "nah man, consult doesn't steal the aff, you can read evidence that X country says no, or pick some time sensitive advantages." but if you're aff, you need to call them out on this. the negative basically gets to pick any country to consult - i've heard of a team reading "consult ethiopia." because there's functionally no limit on the number of countries the neg can consult, the research burden for the aff is far too immense. the aff can't have cards saying that every country in the world would dislike their plan - but the neg gets to pick the country, so they'll always be prepared.

 

and it's basically impossible to pick a truly "time sensitive advantage." you'd have to prove that nuclear war is coming in two weeks, and only immediate action by the plan would solve it, while consulting japan would take too long.

 

 

so tl;dr version:

 

unless you're just really fast, hitting a bad team, or have some really sweet cards, impact turning the net benefit is probably a bad strategy (especially if the cp is conditional, because the neg can just kick it if the 2ac spends a lot of time reading cards). reading a bunch of perms is probably a good idea, but they may not be a winning strategy (unless you know the judge is biased against consult cps). that means your best bet is to go for theory.

 

some other sites you might want to check out:

 

http://www.the3nr.com/2009/07/13/consultation-throwdown/

 

http://consultationisgood.blogspot.com/2010/03/another-perspective-on-consulting.html

 

don't listen to him; he's gay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Perm: Do the plan and lie to X country

 

i'm assuming you mean "perm: consult X country but do the plan regardless" (lie perm)

 

 

here are the theory arguments and cards i might read - although i would only read all of the cards if i knew it was a perm you were likely to go for. (some of the cards are specific to japan).

 

 

It’s intrinsic because it adds the process of non binding consultation – the counter plan is binding

Voter because it means the aff can fiat anything to make all counterplans uncompetitive.

It’s severance because it severs out of the immediacy and resolved status of the plan

Voter because it makes the plan a moving target because they can spike out of disad links

Leaks are inevitable

Wilson & DiIulio 98. (James, PolySci @ UCLA, John, PolySci @ Princeton, American

Government: Institutions and Policies, p. 291)

American government is the leakiest in the world. The bureaucracy, members of Congress, and the White House staff regularly leak stories favorable to their interests. Of late the leaks have become geysers, gushing forth torrents of insider stories. Many people in and out of government find it depressing that our government seems unable to keep anything secret for long. Others think that the public has a right to know even more and that there are still too many secrets. However you view leaks, you should understand why we have so many. The answer is found in the Constitution. Because we have separate institutions that must share power, each branch of government competes with the others to get power.

One way to compete is to try to use the press to advance your pet projects and to make the other side look bad. There are far fewer leaks in other democratic nations in party because power is centralized in the hands of a prime minister, who does not need to leak in order to get the upper hand over the legislature, and because the legislature has too little information to be a good source of leaks. In addition, we have no Official Secrets Act of the kind that exists in England; except for a few matters, it is not against the law for the press to receive and print government secrets.

 

That turns the net benefit

 

Kamiya ’03 (Matake, a graduate of Tokyo and Columbia Universities, is associate professor-of international -relations- at -the National Defense Academy of Japan, Reinventing the Alliance Ed. G. John Ikenberry & Takashi Inoguchi Pg 111)

Meanwhile, as mentioned earlier, the Japanese are frustrated with the fact that their country tends not to be viewed by the rest of the world as being its own independent political entity. They want their country to become a major political power. A considerable number of Japanese doubt if that goal is achievable as long as Japan remains dependent upon the U.S. alliance for its security. For its own national interest as well as for the sake of stability in the region and the world, Japan should not become a major military power. However, if Japan continues to be treated as a second-class political power ranking below the United States, China, and Russia because of its self-restrained military posture, the Japanese might be forced to consider ending its military dependence on the United States. The Americans should recognize that the Japanese particularly want to be treated as an equal partner by the United States. Despite the rhetoric used by Washington, many Japanese feel that their country is still treated as a junior partner by the United States. On the condition that enough efforts are taken by Japan to become a more responsible security partner of the United States, Washington should stop treating Japan this way. The partnership between the two allies must be transformed into a more "equal" one.

 

Genuine consultation is key

Mochizuki 97. (Mike, Senior Fellow @ Brookings Foreign Policy Studies.

As the U.S.-Japan alliance becomes more reciprocal, the United States must genuinely consult

Japan, not merely inform it of decisions already made. Although the two countries agreed to a prior consultations process when the 1960 bilateral security pact was signed, this mechanism has never been used. Because support for U.S. military operations beyond Japan would provoke suchintense domestic controversy, Tokyo appeared to prefer not to be consulted. The Japanese governmenthas applied such strict criteria for when Washington would have to consult with Tokyo that Washingtonhas never had to get Japan's formal permission to use bases in Japan for military operations in SoutheastAsia or the Middle East. The result has been, paradoxically, that pacifist Japan has given the United States freer rein on the use of overseas bases than America's European allies. Japan's abdication of its right to be consulted has fueled public distrust in Japan about bilateral defense cooperation. A healthier alliance demands prior consultation. As Japan musters the courage and will to say "yes" to collective defense and security missions, it should also gain the right to say "no" when it disagrees with U.S. policy. The U.S.-Japan alliance would then evolve toward something akin to America's strategic relationships with the major West European allies.

 

 

 

Modifications are essential to solvency

 

J.G. Merrils, Professor of Public Law, University of Sheffield, 1998 (International Dispute Settlement) p. 4

Consultation When a government anticipates that a decision or a proposed course of action may harm another state, discussions with the affected party can provide a way of heading off a dispute by creating an opportunity for adjustment and accommodation. Quite minor modifications to its plans of no importance to the state taking the decision, may be all that is required to avoid trouble, yet may only be apparent if the other side is given a chance to point them out. The particular value of consultation is that it supplies this useful information at the most appropriate time – before anything has been done. For it is far easier to make the necessary modifications at the decision-making stage, rather than later, when exactly the same action may seem like capitulation to foreign pressure or be seized on by critics as a sacrifice of domestic interests. A good example of the value of consultation is provided by the practice of the United States and Canada in antitrust proceedings.

 

 

A priori moral obligation to reject lying – evaluate this first

 

Murphy 96 <Mark C., 41 Am. J. Juris. 81, The American Journal of Jurisprudence, “Natural Law And The Moral Absolute Against Lying,” lexis>

Bok's remarks capture the insight that what disturbs people about lying is not fundamentally that lies are contrary to the good of knowledge, though lies certainly are contrary to that good. What is most troubling about being lied to is that lies infect the decisionmaking process, undermining the good of practical reasonableness. Thus, the account of the moral absolute against lying defended here does justice to what bothers reflective people about being the victim of lies. 39

I have argued that although Finnis is right to think that the lie is an act directed against the intrinsic good of knowledge, the wrongfulness of lying is most adequately explained by reference to the good of practical reasonableness. Lying is absolutely morally forbidden, in last analysis, because refraining from lying is necessary to show adequate respect for the status of other agents as practical reasoners. On this matter, at the very least, natural law theory should affirm its agreement with Kant. 40

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A priori moral obligation to reject lying – evaluate this first

 

Murphy 96 <Mark C., 41 Am. J. Juris. 81, The American Journal of Jurisprudence, “Natural Law And The Moral Absolute Against Lying,” lexis>

Bok's remarks capture the insight that what disturbs people about lying is not fundamentally that lies are contrary to the good of knowledge, though lies certainly are contrary to that good. What is most troubling about being lied to is that lies infect the decisionmaking process, undermining the good of practical reasonableness. Thus, the account of the moral absolute against lying defended here does justice to what bothers reflective people about being the victim of lies. 39

I have argued that although Finnis is right to think that the lie is an act directed against the intrinsic good of knowledge, the wrongfulness of lying is most adequately explained by reference to the good of practical reasonableness. Lying is absolutely morally forbidden, in last analysis, because refraining from lying is necessary to show adequate respect for the status of other agents as practical reasoners. On this matter, at the very least, natural law theory should affirm its agreement with Kant. 40

Sigh, the retarded ass "lying is bad" bullshit. Don't ever read this. Debate is a bunch of lies, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sigh, the retarded ass "lying is bad" bullshit. Don't ever read this. Debate is a bunch of lies, after all.

 

 

lol, i agree that it's probably not a round winner against any semi-competent team. i'd only read that evidence if i knew that for some reason, the other team is likely to go for that perm in the 2ar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol, i agree that it's probably not a round winner against any semi-competent team. i'd only read that evidence if i knew that for some reason, the other team is likely to go for that perm in the 2ar

 

god, you're such a tool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double-bind, motherfucker

 

Either:

1)Plan passes w/ consult, and therefore there is no impx to the net ben OR

2)Plan doesn't pass due to consultation, so no solvency

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Double-bind, motherfucker

 

Either:

1)Plan passes w/ consult, and therefore there is no impx to the net ben OR

2)Plan doesn't pass due to consultation, so no solvency

 

can't tell if serious...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Double-bind, motherfucker

 

Either:

1)Plan passes w/ consult, and therefore there is no impx to the net ben OR

2)Plan doesn't pass due to consultation, so no solvency

 

 

if the plan happens as a result of the consultation, that's good for the neg. it means the cp solves the case *and* it solves the net benefit. if the aff's winning a chance that X country will say no, and the plan might not happen as a result of the cp, the debate comes down to weighing the risk of the plan not happening vs the relations net benefit. even if the aff's winning a good risk of the country saying no, the neg can still win that the process of consulting the country will still improve its relations and outweigh the aff's plan by itself.

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...