Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Zachary

Consult CP

Recommended Posts

intrinsic.

 

I tend to disagree- I don't think the multiple worlds permutation is illegitimate, given that the counterplan introduces the possibility of multiple outcomes to generate competition. I think that means that you should get a permutation that functions in multiple worlds, since they have introduced that as their functional competition mechanism (which many neg debaters like to claim "PIC's out of the 'resolved' nature of the plan").

 

I think that this permutation reduces the probability of the net benefit almost to zero. Also, the do both permutation could be explained as doing non-binding consultation- they won't have any evidence that says that the country should hold veto power over the US's foreign policy, and if they do, then you can just read that Carrol card that every seems to have now that says veto power kills credibility.

 

Not only that, but analytical say no arguments tend to get people a long way, sine nobody likes consult counterplans and nobody has specific say yes evidence anyway.

 

Plus, you should press them on what they consult over- implementation or enforcement. If it's just implementation, it's probably competitive, but links to the credibility DA. If it's both, the perm to do the plan and consult on enforcement solves the net benefit probably, since they are always awful and super generic. If its just enforcement, that's probably not in the plan text, and it's plan plus for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not only that, but analytical say no arguments tend to get people a long way, sine nobody likes consult counterplans and nobody has specific say yes evidence anyway.

 

Yes. Mostly.

 

That being said, if a team has a card that says all that matters in the act of consultation i.e. even if they say "no" we can do the plan anyway and still solve the NB. The aff will have to go for either Offense or Defense on the NB even though it is a weak arg as Andrew12345 pointed out. Munday and Jamison got to quarter finals of NCLF with the Consult China CP on the SSA topic because they a card that said all that mattered was the consultation and that if we asked even if they said "no" they could do the Aff and avoid the NB.

 

This card also mutes some of the theory, because the specifity of the ev. will check some of education arguments. But, these cards are extremely rare and difficult to find so you wont see them very often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I tend to disagree- I don't think the multiple worlds permutation is illegitimate, given that the counterplan introduces the possibility of multiple outcomes to generate competition. I think that means that you should get a permutation that functions in multiple worlds, since they have introduced that as their functional competition mechanism (which many neg debaters like to claim "PIC's out of the 'resolved' nature of the plan").

 

 

can you clarify what perm you're talking about? perm: consult X country and do the plan if they say yes, and don't do the plan if they say no?

 

 

Also, the do both permutation could be explained as doing non-binding consultation-

 

this would be intrinsic (because the cp is binding consultation, and the perm is non-binding). also, there's a lot of evidence that says this wouldn't solve the net benefit.

 

 

they won't have any evidence that says that the country should hold veto power over the US's foreign policy, and if they do, then you can just read that Carrol card that every seems to have now that says veto power kills credibility.

 

see above, most teams should be able to win that non-binding consultation doesn't solve relations. sure, you can read the carrol card, but that's basically just a bad disad to the cp, not a net benefit to the perm.

 

 

Not only that, but analytical say no arguments tend to get people a long way, sine nobody likes consult counterplans and nobody has specific say yes evidence anyway.

 

yeah, as long as you're winning other offense or defense on the net benefit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a 2a I despise the consult CP with a fiery passion, so here are some tips to end this scourge on debate.

 

Substance v. consult

 

Signal based advantages--giving another country veto power over US policy on something probably reduces the credibility of US commitment to something. For example if you were reading an advantage about US nonproliferation credibility, giving Japan or NATO a veto over this policy wouldn't do great things for the perception that the US makes nonproliferation a high priority. These make great add-ons against the CP.

 

Modifications--Since countries will actually want to be consulted on this years resolution, you could argue that allowing them to modify the policy will change it in undesirable ways. Japan might not want to maintain a small amount of troops or hijack consultation to demand some other policy like missile defense. (These are just hypothetical examples, I don't know much about the HS rez).

 

Delay--have a very short timeframe advantage and read cards about consultation taking a while, so the CP can't solve one of the advantages. Read a short tf addon if you don't have a fast 1ac advantage.

 

Say no--obvious. Try to find some reason why the country would dislike or even not want to speak on the issue of plan. If the US actually tried to enter into binding consultation with Japan over energy or social service policy, they would be confused and probably say that the framework of genuine consultation created for decisions on the SECURITY ALLIANCE wasn't the right forum for the question. It would also just be stupid.

 

Impact Turn the Net-Benefit--This is most strategic when you can moot the ability of the block to spam impact addons. Ex/ NATO trades off with an active EU, which solves all the reasons NATO is good and is good for an external reason. NATO collapse inevitable, now better than later for Y reason. You must have good defense on the original impact as well (rule #1 of impact turning).

 

Consult DA's--These are based on the process of consultation and giving another country a veto. These are not as good as having quick/signal-based advantages because if the neg kicks the CP there is a definite time tradeoff. However, if you have nothing else going for you, these are a must.

 

- Hegemony: Forget the Carroll evidence, its trash and you will get beat by the better Klinger cards. There are several cards out there supporting the argument that giving other countries a veto over US policy destroys heg.

Heg DA cites

 

Goble 93 – Senior Associate @ Carnegie Foundation for International Peace, Paul, “AWOL Abroad: Clinton's Foreign Policy”, Christian Science Monitor, 7/2, ln

The end of the cold war is an appropriate time to redefine our national interests. ...a lowest-common-denominator level of international agreement.

 

- Rising expectations: consulting them over some trivial BS just makes our allies more pissed when we don't ask about the important stuff. Related to this would be things arguments such as "consultation undermines the alliance by destroying perception of US leadership"

 

 

Rising expectations cite

 

 

The National Journal 2 - Clive Crook, "One Thing That Did Not Change: How the World Sees America,", 9/14, 34.37

Sometimes, admittedly, it is tempting to accommodate ...r reneging on its promises.

 

 

Alliance link turns/possible heg DA

 

Betts 5 – Professor of political science and Director of the Institute of War and Peace Studies, Columbia University, Sr. Fellow @ CFR, Richard, “The Political Support System for American Primacy”, International Affairs, 81.1, http://www.columbia.edu/cu/siwps/publication_files/betts/The%20Political%20Support%20System%20for%20American%20Primacy%20-%20Betts.pdf

The US government has little reason, moreover,... propose a plan and lead the alliance.

 

- Constitution/SOP: apparently giving another country veto power over US policy isn't cool with the constitution or separation of powers. I'm not sure how good the cards are on this, but its an argument I've heard.

 

- Inter-branch conflict: I haven't seen the cards on this question, but here are some cites from UTD BR's wiki

IBC Turn:

Consult causes it

Newsom 92 The Allies and Arms Control, p. 282

The reluctance of an administration to consult fully with the Congress…cause serious executive-legislative tensions.

 

Causes prolif, AIDS, envtl collapse

Jamison 93 “Executive-Legislative Relations After the Cold War,” Wash Quarterly

Indeed there are very few domestic issues that do not…dialogue that goes beyond the executive branch (Mann 1990, 28-29).

 

- There are also specific DA's based on the agents being consulted. You'll have to dig through the lit to find these. Consulting Japan could piss off China for example.

 

Finally, you must have defense. One consult won't snowball and improve alt causes to relations, regular answers to relations, etc. The net benefits to consult are weak and should be easy to beat.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
can you clarify what perm you're talking about? perm: consult X country and do the plan if they say yes, and don't do the plan if they say no?

Indeed. That is the literal modification that they have made to the plan, meaning that the permutation is legitimate.

 

 

this would be intrinsic (because the cp is binding consultation, and the perm is non-binding). also, there's a lot of evidence that says this wouldn't solve the net benefit.

It's not intrinsic. The counterplan will include consult, your perm just doesn't include the binding part of the counterplan text.

 

There is not real evidence that this won't solve the net benefit, it's generally well out of context. Nobody actually has ever given anyone veto power over foreign policy.

 

see above, most teams should be able to win that non-binding consultation doesn't solve relations. sure, you can read the carrol card, but that's basically just a bad disad to the cp, not a net benefit to the perm.

I don't think that's true. I suppose any DA to the counterplan will really do, you just need one. Also, the net benefits to these counterplans generally are not good.

 

 

yeah, as long as you're winning other offense or defense on the net benefit.

First, not very hard to do since it is probably just a non-unique DA. Second, the case should outweigh.

Third, if you have a generic impact defense file, it probably won't be very hard to win some defense on the impact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-Perm do the cplan- It is the plan but with consult. We asked the natives, they said yes as per the 1nc cx, means its functionally the same as the plan.

-Perm do the plan and consult natives on another future policy.

Ya ya ya, intrinisc, quit crying.

1.) If perm captures net benefit proves there is not a specific link/specific uniqueness to the plan, and means the disad is essentially dead in the water. PERM TESTS THIS ASSUMPTION

2.) Don't have any specific evidence on how country even cares about the policy, makes the arg a shallow generic.

3.) Impact is pretty dead anyway (just read of another instance where the US worked with the actor in question)

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...