Jump to content
lightdruid111

Aff severence

Recommended Posts

I was once involved in a round where one debater wanted to drop his aff and just win the impact turns on a counterplan. Is this allowed? should the aff win even if he does not advocate his plan (change in squo) anymore? when the neg decides to also advocate squo bad, do the shoes switch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes, once the negative advocates a counterplan presumption switches to the affirmative.

 

i dont find this always true.

 

The persumption may shift aff but that doesn't eman the affirmative shouldn't have to defend a disirable plan. I've never kicked a plan and gone for the impact turn.

 

the only way i could see this working isn't really severence.

 

This is what would ahve to happen. The Negative would have to argue that the plan doesn't solve in a generic since. The aff could then extend that across say ur right we don't sovle for that. but we are still net beneficial because of the impact turns on the CP (i.e. CP is worse than not solving anything.) This means the affirmative has succesfully defended that its plan is net desirable vs. the negatives policy option.

 

I've kicked a plan before but it normally revolves around advocating a permutation. Had some success with this against ULL and won a round i was way behind in. when the 2nr

 

went for the impact turns on case, then kicked the cp, then went for a da aswell. they also dropped that severence is ok. (our block generated offense with no defense such as (perm is test).

 

what i did was extend the perm on the kicked counter-plan (we had won the severence good debate. I argued this is a 2ar strategy that the 2nr should of seen coming and that thier was absolutely no theortical reason why it was illegitimate within the round to do this. Then explained for 5 mins why the cp doesn't link to the imapct turns.

 

Thats the level of detail i expect any debater attempting to severe a plan to go for, these are highly intircate strategies and would require exstensive explanation.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the 2nr should set up the round so that if the aff even tries to do that, they will lose.

 

The 2nr should have some offense besides simply a c/p and provide impact calculation for plan vs. c/p

 

Additionally, if the c/p is run conditionally/dispositionally without theory left in the round in the 2nr-- the SQ is still an option to vote for (where the presumption argument is based). In other words, unless you run an unconditional CP-- the SQ is neg ground. If the SQ is best, then the neg should win. That's the argumentation that should be coming out of the 2NR. Aff kicks plans to go on c/p turns in this case aff= L because there's no reason to vote for them.

 

The only way that the turns could win the aff the round is if the turns are independent voters or pre-fiat/discursive turns that go with running the c/p itself and not the polic-implications, so be mindful of those as the neg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Wilson... if i read what he wrote correctly... (i tend to agree with you)

 

But i believe the engative is going for the CP... and in my view that means the round then becomes about whether the plan or the CP is better... Now i believe your taking the view that if the CP isn't better then you would move to the DA and SQ... but I find this 1) intrusive (judge intervention) and 2) hard to arrticulate a winner.

 

Ex.

 

Given my idea of extending the no solvency arguement... then the link to most DA's would be mute... (except politics but thats a whole other bag of worms)

 

If the plan doesn't sovle anything then i doubt very seriously that a link will be triggered.

 

In this case if Oresumption shift aff because of the neg going for the CP then i vote aff... but to justify a negative vote in this situation i have to make logical jumps that aren't made in the debate...

 

1) have to make the logical leap that i should evaluate the SQ

2) have to make the logical leap that if i evaluate the SQ presumption again shifts.

3) then have to make the logical decision that i should pull the trigger on a DA that probably has no link, (or possibly even a risk of one) vs. a no solvency arguement that the aff's conceding takes out 100% solvency... and thus in my opinion proves a 0% link.

4) so the question then becomes is a no sovlency enough for me to vote negative... because they have impact scenarios that are going to happen so the question is do we act in the face of calamity even if its most likely not effective?

 

I dunno just seems to mutil my decision making.

 

I ould evaluate it CP vs. Plan

 

Plan doesn't solve and thus is not positive or engatively beneficial.

CP is IMPACT turned thus the debate for me comes down to the impact calc of the impact turns vs. the impact calc of the net benefit... if they are impact turning the net benefit its pretty much gameover...

 

 

Although i would require theoretical justifications most likely unless thiers absolutely no preempts...

 

 

and yes im the 2ar style that makes the 2nr such a very hard speech i admit this... but i've done them both thus i dont have much sympathy ... dunno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yes, once the negative advocates a counterplan presumption switches to the affirmative.

 

Not entirely accurate. Certainly the Neg advocating a CP affects presumption, but policymaker judges would look at the magnitude of change implied in the 2 policies and presumption would go to the side advocating the least amount of change from the SQ.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the (anonymous) rep poster who left this for me:

 

"thats why no one likes strict policymaker judges - hes asking what most judges would think"

 

I would disagree with your assertion that "no one" likes such judges; I would also disagree that "most judges" do not consider policymaker implications. Neither of those are true, or even close to true. I suspect that you are responding based on your own fairly limited view of debate, much like one of the seven blind men looking at an elephant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my biggest qualms about some judges is their unwavering ideals when it isn't even a part of debate. I don't care if a judge dislikes a T, he/she/it should still vote/flow it because the job of the judge is to remain as objective as possible.

 

I do know when I judge and hear things i totally disagree with, i may make fun of them for running the position but never discount it. I've voted one too many times for cap good...

 

So kinda summing up the view point about aff pres, it depends on who would move away from the squo more?

 

Aff: USFG should go to Brazil and give them money to save Amazon

Neg: CP: Private enterprises should go to brazil and give them money to save amazon. with a NB of USFG action hurts relations with country A and country A key to economy -> mead

 

if neg has USFG = useless actor = big solvency def. this means that Aff doesn't go far from changing squo while Neg private companies = solve much better.

 

Aff just needs to impact turn the relations and private enterprises or just relations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as long as the affirmative has offense - they are still justifying the plan. In the case of the CP, it could go either way. Depending on how the debate hashes out would determine how I decide presumption, but i generally think that presumption goes to the affirmative if the negative is advocating a cp/alt.

I would most likely vote negative if the impact turns to the CP/alt did not generate offense in the SQuo and the 2NR tells me that the squo is still an option. As the 2n you should be prepared to do this - an affirmative team isn't going to out of nowhere drop case and go for an impact turn. It has to be either totally mishandeled and the case is crushed or the case is decimated and the turn is your only out.

 

I'd vote aff if they stuck the negative with the CP/Alt or the offense applied to the status quo as well.

 

Either way i would not be happy when this happened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To the (anonymous) rep poster who left this for me:

 

"thats why no one likes strict policymaker judges - hes asking what most judges would think"

 

I would disagree with your assertion that "no one" likes such judges; I would also disagree that "most judges" do not consider policymaker implications. Neither of those are true, or even close to true. I suspect that you are responding based on your own fairly limited view of debate, much like one of the seven blind men looking at an elephant.

 

 

you can judge me anytime... seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of my biggest qualms about some judges is their unwavering ideals when it isn't even a part of debate. I don't care if a judge dislikes a T, he/she/it should still vote/flow it because the job of the judge is to remain as objective as possible.

 

I do know when I judge and hear things i totally disagree with, i may make fun of them for running the position but never discount it. I've voted one too many times for cap good...

 

So kinda summing up the view point about aff pres, it depends on who would move away from the squo more?

 

Aff: USFG should go to Brazil and give them money to save Amazon

Neg: CP: Private enterprises should go to brazil and give them money to save amazon. with a NB of USFG action hurts relations with country A and country A key to economy -> mead

 

if neg has USFG = useless actor = big solvency def. this means that Aff doesn't go far from changing squo while Neg private companies = solve much better.

 

Aff just needs to impact turn the relations and private enterprises or just relations?

 

While i agree with you objectivity standard (something i've said for a while) So judges (because thier not machines) don't like certian debates.

 

When you ask a judge how they evaluate T

what they're thinking is god i'm going to ahve to watch three T's a CP a DA and CAse then its going to all get skewed in the block and im going to be doing a piecing job after the round. Simply put most judges are thier to get paid (or to prevent having to pay for thier school) they want an easy out, if they don't understand the theory of the T debate very well then they should tell you its going to be hard for them to win the debate.

 

See while it seems subjective a lot of times its just the judge isn't good at that debate thus they feel insecure in voting for it.

 

The contrary is the way i vote on theory.

I'm very good at theory but have a hard time voting for it without a very well explained story and without its being very well established.

Ex. i tell kids if its dropped go for it! but that doesn't mean you mention it for a quarter second and expect me to vote for it.

 

Impartiality and objectivity are impossible so we let judges explain where thier dispositions are so the debate round is quicker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I spent my last year of college discoing out of case. Fun stuff. We'd get slammed out of the 1N with a ton of disads, T and a CP or 2 (thanks USC). I was too slow to cover, so we'd find something to K and go pre-fiat. I read more Patriarchy cards that year. And anyone remember the pebble card? We would never sever the advocacy but we'd just argue that the policy implications of plan were no longer at issue, instead it was the discourse that mattered.

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...