Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jon Arbuckle

PICing out of multiple words?

Recommended Posts

Would it be theoretically legit (discounting floating PICs bad, general PICs bad theory) to PIC out of multiple words in the plan? Like if I was PICing out of the words poverty and "the" could I claim the net benefits to each individual PIC and say counterplan: United States Federal Government should substantially increase social services for low-income persons living in the United States.

 

Obviously not a real plan, and I just made up the poverty PIC wording, but would this have some massive flaw I'm overlooking?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its unnecessary and will most likely make it harder for you. heres why: if they have offense against one of the net benefits, you cant just go for the other one if you pic out of both words. also, most likely, winning the substance of the net benefit is not going to be your problem with this strat, so adding more to that portion of the debate will just suck up more 2nr time that you will be needing to spend on theory and the permutations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would it be theoretically legit (discounting floating PICs bad, general PICs bad theory) to PIC out of multiple words in the plan? Like if I was PICing out of the words poverty and "the" could I claim the net benefits to each individual PIC and say counterplan: United States Federal Government should substantially increase social services for low-income persons living in the United States.

 

Obviously not a real plan, and I just made up the poverty PIC wording, but would this have some massive flaw I'm overlooking?

 

This is an illadvised strategy since the common aff answer to the substance of the NB is stuff like censorship and simply impact turning (colonialism good, etc.) In this world, the nature of the words themselves matter little, unless you have a diversity of implications (e.g. PICing out of 'The' implicated geopolitics while PICing out of words like 'animal' implicates anthro, etc.)

 

I agree with the guy above. PICing out of both only creates the potential for them to get extra areas of offense, and even if the word you're adding to your PIC list somehow turns case, excluding it from the CP doesn't hurt you as it would link to both of you in the end.

 

HOWEVER - there are instances in which multiple words being PIC'd out of it is good. Keep in mind that you're functionally just running 3 or 4 DA's linked to their linguistic choices. The downside to being aff against a word PIC is that even if you win that using a particular word/mindset is good, it's hard to stick the neg with rejecting that mindset since oftentimes, the CP is worded to just not say the word, not really denounce it. This is dangerous for the aff primarily - since, their O isn't a DA to the neg, and if they say things like "um - you don't dismantle those assumptions", you have functionally made a takeout to your offense while granting them a risk that you are doing something bad.

 

I used the above example of multiple impacts to the word PICs as being smart because just impact turning colonialism is irrelevant if you drop anthro. It's all a DA game in the end, and conceded impact scenarios are harder to address than ones you have D on. That, and smart 2AC's will likely read both defensive takeouts and offensive turns to each implication - so - you can spot D on the colonialism debate to get out of it and go all-in on anthro. Worse can scenario, you make the aff think this is your thing, let them read tons of impact turns, and then you can concede 'no impact to discourse' and go for a DA or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would it be theoretically legit (discounting floating PICs bad, general PICs bad theory) to PIC out of multiple words in the plan? Like if I was PICing out of the words poverty and "the" could I claim the net benefits to each individual PIC and say counterplan: United States Federal Government should substantially increase social services for low-income persons living in the United States.

 

Obviously not a real plan, and I just made up the poverty PIC wording, but would this have some massive flaw I'm overlooking?

 

 

There's your massive flaw, you're not Chris Thiele and your net benefit links back to your counterplan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's your massive flaw, you're not Chris Thiele and your net benefit links back to your counterplan.

 

Also, the K's of poverty rhetoric also indict calling poverty a state of "low-income" - afterall, your income is only low insofar as others have high income. That's the same arbitrary way of isolating the poor as being in a different state when they're really on a continuum.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, the K's of poverty rhetoric also indict calling poverty a state of "low-income" - afterall, your income is only low insofar as others have high income. That's the same arbitrary way of isolating the poor as being in a different state when they're really on a continuum.

 

You said "the". Dick.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just run two counterplans. You'll have to answer condo and PIC theory anyway.

 

This is probably the best way to go if you feel strongly that your best strategy is to test whether or not using either of the words in question is good or bad. It allows for the easy concession of offense (if they have it) against one of the words to allow you to go for another.

 

This does not avoid the issue of their generic "words don't matter" kind of arguments answering both, but you should have specific enough evidence to where you aren't reading generic impact cards so generic D wouldn't be responsive.

 

However, to answer your actual question, no, I don't see any reason why it would be illegitimate to run a PIC out of two words instead of one.

 

The only caveat i have in terms of theory if you do chose to do this is to watch out for "Our interp is you can PIC out of one word" theory arguments. I'm not really sure why this interpretation would be good but there seems to be an increasing number of people who evaluate theory debates in terms of very narrow questions of competing interpretations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Dan and Wes.

 

In general, if you are not good enough at a theory debate to defend conditionality or defend more than one counterplan, you are probably not good enough at theory to be defending a word pic, which very frequently just ends up being a debate about competition.

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...