Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
westj

AT; T- increase= pre existing

Recommended Posts

how do i answer this T. My aff does not use a pre existing program, i lost on it this weekend and now im not sure how to answer it, any help would be useful. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
W/M, social services are pre-existing and we make a net increase of social services

 

Still doesn't meet - Their interpretation is that the specific type of social service you increase has to already exist.

 

Best way to go about answering this is to read a CI that increase is to make greater and win that although it has a larger limit, it's a more predictable interp than theirs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

C/i - increase = grow in number, size

 

c/standards

ground - they overlimit topic, that kills education.

breadth outweighs depth

 

no abuse/ground loss

 

their only argument they have going for them is predictability good...

 

1.you're predictable, your literature base proves this, others have predicted this aff (camps cut it perhaps?)

 

2. predictability bad... leads to bad, repetitive debates.

 

3. your education standard outweighs. them losing to this aff will make them have to go research your plan, further proving you access education best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest andrew-
C/i - increase = grow in number, size

 

c/standards

ground - they overlimit topic, that kills education.

breadth outweighs depth

 

no abuse/ground loss

 

their only argument they have going for them is predictability good...

 

1.you're predictable, your literature base proves this, others have predicted this aff (camps cut it perhaps?)

 

2. predictability bad... leads to bad, repetitive debates.

 

3. your education standard outweighs. them losing to this aff will make them have to go research your plan, further proving you access education best.

 

 

this counter interp probably isn't competitive. the neg will perm it and say increase means pre-existing and a net increase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS: Your inherency and at least one of your non-uniques should speak to pre-existing policies in your specific niche.

 

We meet- we increase from pre-existing--cross apply x card.

 

Also, what I wrote above a couple comments back.

 

What is the affirmative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this counter interp probably isn't competitive. the neg will perm it and say increase means pre-existing and a net increase.

 

The perm wouldn't access any of the aff standards. It's functionally the same thing as the original interp because it still only allows affs to use old social services - only the CI alone would allow for new types of affs and access the ground argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest andrew-
The perm wouldn't access any of the aff standards. It's functionally the same thing as the original interp because it still only allows affs to use old social services - only the CI alone would allow for new types of affs and access the ground argument.

 

 

the aff's counter interp is "increase = to make larger."

 

the perm (increase = pre-existing and to make larger) solves all the reasons why increase should be to make larger. the standards the incredible hulk put on his counter interp don't make sense because they aren't exclusively solved for by "increase is to make larger."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the aff's counter interp is "increase = to make larger."

 

the perm (increase = pre-existing and to make larger) solves all the reasons why increase should be to make larger. the standards the incredible hulk put on his counter interp don't make sense because they aren't exclusively solved for by "increase is to make larger."

 

The perm doesn't allow for the aff flexibility granted by the "to make larger" interp. Your perm is still forcing aff's to use existing social services because it's to make larger and be pre-existing - the ground argument and other counter-standards are accessed by allowing for affs to create new forms of social services. Just like CPs the interp doesn't have to be mutually exclusive - it can compete through NB (in this case standards).

Edited by Kratos_99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the aff's counter interp is "increase = to make larger."

 

the perm (increase = pre-existing and to make larger) solves all the reasons why increase should be to make larger. the standards the incredible hulk put on his counter interp don't make sense because they aren't exclusively solved for by "increase is to make larger."

Then you're in a double bind

 

either:

A)The aff is topical because they make larger

or

B) You don't solve the aff's standards because if they must be both pre-existing, and an increase, non pre-existing affs still aren't topical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest andrew-
Your perm is still forcing aff's to use existing social services because it's to make larger and be pre-existing - the ground argument and other counter-standards are accessed by allowing for affs to create new forms of social services. Just like CPs the interp doesn't have to be mutually exclusive - it can compete through NB (in this case standards).

 

 

Then you're in a double bind

 

either:

A)The aff is topical because they make larger

or

B) You don't solve the aff's standards because if they must be both pre-existing, and an increase, non pre-existing affs still aren't topical.

 

 

 

You both are still missing it. Imagine the neg's intep was "social services are social workers," and the aff's counter interp was "the usfg is the government in washington DC." Clearly the aff meets their counter interp, and who knows, maybe it's more important for the aff to use the USfg than for them to increase social workers. But the aff's counter interp isn't competitive with the neg's interp - the 2nc would just say "perm: the USfg is the government in washington DC AND social services are social workers."

 

Just because some words happen to have multiple (unrelated) meanings isn't a reason why if the aff meets one interp of a word they're automatically topical. They have to meet a word that's interpreted to be competing with the neg's interp. Like I said before, the Hulk's original counter interp is dumb - making standards that more directly clash with the original 1nc interp doesn't make the aff's actual *interpretation* competitive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone has a pre made block to this argument either one they cut or from home i would trade for it or like to have it. I just need to find good counterpinterp with good written standards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the aff's counter interp is "increase = to make larger."

 

the perm (increase = pre-existing and to make larger) solves all the reasons why increase should be to make larger. the standards the incredible hulk put on his counter interp don't make sense because they aren't exclusively solved for by "increase is to make larger."

 

the perm may solve reasons why increasing social services (larger) would be good, but it does not solve any of the aff's disads to being forced to increase a pre-existing program. i expect 2acs to this argument will be constructed around responsive reasons why increase=pre-existing -> getting destroyed by states/offsets, lack of uniqueness, a tiny topic due to functional limits, and reasons why new programs may be predictable. in fact, the counter-interpretation of make greater probably does maintain a reasonable level of predictability (you can't just remove a barrier for abortions) that, though it may be accessed by the permutation, still functions as defense against the neg's predictable limits DA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the aff's counter interp is "increase = to make larger."

 

the perm (increase = pre-existing and to make larger) solves all the reasons why increase should be to make larger. the standards the incredible hulk put on his counter interp don't make sense because they aren't exclusively solved for by "increase is to make larger."

 

the perm may solve reasons why increasing social services (larger) would be good, but it does not solve any of the aff's disads to being forced to increase a pre-existing program. i expect 2acs to this argument will be constructed around responsive reasons why increase=pre-existing -> getting destroyed by states/offsets, lack of uniqueness, a tiny topic due to functional limits, and reasons why new programs may be predictable. in fact, the counter-interpretation of make greater probably does maintain a reasonable level of predictability (you can't just remove a barrier for abortions) that, though it may be accessed by the permutation, still functions as defense against the neg's predictable limits DA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the aff's counter interp is "increase = to make larger."

 

the perm (increase = pre-existing and to make larger) solves all the reasons why increase should be to make larger. the standards the incredible hulk put on his counter interp don't make sense because they aren't exclusively solved for by "increase is to make larger."

 

the perm may solve reasons why increasing social services (larger) would be good, but it does not solve any of the aff's disads to being forced to increase a pre-existing program. i expect 2acs to this argument will be constructed around responsive reasons why increase=pre-existing -> getting destroyed by states/offsets, lack of uniqueness, a tiny topic due to functional limits, and reasons why new programs may be predictable. in fact, the counter-interpretation of make greater probably does maintain a reasonable level of predictability (you can't just remove a barrier for abortions) that, though it may be accessed by the permutation, still functions as defense against the neg's predictable limits DA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
increase=pre-existing -> getting destroyed by states/offsets, lack of uniqueness, a tiny topic due to functional limits, and reasons why new programs may be predictable.

 

Is that like camp and case lists check abuse?

 

Otherwise it sounds like we only blow up the topic a little bit. (aka some mutation of reasonability)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You both are still missing it. Imagine the neg's intep was "social services are social workers," and the aff's counter interp was "the usfg is the government in washington DC." Clearly the aff meets their counter interp, and who knows, maybe it's more important for the aff to use the USfg than for them to increase social workers. But the aff's counter interp isn't competitive with the neg's interp - the 2nc would just say "perm: the USfg is the government in washington DC AND social services are social workers."

 

Just because some words happen to have multiple (unrelated) meanings isn't a reason why if the aff meets one interp of a word they're automatically topical. They have to meet a word that's interpreted to be competing with the neg's interp. Like I said before, the Hulk's original counter interp is dumb - making standards that more directly clash with the original 1nc interp doesn't make the aff's actual *interpretation* competitive.

 

Your example doesn't work - the CI of increase is competitive through standards that are ONLY accessed through the aff's interpretation, in your example the standards could be accessed by the perm because it didn't force the aff not to use the government in washington DC.

 

Even if it's possible for increase to mean different things, the aff would win that defining increase as ONLY "to make greater" would be better than the perm of making greater and be pre-existing - your interp would still force aff's to use pre-existing programs which are a bad thing. The interp competes with the neg's interp through arguments as to why being pre-existing is bad for ground division, unpredictable, ect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest andrew-
^^^

 

You lose Andrew. Like usual.

 

 

*sigh*

 

neg's interp: increase is pre-existing - this solves predictability because we can't predict new programs

 

aff's interp: increase is to make larger - debating pre-existing programs is bad for education

 

 

2nc overview - look, micah is stupid. his counter interpretation is that increase is to make greater - affs could run both pre-existing and non-prexising affs under his interp. just because the standards are disads to our interp doesn't mean he solves them. his standards are inevitable because he doesn't meet an interpretation of "increase" that excludes pre-existing programs. if you vote aff, teams could still conceivably run affs under our case list, because his interp is wholy inclusive of ours. perm: do both interps - this solves his offense if he tries to come up with reasons why increase = to make larger is good, and argues breadth is better than depth in the 1ar.

Edited by andrew-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
*sigh*

neg's interp: increase is pre-existing - this solves predictability because we can't predict new programs

aff's interp: increase is to make larger - debating pre-existing programs is bad for education

2nc overview - look, micah is stupid. his counter interpretation is that increase is to make greater - affs could run both pre-existing and non-prexising affs under his interp. just because the standards are disads to our interp doesn't mean he solves them. his standards are inevitable because he doesn't meet an interpretation of "increase" that excludes pre-existing programs. if you vote aff, teams could still conceivably run affs under our case list, because his interp is wholy inclusive of ours. perm: do both interps - this solves his offense if he tries to come up with reasons why increase = to make larger is good, and argues breadth is better than depth in the 1ar.

1. It isn’t that debating pre-existing programs are bad for education, it’s that ONLY debating them is bad for edu because it prevents any programs other than the squo ones. You say predictability- but you’ll always get generics with new programs and almost any new program would fall under the umbrella of certain programs like heath, education, housing, etc.

2. Ya, the whole point is that our interp subsumes yours AND allows non-squo cases which is k/t education.

3. Our standards aren’t inevitable in a world where we can only run cases with only squo-programs—that’s why we’re saying your interp specifically hurts education.

4. How don’t we meet an interp of increase that excludes pre-existing programs? It allows for all programs…

5. Permutation doesn’t solve our standards if they are predicated on the mutual exclusivity between the interpretations. The only reason we get any of our standards is because we allow for more cases than your interp.

As an aside, I think smart w/m arguments and some reasons why pre-existence isn’t resolutionally based and arbitrary might be better rebuttal args to go with than a competing interps debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest andrew-

 

1. It isn’t that debating pre-existing programs are bad for education, it’s that ONLY debating them is bad for edu because it prevents any programs other than the squo ones.

 

no. with the aff's interp, teams will have no incentive to read affs that aren't pre-existing. they'll always push the limit.

 

 

 

2. Ya, the whole point is that our interp subsumes yours AND allows non-squo cases which is k/t education.

 

 

i don't think that's how it works...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a side note: I don't think the definition teams use to make this (vaguely arbitrary exclusion) supports the interpretation they provide.

 

We meet--"to make greater"--you can make greater from zero.

 

I'm iffy on if providing another word to juxtapose really justifies their reading any better--maybe it does.

 

It seems that defining USFG and then defiining judicial branch and juxtaposing those definitions in an attempt to exclude supreme court affs--seems a bit absurd.

 

Sorry, my analogy isn't perfect.

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...