Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sami Ghubril

Timeframe CP

Recommended Posts

Hey guys

 

I found an old Timeframe Counterplan made by Justin Murray (some of you might know him, he was at the TOC once or twice, I believe) in a very old expando, and was wondering, would it be a good idea to run on the current topic? Is it abusive? A timeframe CP does the aff a few weeks later than the plan, politics net benefit

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it's more commonly known as the "Delay CP"

 

You will find Delay CPs bad/good arguments in theory files. i think it's not a mistake to say that if presented adequately, quite a few judges will vote them down for being abusive.

 

Good luck.

  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey guys

 

I found an old Timeframe Counterplan made by Justin Murray (some of you might know him, he was at the TOC once or twice, I believe) in a very old expando, and was wondering, would it be a good idea to run on the current topic? Is it abusive? A timeframe CP does the aff a few weeks later than the plan, politics net benefit

 

yes its abusive unless there are specific reasons why the delay cp is justified by actions made by the aff.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only time I've hit a Delay CP was last year around when the Elections DA was popular. The counterplan text was to do the plan...on November the 5th. I personally think that they're illegit considering the fact that they sever out of the immediacy of the plan, and as the aff we have to defend the immediacy of the plan, it should be reciprocal imo, like I feel it's a question of whether the plan should pass or shouldn't pass. Not when it should pass. Secondly, the neg just takes on the aff advocacy and makes the aff defend against their own advocacy, which I find stupid and annoying.

 

Next time though, ask Rahim or Wilbur these types of questions than asking random people on a debate forum.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i hit it last year too. pretty illigit CP. i read PICs bad to it, cus i didnt have delay bad.

 

if i hit it again, im gonna read theory, then say

 

Perm: do the plan on X date.

 

in my opinion, that would be a legitimate perm, wouldnt it?

only real argument is that it severs out of the timeframe, but they cant really win that its abusive, or it proves the abuse of running the CP itself.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey guys

 

I found an old Timeframe Counterplan made by Justin Murray (some of you might know him, he was at the TOC once or twice, I believe) in a very old expando, and was wondering, would it be a good idea to run on the current topic? Is it abusive? A timeframe CP does the aff a few weeks later than the plan, politics net benefit

 

I'm curious why this counterplan needed to be filed. It seems to me it would be something scrawled on the back of a flow.

 

And an argument against delay I think is very compelling is it probably justifies intrinsicness. If the negative can say pass politics scenario X and the plan the aff should be able to as well.

 

Other than that it's probably theoretically illegit in general. I guess it makes sense to run as a time suck, as you can spit it out in 30 seconds and the 2AC will probably answer with a minute and a half of theory, but it's not particularly strategic outside of that.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
perm i mentioned above solves 100% of the DA.

 

1) Most of the time...not true. Otherwise you are severing the implicit immediacy of the plan.

 

2) Otherwise you could just perm to do the plan after the elections/vote and solve any politics disad.

--Also you could perm to do the plan after the brink had past on disadvantages. The neg wouldn't have any ground.

 

3) PS. Also, if you plan on making this perm argument--its imperative that you understand the difference between textual and functional competition. I would gamble that half your judging pool doesn't know the difference. But its a critical debate on these types of counter plans. Also, its just important to know in debate.

 

The Various Options for Answering the Delay Counter plan:

 

Note: this is not an order of importance--you have to figure that out on your own....

 

1) You can impact turn the focus on time (Dartmouth Turner and Leung did this against North Texas-Johnny and Nirav) They used poetry to prove that focus on immediacy/time destroyed contemplation necessary to create deep wisdom and creativity like poetry. (in this case it was a K which implicitly had a delay counter plan as the alternative and they had a critical oriented judging panel)

 

2) Impact turn the disad. This may be the easiest option

 

3) K the disad or the impact.

 

4) Solvency deficit to the delay (usually this won't o/w the impact--especially if they win disad turns the case. In fact, if they win disad turns the case--this is almost useless) These are often:

-morality arguments

-systemic arguments like poverty and dehumanization (hopefully that make the disads inevitable)

-"each and every" impact is bad arguments

-short timeframe/big impacts arguments

 

5) The permutation is an ok strategy--but might get you into theory problems of severing the immediacy of the plan. I think instead I would inadvertently do this with a non-intrinsic argument and explain why their decision making model is flawed. (you will probably have to win that you don't have to defend the immediacy of the plan--which is an uphill battle with most critics I think)

 

6) Some people make the argument that its irrelevant. Saying they will pass the plan later--will still create the political backlash now. This may or may not be true.

(I think a decent neg will suggest that there is less risk by delaying it)

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) Most of the time...not true. Otherwise you are severing the implicit immediacy of the plan.

 

2) Otherwise you could just perm to do the plan after the elections/vote and solve any politics disad.

--Also you could perm to do the plan after the brink had past on disadvantages. The neg wouldn't have any ground.

 

3) PS. Also, if you plan on making this perm argument--its imperative that you understand the difference between textual and functional competition. I would gamble that half your judging pool doesn't know the difference. But its a critical debate on these types of counter plans. Also, its just important to know in debate.

 

 

1. why is severing out of immediacy abusive?

 

2. only if there are stupid CPs run like a delay counterplan. a legitimate perm is all of the aff, plus some or all of the counterplan. if the counterplan specifies a date, a legitimate perm could say 'do the plan on that date'

 

3. im not familiar with the difference.. could you possibly fill me in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My explanation of permutation

 

Textual competition as exercised in debate is can you write a permutation.

 

Perm-vote for Obama and McCain

 

Textual competition is (usually) useless. (perhaps someone can chime in and explain when it might be helpful)

 

Functional competition-an evaluation of how things actually function.

 

All the neg. has to do here is two questions in cross ex. When does the plan happen? Does the plan happen immediately when the judge votes? (If its not immediate--What is your interpretation of what the affirmative has to defend? Passage in 3 years or 30 years?)

 

Your Still Stuck With the Same Debate Even if You Don't Defend Immediacy.

Other stuff--unless we're doing value debate, the plan only makes sense if its attached to a date. If its not attached to a date--this gives the negative the same basic PIC ground. In other words, the affirmative defends adoption at all times--the neg. then pics out of a 6 month timeframe.

 

Other Random Notes to Consider on the Functional vs. Textual Competition Issue

 

I wrote this before:

 

Textual competition is kinda meaningless: the only thing you can't textually perm is "do the exact opposite of the aff" and even then you can still write them next to each other.

 

Also, affirmatives don't always include EVERYTHING they do or that their aff would do in the plan text--which also makes textual competition nearly useless as a standard.

CJiron wrote:

 

Distinctions between “textual” and “functional” competition are silly, meaningless, contrived debate-jargon. Competition is determined by the words in a plan text but the meaning and mandate of that plan text should only be determined by the affirmative in cross-ex.
He does however get this wrong--it actually contravenes what he said above (because the meaning is violated):

 

If you can establish competition based off of the function of the words in the plan text—i.e., the mandate of the plan, then your counterplan is competitive. Consultation counterplans, for instance, are not competitive, because they compete off of things that the affirmative did not make an explicit choice to defend. Only if the affirmative answers “yes” to the question “Does your plan definitely, always, and immediately pass?” is consult competitive.

 

***At the end of the day....all of this gets back to the net benefits of the perm (assuming its legit/fair) vs. the counter plan.

Edited by nathan_debate
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting that you make the analogy to consult CPs. Because even if consult is competitive in the sense that 'perm - do the CP' would be abusive, it still justifies the (arguably) instrinsic permutation 'do plan and consult on other issues'. (Consultation is an action that the counterplan advocates, so making a permutation that includes consultation is justified - either the aff gets 'perm - consult on plan', which is the CP, or they get 'perm - plan and consult on other'.)

In the same vein, the timeframe CP advocates moving the plan around, so the aff is justified in making a permutation that does the same thing. You don't have to win the CP is illegit, just that it justifies a reciprocally illegit permutation.

 

Textual competition is (usually) useless. (perhaps someone can chime in and explain when it might be helpful)

People make textual competition args when they run word pics, if nothing else. But it makes more sense to frame the debate as functional competition - should textual competition or <other standard> be the metric used to judge whether the CP is functionally competitive.

 

 

Your Still Stuck With the Same Debate[/b] Even if You Don't Defend Immediacy.

Other stuff--unless we're doing value debate' date=' the plan only makes sense if its attached to a date. If its not attached to a date--this gives the negative the same basic PIC ground. In other words, the affirmative defends adoption at all times--the neg. then pics out of a 6 month timeframe.[/quote']

I completely disagree with this. The aff doesn't (necessarily) change it's advocacy from tournament to tournament, even though the date of "immediately" does (necessarily) change. The aff advocates that it would be a good idea for plan to pass at any time, and a mature understanding of fiat maintains a hypothetical world that is endorsed or not endorsed by the judge's ballot, not created or destroyed by the judge's ballot. It is because it would otherwise be abusive to the negative that aff's advocate plan immediately, the neg doesn't get to create CP competition out of that (or put another way, if the neg tries to take 'unfair'/strategic advantage of that, the aff is entitled to rescind their nice-ness of advocating plan immediately).

Further, affs that pass bills through congress get to be run independent of whether congress is then-presently in session. Unless the aff predicates advantage solvency off of passing the bill before congress reconvenes, the neg isn't entitled to read a 'people say wtf when congress convenes an emergency session to pass the aff' disad. Similarly, the neg isn't entitled to a delay CP unless the aff claims some advantage off of immediacy (in which case delay would probably be rather astrategic). But the terminal impact to this, again, is not that the CP is disallowed, only that the aff gets a reciprocal permutation that would otherwise be unfair.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The aff advocates that it would be a good idea for plan to pass at any time, and a mature understanding of fiat maintains a hypothetical world that is endorsed or not endorsed by the judge's ballot, not created or destroyed by the judge's ballot. It is because it would otherwise be abusive to the negative that aff's advocate plan immediately, the neg doesn't get to create CP competition out of that (or put another way, if the neg tries to take 'unfair'/strategic advantage of that, the aff is entitled to rescind their nice-ness of advocating plan immediately).
It probably is the case that if the affirmative ceases to parametricize in the same way that it has in the past--this might change what determines ground, fairness, and practice.

 

However, given current configurations of theory and practice with regard to CP competition--my interpretation of defending a timeless affirmative means the negative gets to PIC out of that. I still don't see how any of the above paragraph explains why if you are willing to defend adoption at any time--why I don't get to PIC out of your time. This is also a normal means issue. Its normal means to have dates of adoption in the bill. Also, there are educational benefits to learning about the importance of timing.

--As such, I should get to compete based on that--assuming I win PICs good. In the case of defending a timeless aff--you picked the terrible ground--now live with it.

 

Your point at the top about textual competition is roughly true. At the end of the day even with language PICS you have to go Pass Go and through a) functional competition and B) net benefits. Or you (likely) loose.

 

More reasons and examples why textual competition is whack:

 

Just because you didn't say Washington DC, the Capital Building, the House and the Senate (and a majority of the names of individual Senators and Representatives) doesn't mean all this action doesn't take place.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However, given current configurations of theory and practice with regard to CP competition--my interpretation of defending a timeless affirmative means the negative gets to PIC out of that. I still don't see how any of the above paragraph explains why if you are willing to defend adoption at any time--why I don't get to PIC out of your time.
*emphasis added

 

Well, a) the correct answer to the c/x question is "We'll defend immediate adoption so you can get disad links, so long as you don't PIC out of timeframe," which would put this on the correct footing, and B) obviously the neg could win the theory debate in any given round, but that doesn't prove that they are correct about the theory debate.

But anyway, the point is, if aff's advocated adoption on X date in the future, the neg would lose. So the neg gets to tie the aff to immediacy in exchange for not discussing immediacy. You can have your cake, or you can eat your cake; you can't do both.

You could make the argument that the aff has to be topical, and there's no reciprocal burden on the neg for that, so therefore there needn't be a reciprocal burden here. However, that's flawed reasoning, because topicality (to state the obvious) derives from a resolutional mandate. Immediate adoption doesn't stem from the resolution - 'should' can describe any time from the present forward - so the aff would be topical if they advocated adoption & enactment in 3 years. Restrictions on the aff in excess of resolutional burden are always reciprocal.

Finally, as a pragmatic matter, judges like the argument that cheating justifies reciprocal cheating more than they like either a) the argument that cheating is not cheating, or B) the argument that cheating justifies an automatic loss. So it will be a lot easier for the aff to get a judge on board with "delay CP justifies reciprocal permutation ground" than for the neg to get the judge on board with "delay CP is a completely normal CP that doesn't change anything else about the debate" (this is called the duh test), especially when the aff says "delay CP is so unfair that the neg should automatically lose, but, we'll offer a middle ground of 'delay CP justifies reciprocal perm ground.'" And if the aff wins they get to make the reciprocal permutation, "Permutation do the CP" is the RFD.

 

The requisite hyperbolic/literalist 'word-PIC of your argument' argument:

I am "willing" to defend adoption any time in exchange for you not making cheating arguments like delay CP. If you make that arg, I am no longer "willing" to defend adoption at any time, I will defend adoption at the time you specify.

 

 

This is also a normal means issue. It[']s normal means to have dates of adoption in the bill."

Well, although this is true, it's really an inapt and logically void comparison. The date of adoption is always fixed at the time of passage of the bill. The secretary or parliamentarian of the house (little 'h' intentional) has a stamp that s/he puts on the top of the official copy of an adopted bill/rez that reads "adopted on such and such date".

Because there is not only no normal means but no means at all for Congress to do what the negative does with its CP - ie, require itself or be required by some other agency to adopt a bill at a particular future time - this argument is really irrelevant. At worst, 'Normal means' can be juxtaposed to 'abnormal means', but under no conditions can it be juxtaposed to 'no means'.

 

Also, there are educational benefits to learning about the importance of timing.

Resolutional education and fairness outweigh.

 

--As such, I should get to compete based on that--assuming I win PICs good. In the case of defending a timeless aff--you picked the terrible ground--now live with it.

You will not have the opportunity to win 'PICs good', because the 2ac will say 'delay CPs bad', not 'PICs bad'. None of your generic PICs offense defends this version of a PIC, and your generic PICs defense either indicts this or justifies 'perm do the CP'. (exception - "negation theory" - justifies running 8 conditional CPs, an economy disad and a capitalism K in the same round, proves it's bankrupt.)

Again, aff made a reciprocal agreement with neg about the conditions under which aff picked this ground, and the CP violates that agreement, which releases the aff from obligations to abide by it.

 

At the end of the day even with language PICS you have to go Pass Go and through a) functional competition and B) net benefits. Or you (likely) loose.

I like this framing of the issue. Very nice.

Edited by meanmedianmode
refutation of negation theory

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll agree with your framework, but only if I get 24 minutes to speak and you don't give a 2ar (or the judge disregards it to equalize the worst perm and dispositional affirmative in history). Ok just kidding. Thats the most arbitrary and contrived and unpredictable interpretation of debate I've ever heard.

 

Just because you do something you're expected to do doesn't mean you get to cheat. Its like the aff saying, I'll give you links to the critique if I get absolute solvency. Thats abitrary and kills debate.

 

You could make the argument that the aff has to be topical, and there's no reciprocal burden on the neg for that, so therefore there needn't be a reciprocal burden here. However, that's flawed reasoning, because topicality (to state the obvious) derives from a resolutional mandate.
Exactly. Being affirmative--enacting something mandates you defend it at a specific time.

 

Also, your conditional defense of giving me links proves your

1) not resolved

2) conditional on the affirmative, which is the worst kind of conditionality

3) is also a reason to reject the permutation out of hand--or rather comes before the perm

 

Defending your time means I don't run the Abraham Lincoln AND the JFK political cap disad against you in the same debate. This means independently my interpretation checks and infinite # of irrelevant and unfair disads. (your interp only checks one semi-shady counterplan) My interpretation is better for your ground.

 

And the ultimate fair way for you to beat my argument is a) delay good B) impact turn the net benefit--instead of using the worst theory since counter warrants good.

 

Perm do the counterplan isnt' a test of competition. Its a test of cheating. Just proves the aff needs to go back to the drawing board.

 

This is also a normal means issue. It[']s normal means to have dates of adoption in the bill."

Well, although this is true, it's really an inapt and logically void comparison. The date of adoption is always fixed at the time of passage of the bill. The secretary or parliamentarian of the house (little 'h' intentional) has a stamp that s/he puts on the top of the official copy of an adopted bill/rez that reads "adopted on such and such date".

You just defined normal means. Its part of enactment and the floor debate. Ok...I don't understand why I can't compete against this?

 

Resolutional education and fairness outweigh.
Resolutional education inevitable. Process education is just important. Your fairness o/w is absurd given your conditional affirmation of your stance and you not being resolved--which is a resolutional requirement and the gateway to all fair and decent debate. Edited by nathan_debate
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll agree with your framework, but only if I get 24 minutes to speak and you don't give a 2ar (or the judge disregards it to equalize the worst perm and dispositional affirmative in history). Ok just kidding. Thats the most arbitrary and contrived and unpredictable interpretation of debate I've ever heard.

 

Just because you do something you're expected to do doesn't mean you get to cheat. Its like the aff saying, I'll give you links to the critique if I get absolute solvency. Thats abitrary and kills debate.

 

Overview:

You are confused about the logical difference between "any" and "all". 'All' is a logically conjunctive function. If I have 5 times, and the aff must defend enactment at all times, then the aff would have to defend plan passage time1 and time2 and time3 and time4 and time5. By contrast, 'any' is a logically disjunctive operation. If I have 5 times, the aff must defend time1 or time2 or time3 or time4 or time5 - it doesn't matter which, as long as they defend one. The resolution does not specify the time at which the USfg should act, except in so much as 'should' excludes the past. Should is timeframe indefinite. (Ankur's discussion of fiat theory here is somewhat relevant, and more coherent.*) There is nothing untopical about defending a date of adoption 3 years in the future. It would just completely gut all negative ground, so convention dictates that affs don't do it. Thus, fiat is immediate. But that's reciprocal - neg fiat has to be immediate also.

Also, you leave out grammatically necessary apostrophes, which makes me die a little inside. ;)

 

Exactly. Being affirmative--enacting something mandates you defend it at a specific time.

As I said in my original post, fiat doesn't mean 'something does' or 'does not get enacted' - nothing really happens. Fiat means 'if something had already been enacted'. Ankur's analysis about timeframe of fiat explains the warrant.

Also, reference above, distinction between "all" and "any", definite v indefinite.

 

Also, your conditional defense of giving me links proves you[']r[e]

1) not resolved

2) conditional on the affirmative, which is the worst kind of conditionality

3) is also a reason to reject the permutation out of hand--or rather comes before the perm

No, my conditional definition of how we fiat the plan is contingent on an agreement of what fiat means. Which is axiomatic. If you agree that fiat means things happen immediately, then we'll defend immediacy. If you challenge that, we'll make a 2ac arg using your concept of fiat to show that our advocacy is not mutually exclusive with this different-fiat advocacy. This is the same logic as any permutation - 'we advocate the plan against the status quo. If you advance an alternative to the status quo, we will make a non-advocacy-shifting argument that shows plan isn't mutually exclusive with this not-status-quo.'

 

Defending your time means I don't run the Abraham Lincoln AND the JFK political cap disad against you in the same debate.

I'm not clear is this is a metaphor or an example. Because 'should' being indefinite present-future means I never have to answer disads about the past, and I figure you are aware of that, but I'm not otherwise sure of what this is a metaphor. Clarify, please?

This means independently my interpretation checks and infinite # of irrelevant and unfair disads. (your interp only checks one semi-shady counterplan) My interpretation is better for your ground.

No, my interp checks these too, actually. My interp guarantees that you get links because the plan happens now rather than in the future (yours probably does this too, I think, except I'm not sure what the warrant is that the aff must advocate immediate enaction if it isn't grounded in a reciprocal agreement over what fiat means), and mine checks against irrelevant future disads as yours does, b/c the plan is done now, and mine checks against a definitely shady CP.

 

Perm do the counterplan isnt' a test of competition. Its a test of cheating. Just proves the aff needs to go back to the drawing board.

This isn't an argument.

 

You just defined normal means. Its part of enactment and the floor debate. Ok...I don't understand why I can't compete against this?

Something being passed through a house is biconditional with the official copy being stamped with the date of passage. It's a rule you can't change.

Arguable theoretical illegitimacy of a veto CP notwithstanding, this is the difference b/w saying

"CP - President vetos and 2/3 of each House votes for the bill, causing it to be enacted"

and saying

"CP - President vetoes, only 60% of each House votes for the bill, but it still becomes law".

You can't fiat that 60% of each House would override a veto. You can't, from a real-world/common sense perspective, fiat that a house will enact something on a future date.

This warrants the above name-calling of the CP as "definitely shady", and link turns your (following) process education argument.

 

Resolutional education inevitable. Process education is just [as] important. Your fairness o/w is absurd given your conditional affirmation of your stance and you not being resolved--which is a resolutional requirement and the gateway to all fair and decent debate.

1. Bad process education worse than no process education.

2. Fiat excludes this form of process education.

3. Another 'not real world' warrant: when agenda order is decided in the real world, it includes assessments of when each policy is most likely to pass. To assume that one policy is guaranteed to pass distorts the decision principles.

a) Proves that fiat excludes this form of process discussion.

B) Means the only real-world model is to compare the case impacts to the disad. Even if you allow the CP and disallow the perm, you still evaluate the CP as though it doesn't solve any of the case.

4. Education comes from clash. Fiating out of the case makes resolutional clash impossible.

5. Even if you don't reject the CP, it justifies a perm that uses a time-frame interpretation of fiat.

 

*I have not discussed this specific topic with Ankur. I cite him w/o permission. I shall invite him to view the thread and if he desires I shall remove the citation.

Edited by meanmedianmode

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This any vs. all distinction doesn't get you anything to the extent that immediate enactment is the fairness, most predictable, and more literature base (ie your lit doesn't assume enactment in 25 years in the future or the past--although you already eliminated the past via your definition of should)

 

You can't, from a real-world/common sense perspective, fiat that a house will enact something on a future date.
Wrong. There are no limits on fiat except the resolution. Normal means doesn't even stop fiat (especially for the negative)--for instance Con Con on random tiny policies, Consult Nato on native american policy, etc.

 

All our global warming and regulatory debate happens in the context of phase in time based discussions. (even the 99.9% meta-debates in the press about Waxman-Markey are focused on timing these days given the health care and budget) Also, I'm sure alot of the debate that happens off of the floor and in committees is timing based. I bet Axelrod and Obama mention timing of bill passage on a daily basis.

 

Google search points to the importance of Public policy and timing. I think you have to win that Congress doesn't talk about or care about timing to win that this discussion isn't important.

 

I think you have a fairness argument--but that is something to be debated out.

 

You're better argument might be to add on that the link generated would be the same no matter what.

 

Process counterplans provide the best comparisons. Its easier and more in depth to compare process counter plans vs. the plan than plan-plan style debates with 20 sheets of paper.

 

Will try to deal w/ your theory soon...at some later date.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Bad process education worse than no process education.
My point exactly.

 

2. Fiat excludes this form of process education.
This is the equivalent of post dating a check. Or having an ethics bill that comes into effect in the next session of congress.

 

I've got real world support and examples that timing is critical to the public policy process. If timing wasn't so important--we would never talk about dates and time frames in debate.

 

Another 'not real world' warrant: when agenda order is decided in the real world, it includes assessments of when each policy is most likely to pass. To assume that one policy is guaranteed to pass distorts the decision principles.

a) Proves that fiat excludes this form of process discussion.

B) Means the only real-world model is to compare the case impacts to the disad. Even if you allow the CP and disallow the perm, you still evaluate the CP as though it doesn't solve any of the case.

If you're goal was education--you should have impact turned politics. You made this a theory debate.

 

You also made it a theory debate by running a whack perm.

 

This (your above argument) is a link turn to your interpretation of fiat. It proves that timing considerations are important to bill passage and education. I don't however, understand how it excludes my interpretation--it seems exactly what I am justifying. (or fiat just automatically overrides in the case of the plan or the counterplan--which is probably the correct answer)

 

4. Education comes from clash. Fiating out of the case makes resolutional clash impossible.

You abandoned that when you parametricized your aff. Case debate checks. You got no impact to any of that and certainly no voter. (ok I don't have a voter on my perm abuse or fiat skew arg--opps)

 

5. Even if you don't reject the CP, it justifies a perm that uses a time-frame interpretation of fiat.
Severance perms are cheating. Its code for vote neg. Extend all the conditionality arguments that the distinctionless overview didn't answer. Voter for common sense and fairness and the politics disad rocks.

 

The impact turn checks all your ground and abuse claims back--hit Google and the library yo.

 

And making the aff answer delay makes them do more politics research and learn about real world democracy and horse trading--not the vaneer idealism of the aff.

 

[i have no idea why I'm defending politics, when I'm less than a fan of the argument--I just think it, the K, and the CP are the only way for the neg. to stay in the game]

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, I do not have time to review this thread and see if my arguments are being used correctly or not. But I do not mind others citing my work product. Thank you for citing me correctly. Wish you all well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MONSTER POST ;)

This any vs. all distinction doesn't get you anything to the extent that immediate enactment is the fairness, most predictable, and more literature base (ie your lit doesn't assume enactment in 25 years in the future or the past--although you already eliminated the past via your definition of should)

The any v all distinction is very important, actually. The resolution is timeframe-indefinite, so the affirmative must defend the plan action at any time, not at all times. Specifying a time further instantiates the plan, it doesn't make a different plan. Analogous to specifying which senators vote for and against the bill - detail that the plan didn't specify, not detail that the plan did 'differently'. This means that your delay CP is plan-plus, rather than a PIC. (More precisely, this means that the CP is to the plan as the plan is to the resolution, but the impact is the same as plan-plus.)

 

Turn - all your whiny arguments about when plan passes are whines about what fiat means, not just what affirmative fiat means. You can't draw any distinction in your warrants between the aff doing it and the neg doing it, except to say 'negation theory'. Means those arguments take out the CP.

 

You say immediate passage and enactment (of plan?) inevitable because:

fairest - Yes, fairest to the neg. Necessary for neg to have disad uniqueness and links. That's why there is a compact b/w aff and neg that fiat assumes immediacy. When the neg changes this basic element of what fiat means, the aff at the very least gets to make a permutation using the new definition of fiat.

BTW, disad links is an independent warrant for rejecting the CP, b/c it prevents aff from reading a disad to the CP.

 

most predictable - No impact, because the difference in predictability isn't resolutionally grounded. That means, failing my interp of fiat, that it's just neg laziness to not be prepared to debate a future aff.

 

literature - The lit doesn't assume a specific future date for enactment, true. It considers any future date. It operates under the lens 'if plan had been enacted, world would be a better place.' The fact that I can read cards from 2 or 4 or 7 years ago and still have them be relevant proves that the evidence would support passing the plan 2 or 4 or 7 years in the future from the debate round.

 

Wrong. There are no limits on fiat except the resolution. Normal means doesn't even stop fiat (especially for the negative)--for instance Con Con on random tiny policies, Consult Nato on native american policy, etc.

Until you answer my analogy to overriding a veto with 60% approval, you lose this line. I'll make the analogy to con-con as well though - IDR what the requirements are for calling a con-con, but this would be like fiating that only NY and CA called for a con-con, and that the results of their con-con would still be enforceable.

 

All our global warming and regulatory debate happens in the context of phase in time based discussions. (even the 99.9% meta-debates in the press about Waxman-Markey are focused on timing these days given the health care and budget)

In the first argument, you are confusing date of enactment with date of enforcement. Your CP isn't like a phase-in policy, because if the policy passsed Congress today to go into effect after the passage of your politics scenario, it would still link to your politics scenario.

 

Also, I'm sure alot of the debate that happens off of the floor and in committees is timing based. I bet Axelrod and Obama mention timing of bill passage on a daily basis.

This is answered by the "Another 'not real world' warrant" argument in my previous post.

 

Google search points to the importance of Public policy and timing. I think you have to win that Congress doesn't talk about or care about timing to win that this discussion isn't important.

I don't at all have to win that this discussion isn't important. My argument is that fiat contravenes the discussion, which subsumes the question of 'importance'.

And Google search is a horrible standard. Apparently, frog anatomy is about twice as important as public policy and timing. And for a more relevant comparison, social services policy is more than twice as important as alternative energy policy, but that doesn't mean we talked about social services policy last year. Ooh ooh ooh does it get infinite importance automatically if my search is a google bomb? Not to mention that these searches are all incredibly unscientific and meaningless b/c it's just conjoining of each word, rather than conjoining of phrases within distance of each other, etc etc etc.

But anyway, even in that frame I would only have to win that they don't discuss timing the way you do and I am winning that because you conceded it.

 

I think you have a fairness argument--but that is something to be debated out.

Thanks. Though, I suggested several posts ago that it would be debated out.

 

You're better argument might be to add on that the link generated would be the same no matter what.

Undoubtedly. Were you under the impression that this 'CP illegit' arg was, like, verbatim my 2ac against a delay CP with politics n/b? We're just arguing out this one aspect of the theory.

 

Process counterplans provide the best comparisons. Its easier and more in depth to compare process counter plans vs. the plan than plan-plan style debates with 20 sheets of paper.

I'm throwing the challenge flag - the one that starts as the USA flag, then changes to the Italian flag, then to the Basque flag, then to the Turkish flag... It's the Non-Sequitor Challenge Flag. Plan-plan debates have nothing to do with this discussion. You will recall that I didn't read PICs bad.

Further, this isn't an instance of process education - even if this were usable process, fiating out of the timeframe of case just makes the debate disad-focused.

 

(EDIT) You say I am bad process education? No, I am not process education at all. In fact, this particular aspect of process education is what fiat was designed to make irrelevant. But anyway, since you don't teach good process, this is a conceded impact turn. (/EDIT)

 

This is the equivalent of post dating a check. Or having an ethics bill that comes into effect in the next session of congress.

Wrong. Those would both be "CP - pass plan today with an initial enforcement date of x".

 

I've got real world support and examples that timing is critical to the public policy process. If timing wasn't so important--we would never talk about dates and time frames in debate.

I don't understand what you mean here. Other than this CP (and you can't use this to prove that this is ok, that's begging the question), we don't talk about dates and timeframes in debate. We compare timeframe on impacts, but that's not a discussion of the order of actions. We do, as you said, talk about dates of enforcement, but that's not the same either.

 

If you're goal was education--you should have impact turned politics. You made this a theory debate.

It's funny that you say I should have impact-turned politics. Because I thought the point was to have process education. But I don't hear any proposals about how I could have made answers that would yield process education. What answers, in fact, could I make that would enable process education?

And don't be dense, I didn't just read my theory block and sit down, I answered the net-benefit as well.

 

You also made it a theory debate by running a whack perm.

Again, funny. Because "Perm - do the CP" is a) run all the time in normal CP debates, and B) no wackier than the CP that you ran. So, funny. But still, don't quit your day job.

 

This (your above argument) is a link turn to your interpretation of fiat. It proves that timing considerations are important to bill passage and education. I don't however, understand how it excludes my interpretation--it seems exactly what I am justifying. (or fiat just automatically overrides in the case of the plan or the counterplan--which is probably the correct answer)

Yes, that's what I said when I said "fiat excludes this form of process education."

Discussion of agenda order assumes uncertainty about passage of all items on the agenda. To allow this sort of discussion to be useful would require that we allow "plan/CP is unpopular and won't pass" arguments, which are what fiat was designed to circumvent in the first place. Or put another way, the argument "if we pass plan first then we can't pass <other policy>" (ie, your CP-disad scenario) is only relevant/meaningful/useful if the possibility exists that "if we pass <other policy> first then we can't pass plan". You could read the disad and then win that plan would pass on its own after the disad-policy, but you can't fiat that plan will pass after the disad-policy.

 

You abandoned that when you parametricized your aff. Case debate checks. You got no impact to any of that and certainly no voter. (ok I don't have a voter on my perm abuse or fiat skew arg--opps)

Wrong. You parametricized my aff when you changed the definition of fiat. Case debate is unlikely to (read "doesn't") check in a round where you fiat my aff. And this is an internal link to the "resolutional education outweighs" argument that I made earlier.

 

Severance perms are cheating. Its code for vote neg. Extend all the conditionality arguments that the distinctionless overview didn't answer. Voter for common sense and fairness and the politics disad rocks.

To rehash:

1. CP is plan-plus, b/c I have to advocate plan at any time, at at all times.

2. CP changes the definition of fiat, for which reason it should be rejected, but worst case scenario it justifies a reciprocal permutation.

 

The impact turn checks all your ground and abuse claims back--hit Google and the library yo.

No it doesn't, specifically,

timeframe fiat spikes out of disads to the CP. (That this is timeframe of the plan and thus plan plus doesn't make it more legit than any other timeframe fiat.)

 

And making the aff answer delay makes them do more politics research and learn about real world democracy and horse trading--not the vaneer idealism of the aff.

"Vaneer" isn't a word yet, and I don't know what word it wants to be when it grows up.

And everything you just said is solved for by the politics disad alone.

 

[i have no idea why I'm defending politics, when I'm less than a fan of the argument--I just think it, the K, and the CP are the only way for the neg. to stay in the game]

I agree, politics is lame. It generally violates fiat, actually, which is not to say that people couldn't read different links that would be ok, because they could. And yes, CPs and Ks are necessary for the neg to stay in the game. But this CP is not necessary nor is it justifiable in any way at all.

Edited by meanmedianmode
add a paragraph, b/c there weren't enough already

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The any v all distinction is very important, actually. The resolution is timeframe-indefinite, so the affirmative must defend the plan action at any time, not at all times.
I was just pointing out that if you want to defend "the idea of the plan" is a good idea as opposed to a time centered justification (immediate) then you were in the same position because I would just pic out of the time after the link/impact scenario of my politics story.

 

Turn - all your whiny arguments about when plan passes are whines about what fiat means, not just what affirmative fiat means. You can't draw any distinction in your warrants between the aff doing it and the neg doing it, except to say 'negation theory'. Means those arguments take out the CP.
Thats not a turn or an argument. I'm confused.

 

Second, I'm not making my interpretation conditional in anyway. Thats what most of the disads are from.

 

When the neg changes this basic element of what fiat means, the aff at the very least gets to make a permutation using the new definition of fiat.
I'm understanding your implicit argument better. This is an implicit part of plan action not nec. fiat.

Also, no one dates the judges ballot in the same way you describe with your skewed interp of the political process. Sure everything might get stamped--but that doesn't mean the business perception is the same. The business perception is different for immediate enactment vs. phase in. Politicians use this to shield themselves from political blowback. In the same way, the neg. lack of link is a cushion for Obama (assuming an Obama good story)

 

It's funny that you say I should have impact-turned politics. Because I thought the point was to have process education.
Either of the above is fine (nice catch) but either of these is better than bland resolutional education, which you can't even give us because you are perametricized. In common parlance, you don't access your own impact.

 

To rehash:

1. CP is plan-plus, b/c I have to advocate plan at any time, at at all times.

2. CP changes the definition of fiat, for which reason it should be rejected, but worst case scenario it justifies a reciprocal permutation.

At all times--I've answered above. That means you have to defend more and I can run the same strategy.

 

Where's the rule book you are relying on for what fiat is? Fiat is not plan passage its imaginging a world in which the plan is true. It is the case that that means 3 things happen:

 

a) committees

B) it passes through the floor of congress and the presidents desk

c) agency takes action.

 

To say that some mythical person stamps the bill is absurd. Is that the tab room you are referring to??? I've never heard anyone refer to stamping as a predictable component of fiat. (i guess thats a judge gut check)

 

Wrong. You parametricized my aff when you changed the definition of fiat. Case debate is unlikely to (read "doesn't") check in a round where you fiat my aff.
I don't fiat your aff. I changed your aff--just like states counterplan or executive order changes it. I didn't parametricize your aff. Even if I did--that means you have to defend more--and you would still link to my argument.

 

Case debate happened and clash happened--your theory contrivance doesn't change that. Also you don't access resolutional education--so please quit whining. Also cross apply process and impact education.

 

I think its possible that you might not allow for perception disads at all--but that might also be a contrived argument.

 

I could also concede your interpretation of fiat--and go for my comparative cushion and shield argument (although that puts me in a worse position on the link and impact debate on politics to weigh against your aff)

 

I think we just have a disagreement over a time stamp is applied or not and how this translates to debate. I don't think we can resolve this.

Edited by nathan_debate

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...