Jump to content
Shocking

CP as the alternative to a K

Recommended Posts

What are the negative side effects of doing this? I'm talking about where the alt text is exactly the counterplan text. Are there any weaknesses that either argument has when used in this combo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What are the negative side effects of doing this? I'm talking about where the alt text is exactly the counterplan text. Are there any weaknesses that either argument has when used in this combo?

 

More importantly, what are the positive effects of doing this? Your question is secondary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What are the negative side effects of doing this? I'm talking about where the alt text is exactly the counterplan text. Are there any weaknesses that either argument has when used in this combo?

You have to defend solvency.

 

More importantly, what are the positive effects of doing this? Your question is secondary.

You don't have to deal with a framework debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
More importantly, what are the positive effects of doing this? Your question is secondary.

 

It provides an actual real-world application of the K. Some debaters choose to operate on a purely discursive level, which is fine; but in general, admitting that what you're talking about will never actually be put in place is a damning concession (if aff had their way, the USFG would actually do something, but neg doesn't necessarily advocate a large-scale action to cause the change they're looking for). I don't see why you shouldn't do this, really; this way you can win the round even if you lose the framework debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Utopian fiat bad?

 

Most alterantives get out of this by saying something like "We're not fiating, we're a mindset shift" etc. Your CP fiats the world of the alt...

 

That only works if your CP is something unrealistic, if you fiat a policy action that will embody what you are trying to accomplish with your alternative, than it can be a very good idea, it means you have a real world way to solve back the impacts of your K

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest negative (imo) is the tendency of the CP to link to the K. Most kritiks attack something so pervasive in public policy circles that creating a policy which avoids the implications is very difficult. If you plan to do this, make sure your understanding of your K goes deeper than the Cliff's notes, else you will likely get clowned by a team that understands your criticism better than you do. (though this often happens when aff knows the 1nc K better than neg, even w/out a CP) Once you understand the criticism well, then you can perhaps find a CP (or a plan for a hybrid 1ac) which functions with the K. And like Max said, this does give you the advantage of talking about implications of the K in the post plan world (as opposed to just discussing what happens in the room).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It provides an actual real-world application of the K. Some debaters choose to operate on a purely discursive level, which is fine; but in general, admitting that what you're talking about will never actually be put in place is a damning concession (if aff had their way, the USFG would actually do something, but neg doesn't necessarily advocate a large-scale action to cause the change they're looking for). I don't see why you shouldn't do this, really; this way you can win the round even if you lose the framework debate.

 

Yea because voting aff, totally makes their plan happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea because voting aff, totally makes their plan happen.

 

This. If anything K's are more real-world (in the sense discussed above) than any aff plan because they DON'T fiat. They're not implausible calls to action, they're subtle changes in the world around us.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yea because voting aff, totally makes their plan happen.

 

Did you fail to read the parenthetical statement immediately after the part you underlined? The whole point is that if aff could actually pass the plan, the world would be substantially different afterwards, whereas if the neg could have the same opportunity, they wouldn't actually do anything, because their alternative is something like "reject the aff's implicit acceptance of biopower" or something like that. Thus if we imagine worlds where either side gets their way (which is the whole point of policy debate), only one side is actually doing something real to solve a problem. This is why a CP is a desirable option.

 

mdawgig - why is the aff plan "implausible?" If aff is winning the case debate, it shows that such a plan would actually be effective and could be put into place - the only impediment to it is the reluctance to do so in the status quo. But if a simple act of Congress is enough to solve for all the harms they're talking about, then it's not implausible at all. In fact, what's really unlikely is causing a mindset shift for a large percentage of the population. The value in having a government is that we don't need to convince all Americans to change their core principles in order to effect change.

 

As for the K linking to the CP - unless you're running hardcore statism bad, there are probably useful ways to argue that the K linking to the CP isn't actually a bad thing. Take a biopower K - if we took it to its logical conclusion, it wouldn't allow any state action at all. But in reality, a critical author like Foucault doesn't live in an ivory tower - these authors would advocate actual real world change that makes progress towards their goal, and not be nihilists about it. So a CP that works to erode biopower and challenges our assumptions could be a workable alternative to the critique. The aff is still on the losing end because they can't sever out of the 1AC advocacy.

Edited by einsteinthe12th
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets get into specifics to make this more applicable

 

Capitalism- a CP makes no sense. Considering you shouldn't be FIAT'ing anything either way (Do Nothing) then it seems unnecessary to have a CP. Also, this bring into the text, if its the judge doing nothing, then it doesn't seem to be much of a counterplan.

 

Biopower- again, generally a rejection of biopower, aka a nothing alternative, so I see no point in running it.

 

Past that if you have any specific kritiks I still don't see a point in doing it, it only makes answering the perm harder because you yourself advocate an action, probably state sponsored too.

 

Just because the CP is a policy option doesn't make it more real world, real world education comes from policy making knowledge, which I don't think a CP which text said "do nothing" would solve because its not a policy option anyone in congress would advocate, meaning you don't meet that education standard.

 

If you're worried about the framework debate, don't read a K.

 

If you're trying to do this to get out of the framework debate, you do two things

1. Open up yourself to utopian FIAT more. Perceptually when running a CP it does make it appear you are just FIAT'ing away your problems, probably making it abusive. A judge is more likely to buy a vague alt than a CP because that's what they've become comfortable with accepting.

2. You shoot yourself in the foot with some of the K's best arguments. You can't run "precedes policy evaluation" evidence, or epistemology evidence, or anything that could stray from policy making focus because you yourself concede that's a bad for of education.

 

 

Theres no reason to do this, and it seems to only have negative consequences. I don't reccomend that.

 

PS- Einstein, if I'm ever asked in a round if I wanted the alt to my kritik to happen (everyone give up cap) of course I'm going to say yes. To say that "well the affs WANTS their plan to happen, its obviously real world" and to assume the neg doesn't want that same thing doesn't make sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lets get into specifics to make this more applicable

 

Capitalism- a CP makes no sense. Considering you shouldn't be FIAT'ing anything either way (Do Nothing) then it seems unnecessary to have a CP. Also, this bring into the text, if its the judge doing nothing, then it doesn't seem to be much of a counterplan.

 

Biopower- again, generally a rejection of biopower, aka a nothing alternative, so I see no point in running it.

 

Past that if you have any specific kritiks I still don't see a point in doing it, it only makes answering the perm harder because you yourself advocate an action, probably state sponsored too.

 

Just because the CP is a policy option doesn't make it more real world, real world education comes from policy making knowledge, which I don't think a CP which text said "do nothing" would solve because its not a policy option anyone in congress would advocate, meaning you don't meet that education standard.

 

If you're worried about the framework debate, don't read a K.

 

If you're trying to do this to get out of the framework debate, you do two things

1. Open up yourself to utopian FIAT more. Perceptually when running a CP it does make it appear you are just FIAT'ing away your problems, probably making it abusive. A judge is more likely to buy a vague alt than a CP because that's what they've become comfortable with accepting.

2. You shoot yourself in the foot with some of the K's best arguments. You can't run "precedes policy evaluation" evidence, or epistemology evidence, or anything that could stray from policy making focus because you yourself concede that's a bad for of education.

 

Theres no reason to do this, and it seems to only have negative consequences. I don't reccomend that.

Lee, please don't be offended when I say that you completely miss the point. The idea isn't that you fiat the alternative, the idea is that you fiat a sensible policy option that embodies the K. Obviously this isn't universally applicable, because not all Ks will have such a policy option. But when you find it, it's often very strategic. (On the strategy-specific issues, this is where you got sidetracked about utopian fiat - you aren't fiating utopianism, just a policy.) This gets you the strategic benefits of a floating PIK without the theory liability.

 

You're probably right that Cap and biopower don't want policy alts. But you overgeneralize to say it never makes sense.

 

Some simple examples:

- Word PIC as the alt to a discourse K.

- On the hs UN PKO topic in 4-5, a lot of teams were successful reading nonviolence as a K, and the alt was a CP to peacekeep without weapons. IE, do the plan, but do it nonviolently.

- If a team makes a court ruling on the basis of international law, you can kritik ILaw and CP to do the plan on the basis of a domestic law. The K is your offense against any 'ILaw is awesome' advantages, and the CP solves the court-case-specific advantages (eg, CP still solves criminalization of drug users, and the K is offense against the human rights cred advantage.) It's the converse to reading an ILaw advantage CP to solve HR cred and turning the criminalization advantage.

Edited by meanmedianmode

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trust me, I'm totally not offended, otherwise I wouldn't post on a cite about arguing!

 

I agree with you totally that certain CP's are strategic and have kritikal NB's. Here's the difference though between your articulation and the question, he asked, quote, "I'm talking about where the alt text is exactly the counterplan text.", not if a counterplan can have a kritikal net benefit, as you describe.

 

Your framing is of a CP that avoids a kritik to the affirmative, aka a Word PIC (The PIC) and the CP has a net benefit.

 

His question is that, why read any alternative, why not just make it a separate counterplan. Or atleast, that's my understanding of it, I could be wrong.

 

So while I agree that CP's can have kritikal NB's, I don't think its strategic to just never run an alt and run it as a CP instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lee, please don't be offended when I say that you completely miss the point. The idea isn't that you fiat the alternative, the idea is that you fiat a sensible policy option that embodies the K. Obviously this isn't universally applicable, because not all Ks will have such a policy option. But when you find it, it's often very strategic. (On the strategy-specific issues, this is where you got sidetracked about utopian fiat - you aren't fiating utopianism, just a policy.) This gets you the strategic benefits of a floating PIK without the theory liability.

 

You're probably right that Cap and biopower don't want policy alts. But you overgeneralize to say it never makes sense.

 

Some simple examples:

- Word PIC as the alt to a discourse K.

- On the hs UN PKO topic in 4-5, a lot of teams were successful reading nonviolence as a K, and the alt was a CP to peacekeep without weapons. IE, do the plan, but do it nonviolently.

- If a team makes a court ruling on the basis of international law, you can kritik ILaw and CP to do the plan on the basis of a domestic law. The K is your offense against any 'ILaw is awesome' advantages, and the CP solves the court-case-specific advantages (eg, CP still solves criminalization of drug users, and the K is offense against the human rights cred advantage.) It's the converse to reading an ILaw advantage CP to solve HR cred and turning the criminalization advantage.

The distinction between a word PIC and something like a biopower K is that the PIC is a cp with a K net benefit whereas biopower is a critique of the aff's metaphysical understanding - which requires framework arguments to be successful. Lee seems right about that insofar as fiating an alt would be utopian; your argument is just fiat a policy, but the only policy capable of fiating is something that is essentially a CP: word PIC is all I can think of.

 

(Don't think either of you disagree, just miscommunication perhaps)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An "Alt" and a "CP" are the same thing. They propose an advocacy that is competitive to the plan text. Whether that advocacy relies on "fiat" or not is irrelevant to the role of the counter-advocacy ("Alt"/"CP") in the debate round.

The assumption that a critique relies on deconstructing the idea of fiat seems very problematic to me. There are a multitude of ways to reject bio-power, capitalism, etc. that could involve state action. Those ways can be advocated as an "alt" to those critiques.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
An "Alt" and a "CP" are the same thing. ...
While they may serve similar purposes, they are not the same thing. Alts need not be policy actions, and indeed need not be government/societal actions at all. Suggesting that they are the same thing serves to confuse people who are learning the K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While they may serve similar purposes, they are not the same thing. Alts need not be policy actions, and indeed need not be government/societal actions at all. Suggesting that they are the same thing serves to confuse people who are learning the K.

Warrant?

CP's need not be governmental or societal action either. They tend to be in order to generate clear competition with the aff plan, but that's only a convention of debate, not a requirement.

The key here is that both require competition with the aff plan to generate offense in the round. In that sense it doesn't matter who the agent of action is, or what that action is (ie. this dubious pre/post fiat distinction that everyone yammers on about).

I think that it's much more confusing for "people who are learning the K" to think that the critique operates on some separate level of debate logic. It's all a series of advocacies, some just use the judge as an independent agent of action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That only works if your CP is something unrealistic, if you fiat a policy action that will embody what you are trying to accomplish with your alternative, than it can be a very good idea, it means you have a real world way to solve back the impacts of your K

 

I think you missed the part where he said "Your alternative text, just as a CP"

 

If it's the exact text of the alt, it's a utopian fiat CP. That's cheating as fuck. If it's a real CP, then just read a state link as a "CP links to net benefit" argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Warrant?

CP's need not be governmental or societal action either. They tend to be in order to generate clear competition with the aff plan, but that's only a convention of debate, not a requirement.

The key here is that both require competition with the aff plan to generate offense in the round. In that sense it doesn't matter who the agent of action is, or what that action is (ie. this dubious pre/post fiat distinction that everyone yammers on about).

I think that it's much more confusing for "people who are learning the K" to think that the critique operates on some separate level of debate logic. It's all a series of advocacies, some just use the judge as an independent agent of action.

I'd like to see an example of a CP that isn't some form of policy action. K alts are very rarely policy actions. Understanding the different frameworks is absolutely essential to teaching the K if you want to hear something that's not incomprehensible gibberish when the student gets to running a K. Shortcuts like "think of it like a DA" and "An alt is just like a CP" confuse the issue at the most basic level. While the distinction may seem simple and trivial to someone who is familiar with the theory behind it, and the shortcut of "It's just like..." is tempting, it is in no way a good way to teach. A better way of putting it would be to say the Alt is to its K what the CP is to its net benefit; which I think is what you were getting at anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to see an example of a CP that isn't some form of policy action. K alts are very rarely policy actions.

What is a policy? What is a policy action?

Understanding the different frameworks is absolutely essential to teaching the K if you want to hear something that's not incomprehensible gibberish when the student gets to running a K. Shortcuts like "think of it like a DA" and "An alt is just like a CP" confuse the issue at the most basic level. While the distinction may seem simple and trivial to someone who is familiar with the theory behind it, and the shortcut of "It's just like..." is tempting, it is in no way a good way to teach. A better way of putting it would be to say the Alt is to its K what the CP is to its net benefit; which I think is what you were getting at anyway.

"Blah, blah, blah, you're right."

The important question is competition, if that confuses you then you aren't ready for a critique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What is a policy? What is a policy action?
Does language even have meaning? Why should we debate?

 

"Blah, blah, blah, you're right."
I never said you're right. You do of course have the right to think of my ideas as "blah" but it won't take away their rationale.
The important question is competition, if that confuses you then you aren't ready for a critique.
If the idea of competition confuses you, then you're not ready for a CP, never mind a K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd like to see an example of a CP that isn't some form of policy action. K alts are very rarely policy actions. Understanding the different frameworks is absolutely essential to teaching the K if you want to hear something that's not incomprehensible gibberish when the student gets to running a K. Shortcuts like "think of it like a DA" and "An alt is just like a CP" confuse the issue at the most basic level. While the distinction may seem simple and trivial to someone who is familiar with the theory behind it, and the shortcut of "It's just like..." is tempting, it is in no way a good way to teach. A better way of putting it would be to say the Alt is to its K what the CP is to its net benefit; which I think is what you were getting at anyway.

"The CP text is to do nothing"

 

we ran with that a few times. it works yo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've done this before, and i don't mean just reading a cp that avoids the k. My cp text was "The United States federal government should embrace the affirmative harms." We would frame it as an active step towards destruction.

There's really no reason that it wouldn't solve the k, we didn't claim that it solved case or anything, but if you're reading a k that easily neutralizes case then it's no huge deal.

I think that if you're setting out to take out case and not let them weigh impacts then you shouldn't do this, but if you do let them weigh case this helps to give your alt macro level solvency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The CP text is to do nothing"

 

we ran with that a few times. it works yo.

A message from 1950: That's called presumption, not a CP.

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...