Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Anyone seen one yet? Having trouble finding evidence.

 

not sure wat u mean at all

My Initial reaction

Eliminate as opposed to reduce? So a topical counterplan?

This CP would not be competitive. Perm: do the CP works - does entire plan.

(btw, frozen, topical CP's are legit, :) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This CP would not be competitive. Perm: do the CP works - does entire plan.

(btw, frozen, topical CP's are legit, )

 

Arguably it would compete with normal means of withdrawal if normal means is in the plan text. (or if the aff. otherwise specifies a withdrawal)

 

I'm not sure if the analogy to consult & other process counterplans is fair or not, because I haven't thought about it.

 

Arguably perm do both is severance if a removal method is specified.

 

Its a question of

1) theory in terms of these types of counterplans

2) net benefits & answering the permutation

3) is the permutation severance or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arguably it would compete with normal means of withdrawal if normal means is in the plan text. (or if the aff. otherwise specifies a withdrawal)

 

I'm not sure if the analogy to consult & other process counterplans is fair or not, because I haven't thought about it.

 

Arguably perm do both is severance if a removal method is specified.

 

Its a question of

1) theory in terms of these types of counterplans

2) net benefits & answering the permutation

3) is the permutation severance or not?

 

The text would probably be something to the effect of: Text: the USfg should eliminate it's [military and/or police] presence in [country(s)]. I highly doubt any of them would specify a specific withdrawal method unless it was specified in the plan text.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My Initial reaction

 

This CP would not be competitive. Perm: do the CP works - does entire plan.

(btw, frozen, topical CP's are legit, :) )

 

I agree that the CP doesn't compete, but because a lot of affs only remove a part of the military - however, nathan is correct that the perm would be severance because it severs out of the plan mechanism.

 

I disagree that topical counterplans are legit...I think the aff should get all resolutional ground, and the plan is part of it. IMO, the judge votes for the affirmation or negation of the res - topical CPs are basically the neg doing the aff's job. Plus, the CP is basically what an aff would do that might be considered effects T.

 

But when you say eliminate, what do you mean? Kill all the people in the military? Disband it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree that topical counterplans are legit...I think the aff should get all resolutional ground, and the plan is part of it.

 

Although I can see how this is close to topical--in reality its not (or at least in a gray area).

 

Also, your standard doesn't allow for some of the best (or most interesting) counterplans on the resolution. For instance in terms of Iraq and Afghanistan

 

1) Withdrawl PMCs Counterplan

2) Various Drugs Counterplans (police presence)

3) Stop Drones Missions Counterplan

4) Various timeline changes. Also the possibility of immediate vs. gradual withdrawal.

 

Or for instance on Japan--the counter plan to pull out from one of the bases.

 

The reason the neg. gets "topical" ground is because the affirmative parametricizes & because there is such an imbalance in the quality of research bases which favors the affirmative as a general rule. I also think its real world for those comparisons to take place--a decision calculus which leaves options on the table without evaluating them is generally a poor decision calculus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arguably it would compete with normal means of withdrawal if normal means is in the plan text. (or if the aff. otherwise specifies a withdrawal)

what? how would this garner competition?

perm - do plan and eliminate other troops.

The only competition is if there's a d/a to the method of withdrawal and the CP uses a different method. If neg has that d/a, I'm sure there's a better way to take advantage of it than this CP.

 

This might be useful as a K alt, I guess, where you're garnering competition off aff's reps of leaving some troops there?

 

Agreed with Nathan et al that topical CPs are legit. The 2nc/1nr can just read the PICs good block to answer this arg, b/c all PICs are guaranteed topical.

Edited by meanmedianmode

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The only competition is if there's a d/a to the method of withdrawal and the CP uses a different method. If neg has that d/a, I'm sure there's a better way to take advantage of it than this CP.

 

I didn't claim this was a good strategy--in fact I have a definite bias against it.

 

Both troop shift (presumably Afghanistan troops bad) and pullout method (??? which might include environmental harms) are disads to this counter plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree that topical counterplans are legit...I think the aff should get all resolutional ground, and the plan is part of it. IMO, the judge votes for the affirmation or negation of the res - topical CPs are basically the neg doing the aff's job.

 

if the judge is voting for the affirmation or negation of the res, why do negative arguments have to link to plan? why can't they just link to other parts of the res?

 

aff-let's pull out from afghanistan

neg-that's fine, sounds kind of smart. here's a separate disad against every other topic country. we're currently winning, five countries to one. scoreboard says vote neg

 

you might say "oh then the negative isn't providing clash"--but the negative is clashing against the resolution, which according to you is the focus of the debate. why would they have to clash against the affirmative? can't they blatantly disregard affirmative cases and attack other parts of the resolution?

 

the moral of this parable: a resolution approach to evaluating the ballot is really stupid.

 

if you're going to demand the neg clash with the plan provided by the aff, then the aff has set their ground for the purposes of the round to the constraints of their plan. anything else is fair game for the negative.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reason the neg. gets "topical" ground is because the affirmative parametricizes & because there is such an imbalance in the quality of research bases which favors the affirmative as a general rule. I also think its real world for those comparisons to take place--a decision calculus which leaves options on the table without evaluating them is generally a poor decision calculus.
If the aff were to propose two plans under the resolution, would "topical ground" still go to the neg. Or if aff's ran a second plan in the 2AC? Neither strategy would I suggest, but both seem to be reserved rights for the Aff. Or if the Aff doesn't propose a plan? I've never understood the concept that if the Aff doesn't elect to use 100% of the "topical ground" then it for some reason forfeits it.

 

And your answer doesn't change the concept of the ballot. The ballot is signed for the affirmative or negative. What is the affirmative team doing? They propose a plan that supports the policy of the resolution that persuades the judge to affirm the resolution, not the plan. Thus, the counterplan that is topical gives additional reasons to affirm the resolution and the judge should vote accordingly. Showing that "topical ground" is beneficial is not a persuasive reason to negate the resolution.

 

As far as quality of evidence being imbalance, I hear this claim all the time, but never any evidence to warrent it. For the imbalance to exist, there would have to be a conscience effort by authors to skew the literature. Or, the resolution as written would have to be skewed is such a way that the literature is not balanced (this I probably would believe as I believe in the last 20 years the resolutions have been written assuming change is required).

 

And as far as decision calculus that leaves options out, that is the nature of a limited debate. In the legistically feasible parameters of a debate round, there will be policy options that are left out. We can't discuss everything, so we decide what is best among what was discussed. To say a counterplan is legitimate because it is simply a different option than the affirmative doesn't go to the heart of the issue which is whether the resolution is a policy option that we want to affirm or negate. The affirmative plan does not have to be the best policy option, just sufficent to prove that the resolution should be affirmed. To point out that aff plan could be even better is not sufficent reason to reject the resolution that the plan is an example of as support.

 

Specifically on this theoretical CP, that the original author of the thread has yet to clarify, it seems that eliminating the military presence is a reduction to the full extent, so if the CP is net beneficial then it would be additional support that we should affirm the resolution, and thus as a judge I would be forced to write affirmative on the ballot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the aff were to propose two plans under the resolution, would "topical ground" still go to the neg. Or if aff's ran a second plan in the 2AC? Neither strategy would I suggest, but both seem to be reserved rights for the Aff. Or if the Aff doesn't propose a plan? I've never understood the concept that if the Aff doesn't elect to use 100% of the "topical ground" then it for some reason forfeits it.

 

And your answer doesn't change the concept of the ballot. The ballot is signed for the affirmative or negative. What is the affirmative team doing? They propose a plan that supports the policy of the resolution that persuades the judge to affirm the resolution, not the plan. Thus, the counterplan that is topical gives additional reasons to affirm the resolution and the judge should vote accordingly. Showing that "topical ground" is beneficial is not a persuasive reason to negate the resolution.

 

As far as quality of evidence being imbalance, I hear this claim all the time, but never any evidence to warrent it. For the imbalance to exist, there would have to be a conscience effort by authors to skew the literature. Or, the resolution as written would have to be skewed is such a way that the literature is not balanced (this I probably would believe as I believe in the last 20 years the resolutions have been written assuming change is required).

 

And as far as decision calculus that leaves options out, that is the nature of a limited debate. In the legistically feasible parameters of a debate round, there will be policy options that are left out. We can't discuss everything, so we decide what is best among what was discussed. To say a counterplan is legitimate because it is simply a different option than the affirmative doesn't go to the heart of the issue which is whether the resolution is a policy option that we want to affirm or negate. The affirmative plan does not have to be the best policy option, just sufficent to prove that the resolution should be affirmed. To point out that aff plan could be even better is not sufficent reason to reject the resolution that the plan is an example of as support.

 

Specifically on this theoretical CP, that the original author of the thread has yet to clarify, it seems that eliminating the military presence is a reduction to the full extent, so if the CP is net beneficial then it would be additional support that we should affirm the resolution, and thus as a judge I would be forced to write affirmative on the ballot.

 

Topical counterplans are legit because of parametrics. Plain and simple. You are incorrect when you say that the judge votes for the res, and not the plan (although technically thats decided in round, but we'll generalize here). Parametrics essentially says that rather than voting for the resolution, the resolution serves as the parameters of the round. Then the affirmative presents a plan in those parameters, and the debate is held over the plan. This was decided a long time ago because of possibly the worst thing that ever happened to debate; counter warrants. The logic goes down like this: if the affirmative gets to present examples for why the resolution is good, then the negative should be able to present examples why its bad. Otherwise, an aff would just pick the best example and even if the resolution as a whole is undesirable, the aff could still win. In a world where you are saying we need to find out if the resolution is desirable, counter warrants are a necessary check. Well, the problem is they're retarded. The affirmative could spend eight minutes on they're Depleted Uranium bullets affirmative, then the negative gets up and reads 5 'counter warrants' about how much it sucks to pull out of the other countries, and another counter warrant about how much it sucks to withdraw troops from Iraq. The resolution as a whole is undesirable, they say, so vote negative. The affirmative has an impossible job in this world, because there are always examples of the resolution that are impossibly bad. Plus, counter warrants only exacerbate the time skew of the negative block. This is why plan focus is necessary.

 

Now, the next question is whether or not the negative should get all that ground the aff has given up. Well, if we are operating under parametrics, then your not voting for the resolution, so they no longer constitute a reason to vote aff. Additionally, if they are an opportunity cost to the plan, why shouldn't they be able to read it? To me it seems that other than "it is a reason to vote aff" there is no offensive reason to dislike them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the aff were to propose two plans under the resolution, would "topical ground" still go to the neg. Or if aff's ran a second plan in the 2AC? Neither strategy would I suggest, but both seem to be reserved rights for the Aff. Or if the Aff doesn't propose a plan? I've never understood the concept that if the Aff doesn't elect to use 100% of the "topical ground" then it for some reason forfeits it.

 

1) I believe he answered this above with parametrics

2) Its not to say the affirmative gives it up--as much as its up for grabs.

3) Your definition of what the resolution is for and your definition of what the negative does is arguably contrived. (or at the very least up for debate). I realize its the "standard"

4) Arguably topical counterplans yield better debates than either process counterplans and more relevant debates than utopian counterplans.

5) Without topical counter plans & critiques--the negative would be at an even worse position. And the negative would be incentivized to run even shadier strategies like counter-warrants or ridiculous backfile checks.

 

Or if aff's ran a second plan in the 2AC?

 

Red herring. They are sufficiently smart to debate this out.

 

Re-planning in the 2ac is a debatable practice in itself. It may or may not be checked back by counter plans in the block. However, re-planning almost inevitably creates shallow debates (given that certain policy options wouldn't be challenged until the 1ar--assuming you believe that re-planning justifies 2nc counter plans).

 

The literature base differential.

 

One of the reasons negatives tend to rely on politics as a disad is because the negative literature is comparably worse. Also, the negative has the problem of often relying on literature thats not talking about the affirmative--but the status quo (as such their answers are non-unique turns to the status quo). Also, the affirmative is intrinsically set up with the advantage of try or die. Pretty much the only way the negative can access try or die is with counter-plans (although not necessarily topical counter-plans per se. The main other way is disad turns the case--however this generally won't be a unique disad turns the case without a counter-plan).

 

The affirmative plan does not have to be the best policy option, just sufficient to prove that the resolution should be affirmed. To point out that aff plan could be even better is not sufficient reason to reject the resolution that the plan is an example of as support.
1) By your definition the go work at McDonalds after high school affirmative would always potentially lose to the law school counter plan. (also this destroys affirmative rigor and comparisons). And in the real world--you have to be able to make those comparisons.

2) Opportunity cost. This is the disadvantage to the plan as presented and a way to avoid that (counterplan). Its not just a better way--its a way that avoids a disadvantage that links to the aff.

3) Arguably greater than 50% of the literature on Afghanistan and Iraq is debates between people talking about the best means to reduce troops. To abandon this literature yields a half way decent solution rather than the best solution.

4) Failure to consider all the tradeoffs lead to deaths at war and incidences like the BP oil spill clean up (and allows racism & sexism to continue).

 

We can't discuss everything, so we decide what is best among what was discussed.

 

All the more reason to focus on best policy option to limit whats appropriate.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Topical counterplans are legit because of parametrics. Plain and simple. You are incorrect when you say that the judge votes for the res, and not the plan (although technically thats decided in round, but we'll generalize here). Parametrics essentially says that rather than voting for the resolution, the resolution serves as the parameters of the round. Then the affirmative presents a plan in those parameters, and the debate is held over the plan. This was decided a long time ago ….
I love when people take the bait...

 

I know what the made up term parametrics means. You say it was “decided” a long time ago. Really? Decided. End of discussion. They are a rule as much as there is a rule for 8 minute constructive. What was the governing body that made this ruling? So I’ve been an outlaw all this time? Cool!!

Just for clarification, fiat is debatable, correct? I mean K teams often debate the merits of this theory and its application in policy debate. But the theory of parametrics was decided.

 

I know what a counter warrant is too. Most K’s are in fact counter warrants. The thing is, I don’t believe the theory of parametrics is required for the elimination of mess that counter warrants create. The simplest answer is that counter warrants are fallacies of straw man attacks and are thus illogical and should be rejected as valid reasons to negate. They beg the question that a bad plan was suggested. Counter warrants attack an argument that was never supported.

 

For example, I say we should be nice to puppies. My plan is to take puppy chow to a shelter which makes the puppies healthy so they can be adopted. My opponent says that taking food from the homeless and starving to give to the puppies that Paris Hilton owns is bad and promotes horrible consequences. That counter warrant attacks a plan that was not suggested, but would have been topical. However, it does not provide a reason to negate the resolution since that is just one thing we shouldn’t do if we were to affirm the resolution. I can still say we should affirm the resolution based on the plan presented, and just not do the horrible plan that the negative suggested could be possible under the resolution. We can affirm the resolution to be nice to puppies and not do the plan that takes food from the starving. Thus the counter warrant fails.

 

The negative would have to literally prove that ALL possible topical plans, or at least the majority, would have to have negative outcomes using that strategy. Hardly a winning strategy. It is in the negatives interest to attack the ONE example that the affirmative provided, thus leaving zero possible positive plans affirming the resolution. If the affirmative plan does not provide a reason to change and affirm the resolution, presumption (also something that was decided a long time ago) says we vote to negate.

 

In the world of parametrics, what happens if in the 1AC the aff team reads two plans? Or chooses to not advocate a plan?

 

The affirmative could spend eight minutes on they're Depleted Uranium bullets affirmative, then the negative gets up and reads 5 'counter warrants' about how much it sucks to pull out of the other countries, and another counter warrant about how much it sucks to withdraw troops from Iraq. The resolution as a whole is undesirable, they say, so vote negative. The affirmative has an impossible job in this world, because there are always examples of the resolution that are impossibly bad.
In your example, the counter warrant does not show the resolution as a whole is undesirable, it shows one reason that it is undesirable. That if we affirm and do the one plan, bad things happen, but leaves the near infinite possibilities, including the affirmative plan as positives. In this strategy, the negative would have to run counter warrants on at least 50% of all the possibilities to show the resolution was net undesirable, especially while granting the desirability of the aff plan. I disagree, and believe this strategy creates an impossible job for the negative and an easy road for victory for the affirming team. That is why teams started running plans rather than attempting to defend the entirety of the resolution, because the increased specificity allows for more clear reasons to defend rather than the obscure. It had nothing to do with the made up theory of parametrics.

 

Your definition of what the resolution is for and your definition of what the negative does is arguably contrived. (or at the very least up for debate). I realize its the "standard".
Agreed. That doesn’t make it wrong. I’ll listen to other theories in the round, even parametrics, just don’t default to them.

 

Arguably topical counterplans yield better debates than either process counterplans and more relevant debates than utopian counterplans.
Define “better debates”. Why are those my choices? I think there other choices that yield “better debates” and are more relevant. And just because other choices may be poor doesn’t make topical counterplans legitimate

 

Without topical counter plans & critiques--the negative would be at an even worse position. And the negative would be incentivized to run even shadier strategies like counter-warrants or ridiculous backfile checks.
Or negatives could actually clash. That would be a novel concept.

 

Re-planning in the 2ac is a debatable practice in itself. It may or may not be checked back by counter plans in the block. However, re-planning almost inevitably creates shallow debates (given that certain policy options wouldn't be challenged until the 1ar--assuming you believe that re-planning justifies 2nc counter plans).
I agree that it makes for shallow debates, but debates that are legitimate. I don’t want to set a false choice, but giving logical, legitimate and shallow debates versus illogical, illegitimate and deep debates, I’ll choose the former.

 

One of the reasons negatives tend to rely on politics as a disad is because the negative literature is comparably worse.
That is the symptom, not the cause. And here I was thinking they rely on politics because they are too chicken to clash with case side. Still, that is not a warrant to the claim that the literature base is skewed, just that negatives pick lazy strategy.

 

Also, the negative has the problem of often relying on literature thats not talking about the affirmative--but the status quo (as such their answers are non-unique turns to the status quo).
This makes some sense to me. It is hard to find reasons not to do something that no one is doing yet. Yet, when I debated, without the internet, I had an entire Rubbermaid tub of reasons different popular plan choices should not be done. I’ll agree it is hard. Not impossible, but hard.

 

Also, the affirmative is intrinsically set up with the advantage of try or die.
3 problems with this. First, it is not intrinsic that we must try the affirmative plan or die. If that was the case, the fact that none of these affirmative plans really get passed means that we would all die. It is not intrinsic, it is argued that way. Second, this sets up the flawed concept of offense/defense. Defending the status quo is not a death sentence. Third, I believe this concept is being promoted within the choices that is being written into the resolutions. For quite some time the resolutions seem to beg the question that change is required. At the very least ethos is being handed to the affirmative when the wording is to help the poor and dying. I’m optimistic about this resolution because I don’t think the affirmative is handed an automatic pass that change must occur.

 

Pretty much the only way the negative can access try or die is with counter-plans (although not necessarily topical counter-plans per se. The main other way is disad turns the case--however this generally won't be a unique disad turns the case without a counter-plan).
A ton of bold, unwarranted assumptions made here. I politely disagree. I disagree the negative must access “try or die”. I disagree that only turning case or CP’s do this (direct cash refutation, K’s, strong inherency positions all can). This concept is what artificially forces negative teams into poor, illegitimate strategic argumentation. If you don’t put the negative in a box on what it takes to win, you give them more legitimate choices. I agree, if you overly narrow what it takes to win, then you force the negative to make arguments that you then have to invent theory on why it was even legitimate. Forcing them to be desperate doesn’t make the argumentation better.

 

By your definition the go work at McDonalds after high school affirmative would always potentially lose to the law school counter plan. (also this destroys affirmative rigor and comparisons). And in the real world--you have to be able to make those comparisons.
Huh? I don’t get it.

 

Opportunity cost. This is the disadvantage to the plan as presented and a way to avoid that (counterplan). Its not just a better way--its a way that avoids a disadvantage that links to the aff.
But if we are voting for the resolution, there isn’t an opportunity cost. We agree it should be done, and heck there might be an even better way, but that doesn’t mean then we shouldn’t do it. Under your concept, we’d never take any action because there could always be a better one.

 

I paid $45 to see Weird Al the other night. It was an awesome show. Perhaps I could have found a deal to only pay $20 to see the same show, but if I waited to find the $20 tickets I might have missed the show all together. Yes, there was an opportunity cost of $25, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t have gone to the show at all.

Arguably greater than 50% of the literature on Afghanistan and Iraq is debates between people talking about the best means to reduce troops. To abandon this literature yields a half way decent solution rather than the best solution.
Okay, and the problem is? Not all the literature has to be relevant and debated. And that doesn’t mean you have to run topical counterplans. The same literature can be interpreted to make other arguments such as case attacks and DA’s.

 

Failure to consider all the tradeoffs lead to deaths at war and incidences like the BP oil spill clean up (and allows racism & sexism to continue).

 

All the more reason to focus on best policy option to limit whats appropriate.

WHAT??? So because we don’t talk about every plan and every variation of every plan, people die, the environment is destroyed, and people judge others unfairly???? WHAT?? That is an impossible standard. Now you are saying the negative MUST run all possible counterplans or else nearly all horrible consequences will come true. Am I just misunderstanding you?

 

Kinda read like someone’s frontlines on why topical counterplans are good.

 

And where is the evidence that the literature base is skewed? There were some theories to this, some of which are even plausible, but I don’t see any real hard evidence that clever teams can’t use the same literature base evenly.

 

Thanks for the discussion!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parametrics...community consensus perhaps is a better word.

 

Maybe I've not been around debate enough--but I don't think

a) I've ever heard another interpretation

B) criticism to warrant a ballot against the current definition of parametrics

 

On counter warrants:

 

Counter warrants attack an argument that was never supported.
They criticize an example of the larger resolution which is not defended in the plan text.

 

Under your interpretation of counter warrants--disads and even some case arguments would link. (ie PMC shift or movements).

 

In a world without parametrics the affirmative couldn't get to square one. The negative could read the fallacy of composition or hasty generalization and be done.

 

Most K’s are in fact counter warrants.
I'll partially agree--but I think largely this misses the point. First, thats only when the critiques are links of omission (and perms generally solve for that). Isn't the link or amount there of--the test for if a given critique is a counter-warrant or not? Second, your interpretation understands the critique as a disad in the instrumental affirmation world--not in an assumptions or representation.

 

I disagree that only turning case or CP’s do this (direct cash refutation, K’s, strong inherency positions all can)
When you say strong inherency positions--I'll assume you mean absolute harms takeout combined with another argument. Most inherency arguments KILL any hope of try or die. You are correct about Ks, but I was referencing the policy sphere of debate. (also the reason Ks do this is due to 1) alternatives and 2) framework 3) the nature of ethical/-ism/ideology/worldview questions).

 

Direct clash doesn't intrinsically lead to try or die. Besides the point was to describe positions and types of arguments--not just saying debate = try or die.

 

The following is question begging:

 

I paid $45 to see Weird Al the other night. It was an awesome show. Perhaps I could have found a deal to only pay $20 to see the same show, but if I waited to find the $20 tickets I might have missed the show all together. Yes, there was an opportunity cost of $25, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t have gone to the show at all.
Given your circumstances you made the best possible option. Also, best policy option includes avoiding absolute policy paralysis.

 

Counter-plans don't equal infinite questioning--so I don't see how this is relevant:

 

But if we are voting for the resolution, there isn’t an opportunity cost. We agree it should be done, and heck there might be an even better way, but that doesn’t mean then we shouldn’t do it. Under your concept, we’d never take any action because there could always be a better one.
The actual advocacy of one counter plan solves this problem. (and obviously "best policy option" is sensitive to such questions). Your alternative here is far worse for decision-making & policy making--because it destroys topic-specific comparisons which are key to making the best decisions based on currently optimum knowledge. Which is pointed to the following DA of your interp:

 

Failure to consider all the tradeoffs lead to deaths at war and incidences like the BP oil spill clean up (and allows racism & sexism to continue).
Also topical counter plans are the best hope of thinking in ways that bridge the divisions of politics--creating better policy & democracy. It creates ways of thinking which dramatically improve the public sphere & help solves policy paralysis. (admittedly not constructed well--but a semi-true argument).

 

You say:

But if we are voting for the resolution, there isn’t an opportunity cost.
Really?!?! Each disad link and case turn does this.

 

Now you are saying the negative MUST run all possible counterplans or else nearly all horrible consequences will come true.
This is a silly interpretation of best policy option. We've identified this counterplan as uniquely the best for this affirmative. We haven't identified other counterplans which solve.

 

Okay, and the problem is? Not all the literature has to be relevant and debated.
Better to debate topic literature than 1) utopian counterplans like WOMP & Anarchy and 2) non-literature based process counter plans like Cheeto Veto, Consult Mexico, or condition on Okinawa pullout on a Japanese Anime convention.

 

If your desire is clash--the best clash comes from exploring the strategic & complex & interesting parts of the debate between various advocates for pullout.

 

I think you're leaving the best of the topical counterplans are legit on the table. Ultimately, though, I just don't think you've got much in terms of 1) better real world & policy making 2) better decision making model 3) better for education.

 

Interesting discussion....

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lenins Ghost said:

 

This isn't enforceable at all. What do you think the feds have been trying to do for umpteen years?

 

The Department of Defense can't give anyone a pink slip? Why is the affirmative any more enforceable than the counter plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lenins Ghost said:

 

 

 

The Department of Defense can't give anyone a pink slip? Why is the affirmative any more enforceable than the counter plan?

 

No one got the CP joke. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wait, people still think topical CPs are bad? Hilarious
Wait, there are people who make arrogant posts and cant seem tot add any insight to the fundamentals of argumentation on CX.com? Hilarious.

 

Parametrics...community consensus perhaps is a better word….

 

Interesting discussion....

Agreed! I have found this offshoot to the thread interesting.

 

I had a long, point-by-point response, but once again I have to remember who I’m debating and who is the judge. It is highly unlikely that I’m going to convince the opposition to agree with me, so I’ll condense to the most important points.

 

If parametrics were an absolute truth, we wouldn’t have resolutions, we’d have detailed topic limitations. Instead of Resolved: blah, blah, blah (which is itself a policy that I claim we are actually debating) we’d have something like this:

 

The 1st speaking team (no longer called the affirmative) must present a plan which has the following attributes:

 

Actor: The US Federal Government

Action: The plan text must call for a reduction in military presence is some fashion.

Additional specifications: The reduction must be in one of the following: blah, blah, blah

 

Since we still hold onto the original concept of having a resolution as a policy option, I will continue to hold onto the original concept that the resolution is not a topic area but the policy that is being affirmed or negated. That will always be my default position, and while it may not be popular among posters on CX.com or the national circuit, I feel it is grounded in the fundamentals of what high school policy debate actually is. As a judge, will I listen to other positions, like parametrics? Yes. But I do not on face find those theories persuasive nor in line with the fundamentals.

 

In the end, debaters need to know there are multiple interpretations held among judges that they need to be able to adapt to, and I’m not alone in rejecting all theory that topical counterplans can result in a negative ballot.

 

By the way, I thought it was interesting that a justification for parametrics and topical counterplans was to avoid worse concepts for counterplans like utopian. This specific example of elimination seems to be both a topical counterplan and an utopian counterplan, and thus serves as a counter justification for parametrics and topical counterplans. That’s just my take.

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...