Jump to content
aaronthesmart

Is it possible to make a competitive PIC that just does the plan after something else?

Recommended Posts

The idea is to make a PIC that is competitive because the NB is lost if you perm. i.e., Do plan after "X" action, which provides more solvency.

Is that feasible, or still not competitive...? If not, how can it become competitive?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea is to make a PIC that is competitive because the NB is lost if you perm. i.e., Do plan after "X" action, which provides more solvency.

Is that feasible, or still not competitive...? If not, how can it become competitive?

 

This what most pic's will be like, so yeah, you're (debatably) competitive. You need to be able to argue that you are at least functionally competitive, but textual competition is also important as well. You will never have to worry about whether or not if you are competitive debate theory well. Here is what I use for PIC's:

 

Observation 1: Competition

 

A. Functional competition- The plan and the cp are mutually exclusive, meaning they can't access the net benefit by doing both. The aff can’t perm—that would be severance. Severence is bad.

 

1. Ground Skew- The aff has to endorse the entire plan or else it make them a moving target. They can spike out of our DA’s and Kritiks.

2. Predictability- This magnifies their infinite prep advantage because we could never predict what they will advocate and/or sever out of in the 2AR.

3. Presumption- The aff has to prove they have the best course of action. If they don’t you have to vote neg on presumption.

 

B. Textual Competition- The CP is untopical. You may not materially qualify the plan and we just did.

 

Black’s Law Dictionary 1991 [p. 1024]

Substantially - means essentially; without material qualification.

 

It's a little lengthy, but I've had a great amount of success with it.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you debate in an area where silly old people think the CP has to theoretically justify itself, I don't think you should spend 30 seconds establishing competition until it's contested by the aff.

 

I only use it for PIC's because people sometimes treat them as less theoretically legitimate as normal CP's. It also forces them to answer the merits of the PIC instead of running generic PIC's bad theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only use it for PIC's because people sometimes treat them as less theoretically legitimate as normal CP's. It also forces them to answer the merits of the PIC instead of running generic PIC's bad theory.

 

you just read 30 seconds of severance bad plus a claim without justification that perms must be topical. None of this is responsive to the 2AC PICs bad block. Even if you did say PICs good in the 1NC that doesn't change either the judge's pre-founded belief that PICs are unfair or the 2AC's ability to wax you on PICs bad.

 

This is why pre-empts are stupid:

 

You spend thirty seconds of the 1NC reading theory. Either:

 

A. The 2AC responds with PICs bad. You now have to spend the same amount of time extending theory in the 1NR as you would have spent just reading your block.

 

B. The 2AC concedes PICs good and invests the time differential they get putting more answers on other 1NC arguments. You have just time-skewed yourself.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you just read 30 seconds of severance bad plus a claim without justification that perms must be topical. None of this is responsive to the 2AC PICs bad block. Even if you did say PICs good in the 1NC that doesn't change either the judge's pre-founded belief that PICs are unfair or the 2AC's ability to wax you on PICs bad.

 

This is why pre-empts are stupid:

 

You spend thirty seconds of the 1NC reading theory. Either:

 

A. The 2AC responds with PICs bad. You now have to spend the same amount of time extending theory in the 1NR as you would have spent just reading your block.

 

B. The 2AC concedes PICs good and invests the time differential they get putting more answers on other 1NC arguments. You have just time-skewed yourself.

 

The perms won't have to be nontopical because the CP is proven to be mutually exclusive which prevents them from using the aff and also leaves me to leverage textual competition if I need to.

 

Most judges preconceptions of pics bad are normally founded on theoretical illegitimacy. This means that spending a little extra time on theoretical competition provides the ground work for a more believable PIC for most judges (or the judges i have.) Also, putting just 20-30 more seconds into the CP makes it much stronger theoretically. The focus here is quality not quantity, and if i can win the PIC then that worth running 5 off, then as opposed to 10 off.

 

Also the double bind is non-responsive. It doesn't take hardly anytime to make an extension of theory, and if they want to argue it, i have more abiity to leverage it against 2ac claims and move on to more pressing issues on the PIC. Moreover, they can put more time on other neg args because its a COUNTERPLAN. meaning i can go for the PIC and still solve for case w/ the net-benefit in the 2nr and win the debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The perms won't have to be nontopical because the CP is proven to be mutually exclusive which prevents them from using the aff and also leaves me to leverage textual competition if I need to.

 

Most judges preconceptions of pics bad are normally founded on theoretical illegitimacy. This means that spending a little extra time on theoretical competition provides the ground work for a more believable PIC for most judges (or the judges i have.) Also, putting just 20-30 more seconds into the CP makes it much stronger theoretically. The focus here is quality not quantity, and if i can win the PIC then that worth running 5 off, then as opposed to 10 off.

 

Also the double bind is non-responsive. It doesn't take hardly anytime to make an extension of theory, and if they want to argue it, i have more abiity to leverage it against 2ac claims and move on to more pressing issues on the PIC. Moreover, they can put more time on other neg args because its a COUNTERPLAN. meaning i can go for the PIC and still solve for case w/ the net-benefit in the 2nr and win the debate.

 

OK, Nokumura, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but this pre-empt in the 1nc accomplishes nothing. Zilch. Zero. Zip. There is no substantive PICs good argument in the 1nc block, so it does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to establish the theoretical legitimacy of the counterplan. Also, your "pre-empts" do nothing to pre-empt the perm at all. The perm is severance because... well... only functional competition is good. Any aff team with a degree of skill will, in the 2ac, have a counterinterpretation of "counterplans must be functionally AND textually competitive". Not only does that solves all of your offense in less than 5 seconds, but is also a much better interpretation.

 

In front of a decent judge, your argument is just not going to hold up. Although you may win a few rounds, no decent team will ever lose to this block.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, Nokumura, I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but this pre-empt in the 1nc accomplishes nothing. Zilch. Zero. Zip. There is no substantive PICs good argument in the 1nc block, so it does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to establish the theoretical legitimacy of the counterplan. Also, your "pre-empts" do nothing to pre-empt the perm at all. The perm is severance because... well... only functional competition is good. Any aff team with a degree of skill will, in the 2ac, have a counterinterpretation of "counterplans must be functionally AND textually competitive". Not only does that solves all of your offense in less than 5 seconds, but is also a much better interpretation.

 

In front of a decent judge, your argument is just not going to hold up. Although you may win a few rounds, no decent team will ever lose to this block.

 

Okay, bubble bursted. I suppose that makes sense. My argument was only predicated with it being pretty successful for me but I understand that its not going to be as effective with against all teams and is apparently pretty much disliked by Cross-x.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is the cp he's planning on doing really competitive in the way he wants it to be though? If he wants to pass plan after doing x action, doesn't that mean that perm solves because none of the arguments on the net benefit disprove that the plan should be passed, only that we should do something in addition to the plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is plan plus, so perm do the CP is justified and solves.

 

I'm definitely no expert on permutation theory, and I personally dislike PIC's generally. However, here's my two cents:

 

It seems to me that this isn't completely true, as long as the Neg can win that a delay constitutes severance, specifically of the plan's timeframe. 'Severance bad' args are easy, so the difficult part is just proving that the plan proposes a timeframe effective immediately, and that perming the delay constitutes severance (this is easier if that 'X' action takes a decent amount of time to complete).

 

Unfortunately, I see more and more Aff plans being one very vague sentence of 'substance,' followed by "We'll clarify." So, most people don't even include their timeframes anymore. However, a simple CX by the Neg that pins the Aff down to a specific enactment date (most reasonably immediately; if they don't concede, you could probably win that this is normal means). Then, a Neg team would probably be able to nail the Aff on severance if they perm. As long as the net benefit is specifically tied to the 'X' action happening before the plan, then the Neg should be good to go.

 

Again, though, I'm no expert. Does anybody else have input on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There may be better ways to do this but--two core strategies:

1. ask innocent questions in cross ex about when the plan happens. (i would follow up with a question or two--if only to make the judge remember)

 

2. run a 20 second time specification/vagueness argument that creates unpredictability & moving target OR making an argument about what "normal means" would constitute OR a doublebind/fairness argument and predictability.

 

 

As long as there is ground going the other way this should be legit. They can always turn your net benefit & time is an intrinsic part of the legislative process & lifelong decisionmaking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea is to make a PIC that is competitive because the NB is lost if you perm. i.e., Do plan after "X" action, which provides more solvency.

Is that feasible, or still not competitive...? If not, how can it become competitive?

 

The question a debate like this would come down to is the question of timing. This sounds kinda like a Delay or Consult CP - it takes away the element of the immediacy of the plan. Whether or not this is competitive is debatable. (Its not competitive IMO, but everything is debatable)

 

The competition debate will come down to whether or not the plan is immediately done. If the plan happens immediately, then the immediacy of the plan is within the plan text, and thus the CP would be competitive because it does the plan minus the element of time. If there is no specified element of time, then the CP is plan plus, it does the CP + an element of time.

 

One other note - the above is just about how to make the CP functionally competitive. It is probably not going to be textually competitive because your CP text will most likely include the entire plan text within it. This means that the AFF could win the Perm - do the CP debate by winning that textual competition is how the judge must evaluate the round, even if they admit to an element of time being within their plan. This means that you MUST win the functional versus textual competition debate.

 

You should probably take this advise in order to establish the element of time needed to make the CP functionally competitive -

 

There may be better ways to do this but--two core strategies:

1. ask innocent questions in cross ex about when the plan happens. (i would follow up with a question or two--if only to make the judge remember)

 

2. run a 20 second time specification/vagueness argument that creates unpredictability & moving target OR making an argument about what "normal means" would constitute OR a doublebind/fairness argument and predictability.

 

 

As long as there is ground going the other way this should be legit. They can always turn your net benefit & time is an intrinsic part of the legislative process & lifelong decisionmaking.

 

I also agree with everything DML said, too.

 

Everything above about PICs good/bad is probably garbage. 60% of CP's are PICs in one way or another. If you know your judge hates PICs or debated in Montana and/or debated in the 60's, you should probably not read it. Otherwise, any judge that would vote on a CP would probably vote on a PIC if proven competitive. However, some judges may give you an uphill battle in proving competition because they are against all consulut/delay-type CP's, so keep that in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless you debate in an area where silly old people think the CP has to theoretically justify itself, I don't think you should spend 30 seconds establishing competition until it's contested by the aff.

 

 

I disagree. The Aff always has available a one-word challenge of competition: Perm.

The point of theoretically justifying the PIC is to show that any perm of a Plan-minus is severance and severance is a game over.

 

It's better to tell the judge to pull the trigger during the block after the 2AC tries to perm because you had all the cards on the table in the 1NC (scenario 1). The alternative (scenario 2) is to contest the legitimacy of the perms and then prove the severance all during the block. This generally makes for a crappy round when the first opportunity for there to be a real discussion about PIC/perm theory takes place 2 rebuttals in.

 

If it's close, I'm more likely to give an Aff the benefit of the doubt on the perm theory in the second scenario.

 

Under the first, the Aff has to be really stupid to perm the PIC outright if they were explicitly told during the 1NC that perming is severance--in this case, I have no problem pulling the trigger for the Neg. Aff has the burden to overcome or disprove the PIC justification/ Perm theory during the 2AC (which could take longer than 30 seconds), and THEN deal with whatever perms they want to read (which takes more time) rather than getting their first opportunity to respond to an "oh you can't do that" during the 1AR. I know the default instinct is to make the 1AR as difficult as possible for the Aff, but you have a structural advantage known as the block that kind of does that for you. I've found that if you waste a 2AC's time effectively it can be far more devastating than hoping for a cold drop in the 1AR because even when the Aff covers everything in the 1AR, they didn't have enough quality to rely on coming out of the 2AC. 2AC lays a solid amount of 1AR groundwork, and if you disrupt that, you force the 2A who knows the Aff better to pave a shaky foundation for a 1AR that's invariably going to undercover something anyways.

 

 

I also think the rhetoric is slightly problematic to good debate. Competition is the CORE of counterplan theory. If the CP doesn't compete, there's no possible net benefit, nor a display of opportunity cost. Your statement is almost like saying "I don't think you should spend 30 seconds establishing the uniqueness of a DA until it's contested by the Aff". That might be a possible strategy, but it's cheap and takes away from the quality of debate rounds if you constantly make it a practice to wait until the last possible opportunity/constructive to present the completion of your argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've found that if you waste a 2AC's time effectively it can be far more devastating than hoping for a cold drop in the 1AR because even when the Aff covers everything in the 1AR, they didn't have enough quality to rely on coming out of the 2AC. 2AC lays a solid amount of 1AR groundwork, and if you disrupt that, you force the 2A who knows the Aff better to pave a shaky foundation for a 1AR that's invariably going to undercover something anyways.

I don't really agree with your other arguments, but this is very true and not often recognized.

 

A good block makes the 1AR hard. A good 1NC makes the 2AC hard, which makes the 1AR impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea is to make a PIC that is competitive because the NB is lost if you perm. i.e., Do plan after "X" action, which provides more solvency.

Is that feasible, or still not competitive...? If not, how can it become competitive?

 

Almost forgot about the OP.

 

 

There's a few ways you could go about this.

1) You could prove that the X action needs to be done before the plan as a solvency deficit or even a DA. Then run the Delay CP on the other flow which competes because of that solvency deficit or DA.

2) Like Luminite said, you could run your CP (which involves do X first then do the Plan) and then be prepared to argue during the block that their only real perms are ones which involve a delay of the plan. Then argue that these are illegitimate and constitute severance via delaying the plan's enactment.

3) Same as 2, except include all the perm analysis in the 1NC (This is my preferred choice)

4) If you're bold and good at theory, run 2 Counterplans, one that does X and one that does the plan after the other CP or the result of action X is done.

 

You can even beat all claims of "topical CP bad" by claiming your CP is nontopical because the Action X requirement makes it FX-T. You can also use that to claim that their perms are illegitimate--Either they're severing, or becoming FX-T.

 

This is why I said Option 3 is great, because if you give all the justification in the 1NC, and they still try to perm--you can, in good faith, run a new FX-T shell on their perm. It only adds to the performative position that the Perm = Severance.

 

Also, there's a lot of danger with option 4, you need to (apparently) be really on your theory to take multiple counterplans through the 2NR, which you will probably need to do? Maybe not, you might even be able to get away with kicking the Action X CP and just going for Delay and your other args.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5) Don't run theory in the 1NC. Let the aff perm it, then point out how stupid that is through your awesome severance theory. Its the best no risk option, because the perm is just as stupid as if you read the theory in the 1NC, if the aff keeps the perm then you just make it into a voter, and if the aff doesn't perm you don't waste precious 1NC time.

 

Basically what someone earlier in the thread pointed out. For those too lazy to read the whole thread

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...