Jump to content
ImpactTurn

Is It A Bad Idea To Run An Aff As A Cp?

Recommended Posts

Next tournament I'm going to is some practice tournament for district, with supposedly no awards (Richardson Round Up on the 21st in Texas), so I'm going to experiment every round. One thing I want to do is on neg, run my aff as a CP. Is that in any way bad? Also, is there anything else you guys would recommend I try out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't advise it. Most theory debates get muddled by the time it gets to the 1AR. If you want to pursue this as a strategy, prep answers to topical counterplans bad, and other common CP theory arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't characterize using your aff as a CP as being bad, but theory will completely destroy you because the affirmative is supposed to be everything topical and counterplans are just there to disprove the fact that you can solve the aff's advantages only within their paradigm, unless you have some good answers to topical counterplans I highly would not recommend it.

Btw I'm going to Richardson next week as well, might debate with you.

pm me

---Novice policy debater

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to claim my CP as topical, and probably the most outrageous argument I'm running is my planking counterplan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And berknerdebater, I'm that one guy that Dakota usually talks to from Wylie, I think he said he was pissed about losing one round at Richardson, that was me. Just a reference so you know who I am if you've seen me before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't characterize using your aff as a CP as being bad, but theory will completely destroy you because the affirmative is supposed to be everything topical and counterplans are just there to disprove the fact that you can solve the aff's advantages only within their paradigm, unless you have some good answers to topical counterplans I highly would not recommend it.

Btw I'm going to Richardson next week as well, might debate with you.

pm me

---Novice policy debater

 

no.

 

As for the OP, this thread isn't going to be very much help unless you are specific...does the aff have good internals to generic advantages (econ, heg, etc.)? If so, you should be in good shape if you have a net benefit that the permutation wouldn't solve and can handle the theory debate.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since most affs will argue extinction inevitable by X year, I'll argue that instead, we don't do the plan and colonize space, which solves the extinction the aff solves and extinction that will happen later even after the plan. My A/T perm is that if colonization can take place before the plan, then there is no point to the perm since we've already solved the aff advantages and later extinction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to claim my CP as topical, and probably the most outrageous argument I'm running is my planking counterplan.

 

Since most affs will argue extinction inevitable by X year, I'll argue that instead, we don't do the plan and colonize space, which solves the extinction the aff solves and extinction that will happen later even after the plan. My A/T perm is that if colonization can take place before the plan, then there is no point to the perm since we've already solved the aff advantages and later extinction.

 

You don't have to claim that your CP isn't topical it's conspicuous, you're running an aff as a counterplan, if your cp is colonization of space then your topical and BAM here comes theory to destroy you.

Btw what's a planking cp I've never heard that term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not too worried about theory, I have some pre-written blocks, and the planking CP says that the USFG should plank on the steps of the white house. Here's what planking is: http://en.wikipedia..../Planking_(fad)

 

...blocks don't win you a theory debate...blocks and nothing else produce bad theory debates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The arg that topical CP's are bad presumes that the purpose of the aff is to affirm the resolution - it's not. It's to prove an example of the resolution. If the point was to affirm the resolution, then the negative could leverage counter-warrants which are just bad examples of the resolution like Project Orion that don't have anything to do with the plan.

 

If you're running your aff as a CP, you just need to prove that 1. It solves the aff's advantages and 2. There is a net benefit that links to the plan but not the CP.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't characterize using your aff as a CP as being bad, but theory will completely destroy you because the affirmative is supposed to be everything topical and counterplans are just there to disprove the fact that you can solve the aff's advantages only within their paradigm, unless you have some good answers to topical counterplans I highly would not recommend it.

Btw I'm going to Richardson next week as well, might debate with you.

pm me

---Novice policy debater

Lol what are the reasons for Topical Counterplans for being bad, that was just a community norm years ago

 

This is one of the worst theory arguments ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many years ago, there was a topic very similar to the current space topic. I ran my aff as a CP against a specific case quite often effectively. The case I ran was astronomy education (teach kids about space as a form of exploration.) There were a few teams running some form of low sodium lights (replace highway and city lights with lights that cause less "sky glow" so you can see the stars.) My inherency said the reason they couldn't get their advantages of environmental ethic was the lack of knowledge about what we were seeing. People see the sky, so what. When they see the sky and know what's going on up there, they appreciate it and THAT gives them the environmentalism awareness. So, I ran education as a CP/solvency press.

 

Here are some issues you need to consider. 1) a topical or possibly topical CP might link to disadvantages. That means not only do you have to make sure the DAs you run don't link, but also, the AFF has the ability to run DAs on your CP from their own neg files. 2) Theory. In our case, everyone ran T on us when we were aff, so it wasn't hard to convince judges we weren't topical. So, that's an option, just find a violation you don't meet. You CAN find one that neither team meets and cross apply it. However, remember that if they win the standards debate on T, they've also proven the CP topical as well. So, I recommend finding something specific to your case as a violation...let them try to defend the T of a case that isn't their own, and thus, don't have frontlines to. You could also defend T counterplans legit. The idea that CPs have to be non topical generally comes from Hypothesis testing paradigms (everything topical is aff ground, everything non topical is neg ground) but that could get them into trouble elsewhere. I mean, if they have the right to claim ANY topical case as aff ground, doesn't that mean they have to defend all topical ground? (Look up counterwarrants, parametrics, whole res for more info there.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The assumption in this thread that topical CPs can't be theoretically justified is kind of hilarious but kind of sad. Most people think they're legitimate.

 

The resolution is the starting point. You pick a plan within that, and then you give up your right to the other arguments within the resolution. Otherwise the negative could respond to SPS plans by saying that space militarization was bad. If space militarization is bad, that might disprove the resolution, but not the plan. Similarly, topical CPs might affirm the resolution, but they negate the plan. Negating the plan is all that is necessary to win the debate, otherwise we shouldn't discuss plans at all and should only discuss the resolution as a whole.

 

EDIT: For clarification, lots of people hadn't posted at the time I started writing this post. Everything after codyarmstrong's hadn't been written at the time I wrote this. I just submitted the post later. That's why I talked about an assumption that topical CPs are bad.

Edited by Chaos
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since most affs will argue extinction inevitable by X year, I'll argue that instead, we don't do the plan and colonize space, which solves the extinction the aff solves and extinction that will happen later even after the plan. My A/T perm is that if colonization can take place before the plan, then there is no point to the perm since we've already solved the aff advantages and later extinction.

 

This perm would be called perm do the CP. How are you answering it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The assumption in this thread that topical CPs can't be theoretically justified is kind of hilarious but kind of sad. Most people think they're legitimate.

 

The resolution is the starting point. You pick a plan within that, and then you give up your right to the other arguments within the resolution. Otherwise the negative could respond to SPS plans by saying that space militarization was bad. If space militarization is bad, that might disprove the resolution, but not the plan. Similarly, topical CPs might affirm the resolution, but they negate the plan. Negating the plan is all that is necessary to win the debate, otherwise we shouldn't discuss plans at all and should only discuss the resolution as a whole.

 

I don't think most of the people in this thread "assume" T CPs are bad, but it IS a theory argument that someone running an aff as CP will likely hear and for which they should prepare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The assumption in this thread that topical CPs can't be theoretically justified is kind of hilarious but kind of sad. Most people think they're legitimate.

 

THIS. It's because they're entirely legitimate. The Aff decided to run a plan. That means you throw the resolution out the window and the Plan is the aff, anything that isn't the Plantext is a legitimate CP. Otherwise, PICs couldn't exist, because at least 60% of PICs are topical.

 

 

 

This perm would be called perm do the CP. How are you answering it?

 

You just severed from your plantext.

There's no such thing as "perm: do the CP" You essentially just said "Vote neg" and put the word "perm" in front of it as if that magically made it a legitimate argument for why voting neg means the Aff wins.

Severance is an independent voter

at worst, Severance "perms" are an independent voter as well, at best, they're pure gibberish.

 

Any world in which you pass the plan is an aff ballot. Any world in which you DON'T pass the plan is a neg ballot.

  • Upvote 1

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...