Jump to content

Recommended Posts

so im running a conditions aff, and i'm wondering what some good arguments are against T: can't be QPQ. 

 

*not asking for people to write blocks for me- i already have- i just want to know if i can make mine better*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so im running a conditions aff, and i'm wondering what some good arguments are against T: can't be QPQ. 

 

*not asking for people to write blocks for me- i already have- i just want to know if i can make mine better*

Out of curiosity, could someone run T-should/resolved=certainty as well.  Seeing as that is what makes Consult Cps supposedly legit, you might want to block against that, too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*not asking for people to write blocks for me- i already have- i just want to know if i can make mine better*

Lol

 

 

But really, how do QPQ Affs answer consult CPs? I can be conditional but you can't? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, could someone run T-should/resolved=certainty as well.

I think this could be a rather threatening violation, especially if the neg also defines substantially. That definition will prove that the possibility of the condition going unfulfilled is not topical (arguably, offering the incentive could be an increase by itself, but hard to win it would be substantial prior to the condition being satisfied). This (so the neg would say) reveals the condition as an untopical mechanism for, presumably, acquiring extra-topical advantages or extra-topically avoiding links to negative arguments. Also, unconditional implementation = topical version of plan, hard for the aff to garner offense. 

 

If the aff could define engagement as a dialogue or other dyadic process, that would help; however, those cards might not be in the context of "economic engagement". 

 

 

EDIT: 

As far as answering consult CPs, the conditionality of consultation is not generally a compelling or anchoring argument for the aff. Regardless, I see four principle paths for the CP itself, and strategy for the aff follows clearly from each.

A) the neg consults an agent other than the target of the QPQ, and there is no link b/c the consult agent doesn't care about the target of the QPQ, Beat up the CP as per usual.

B) the neg consults an agent other than the target of the QPQ, but there is a link. The lit must be strong here, so the aff will know the ins and outs and a specific strategy will manifest.

C) the neg consults the target of QPQ on whether or not to have QPQ policy. The target will not want it to be QPQ. Either the target says no, or the target modifies to remove the QPQ, in which case:

D) the neg consults the target of QPQ on whether or not to implement the policy, no QPQ involved. The aff should obviously have some offensive reasons to justify the QPQ, and the CP doesn't solve them.

Edited by meanmedianmode

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...