Jump to content
cR0SsX

Are Solvency Advocates Really Necessary?

Recommended Posts

or can you just make up a plan text, even if it's very abusively utopian? 

 

If there's nobody who suggests the actual actions of the plan, finding links to advantages will be more difficult.

 

In regards to theory though, nobody is going to run any sort of "Utopian fiat" argument just because your plan isn't grounded in literature (assuming you still fiat the USFG of course). So theoretically you're fine, but the substance of your aff will most likely be weaker than affs who have qualified authors (or hacks) actually advocating their plan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there's nobody who suggests the actual actions of the plan, finding links to advantages will be more difficult.

 

In regards to theory though, nobody is going to run any sort of "Utopian fiat" argument just because your plan isn't grounded in literature (assuming you still fiat the USFG of course). So theoretically you're fine, but the substance of your aff will most likely be weaker than affs who have qualified authors (or hacks) actually advocating their plan

Ehh... I'd make a "need a solvency advocate" theory arg. in the 1NC...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ehh... I'd make a "need a solvency advocate" theory arg. in the 1NC...

not to mention a fact that without an advocate-you have literally NO solvency.  No one who has done any research on the subject thinks the plan is a good idea.  Plus the theory args against are killer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ehh... I'd make a "need a solvency advocate" theory arg. in the 1NC...

 

Warning: the following block was written off the top of my head after 2 a.m. Satisfaction not guaranteed.

 

Gotta Have a Solvency Advocate in the 1AC

 

1. The 1AC lacks a solvency advocate - means the neg can't generate stable offense because there's no concrete indication of what the plan does.

2. Hold the aff's solvency advocates to a high standard - allowing sketchy solvency authors ensures a proliferation of squirrelly affs, making it impossible to be negative.

3. Now is key - rejecting this aff can have an impact external to this debate. The beginning of the season is when teams decide what affs they'll run all year, so voting down bad affs now can lead to huge educational benefits when teams decide to run feasible affs instead that have more real world applications.

4. Voter for ground, fairness, and education.

5. Vote neg on presumption - no reason the plan solves any of their impacts, which means there's a zero percent risk of their offense and you should vote neg on presumption.

6. No sandbagging - the aff hasn't met the prima facie burden of having a solvency advocate in the 1AC. Vote them down - this skews 1NC strategy and time allocation. The 2AC is too little too late.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of you are overthinking this

Easy way out in the 1NC
"They have no solvency advocate, means only a risk of a disad"
"They have no ILs to advantages"

  • Upvote 8
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of you are overthinking this

 

Easy way out in the 1NC

"They have no solvency advocate, means only a risk of a disad"

"They have no ILs to advantages"

FUCK I accidentally downvoted this when I thought it was the best explanation in the thread.  Upvoting elsewhere to fix.

 

This is the best answer in the thread. Its unstrategic, not theoretically objectionable (ie, the aff hasn't done something so unfair or uneducational it makes the debate impossible to win....quite literally the opposite). 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of you are overthinking this

 

Easy way out in the 1NC

"They have no solvency advocate, means only a risk of a disad"

"They have no ILs to advantages"

wait, explain this? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm assuming he's talking about doing a plan that doesn't have authors sayings "Let's do these exact actions", but still has links in the literature.

 

For example "Mexico education system is failing" --> "Foreign investment solves". While nobody is saying that the U.S. needs to do it, he still gets solvency from saying that the USFG should invest in Mexico education. Although this makes US key warrants pretty nonexistent though.

 

 

Warning: the following block was written off the top of my head after 2 a.m. Satisfaction not guaranteed.

 

Gotta Have a Solvency Advocate in the 1AC

 

1. The 1AC lacks a solvency advocate - means the neg can't generate stable offense because there's no concrete indication of what the plan does.

2. Hold the aff's solvency advocates to a high standard - allowing sketchy solvency authors ensures a proliferation of squirrelly affs, making it impossible to be negative.

3. Now is key - rejecting this aff can have an impact external to this debate. The beginning of the season is when teams decide what affs they'll run all year, so voting down bad affs now can lead to huge educational benefits when teams decide to run feasible affs instead that have more real world applications.

4. Voter for ground, fairness, and education.

5. Vote neg on presumption - no reason the plan solves any of their impacts, which means there's a zero percent risk of their offense and you should vote neg on presumption.

6. No sandbagging - the aff hasn't met the prima facie burden of having a solvency advocate in the 1AC. Vote them down - this skews 1NC strategy and time allocation. The 2AC is too little too late.

 

My 2AC block (I don't care about the format, but the arguments are there):

 

1. No brightline for what a solvency advocate is. Authors never advocate the plan exactly as it is. No cards have an exact plan text within them

 

2. Don't punish aff creativity--We came up with a totally unique idea. Creativity should be encouraged. Every idea has to be new at some time

 

3. Hold us to our plan text-- That solves all their arguments about stable ground

 

4. Topicality checks all of their offense-- If we're outside the resolution, they can argue T

 

 

Honestly, you have a bunch of buzz words/phrases without substance:

"neg can't generate stable offense" 

"proliferation of squirrelly affs, making it impossible to be negative"  

"huge educational benefits"

"skews 1NC strategy and time allocation"

 

1. Why does a lack of exact solvency evidence steal ground? The aff still theoretically links to all generic DAs/Ks

2. T checks squirrelly affs 

3. No internal link to education.. The lack of an exact solvency advocate doesn't mean it isn't a useful section of the topic

4. Buzz words without actually explaining WHY a solvency advocate is needed for your 1NC strategy

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the united states should stop being capitalist with mexico 

 

The capitalist ideologies are something that isn't external to the government, so that probably wouldn't solve. And you wouldn't find any evidence that could be contrived as a link to advantages. In the education investment scenario, there's evidence that more money being invested solves. There's solvency for the mechanism the aff uses. For capitalism though, there's no solvency for the USFG just declaring that it isn't capitalist.

 

That being said, is mechanism solvency good enough? Is "FDI solves" enough of a solvency advocate for "The USFG should invest"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that plan text probably solves capitalism advantages that interact with Mexico. Its problem is that it's abusive to fiat vague plans. What constitutes capitalism is something complicated and has to be debated in round. The meaning of the plan text shouldn't shift in the context of other arguments in the debate because that's unpredictable and unfair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't plan on running this, but I ran across this on the wiki:

http://hspolicy.debatecoaches.org/bin/Austin+SFA/Estrada%2DEstrada+Aff

 

What card in the only 1AC on there (nanotech with Mexico) is a solvency advocate? As far as I have read of it, there's no card that says anything about US investment/support of Mexican nanofactories...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't plan on running this, but I ran across this on the wiki:

http://hspolicy.debatecoaches.org/bin/Austin+SFA/Estrada%2DEstrada+Aff

 

What card in the only 1AC on there (nanotech with Mexico) is a solvency advocate? As far as I have read of it, there's no card that says anything about US investment/support of Mexican nanofactories...

 

The only two cards I saw on there that looked like they might be a solvency advocate, had links that redirected me to nowhere. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm assuming he's talking about doing a plan that doesn't have authors sayings "Let's do these exact actions", but still has links in the literature.

 

For example "Mexico education system is failing" --> "Foreign investment solves". While nobody is saying that the U.S. needs to do it, he still gets solvency from saying that the USFG should invest in Mexico education. Although this makes US key warrants pretty nonexistent though.

 

 

 

My 2AC block (I don't care about the format, but the arguments are there):

 

1. No brightline for what a solvency advocate is. Authors never advocate the plan exactly as it is. No cards have an exact plan text within them

 

2. Don't punish aff creativity--We came up with a totally unique idea. Creativity should be encouraged. Every idea has to be new at some time

 

3. Hold us to our plan text-- That solves all their arguments about stable ground

 

4. Topicality checks all of their offense-- If we're outside the resolution, they can argue T

 

 

Honestly, you have a bunch of buzz words/phrases without substance:

"neg can't generate stable offense" 

"proliferation of squirrelly affs, making it impossible to be negative"  

"huge educational benefits"

"skews 1NC strategy and time allocation"

 

1. Why does a lack of exact solvency evidence steal ground? The aff still theoretically links to all generic DAs/Ks

2. T checks squirrelly affs 

3. No internal link to education.. The lack of an exact solvency advocate doesn't mean it isn't a useful section of the topic

4. Buzz words without actually explaining WHY a solvency advocate is needed for your 1NC strategy

This. A lot of theory arguments are just a mess of jargon devoid of substance.

 

Another arg is not real-world--someone needs to be the first to propose a policy. If recognition of a policy action in the literature base is a prerequisite for a good policy, no good policy could ever be invented. If a policy has the evidence it needs to prove the plan would solve, that's functionally a policy advocate from logic--if the plan doesn't meet that, then it's not prima facie.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are certainly different definitions of what a solvency advocate is....but.....

 

Without a solvency advocate its difficult to answer three things:

1) Counterplans

2) Solvency mitigation

3) Solvency/Case turns

 

Incidentally a solvency advocate can also help answer questions about mechnism and "how" the aff is done which are helpful for making distinctions for getting out of neg arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Warning: the following block was written off the top of my head after 2 a.m. Satisfaction not guaranteed.

 

Gotta Have a Solvency Advocate in the 1AC

 

1. The 1AC lacks a solvency advocate - means the neg can't generate stable offense because there's no concrete indication of what the plan does.

2. Hold the aff's solvency advocates to a high standard - allowing sketchy solvency authors ensures a proliferation of squirrelly affs, making it impossible to be negative.

3. Now is key - rejecting this aff can have an impact external to this debate. The beginning of the season is when teams decide what affs they'll run all year, so voting down bad affs now can lead to huge educational benefits when teams decide to run feasible affs instead that have more real world applications.

4. Voter for ground, fairness, and education.

5. Vote neg on presumption - no reason the plan solves any of their impacts, which means there's a zero percent risk of their offense and you should vote neg on presumption.

6. No sandbagging - the aff hasn't met the prima facie burden of having a solvency advocate in the 1AC. Vote them down - this skews 1NC strategy and time allocation. The 2AC is too little too late.

Ha... kinda wish I would have saved this because I actually ended up going for need a solvency advocate round 1 today...

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...