are there any good CP's for this topic

[vismaypandia 0]

havent seen many counterplans in the mix this year. any good funding, or process ones you guys know about? 

[TamaleTosser 202]

XO and conditions CPs doe

[BernieSanders 1775]

XO and conditions CPs doe

 

1. Sorry, can't make treaties without the legislature, It's part of the constitution. 

2. Conditions is likely cheating. 

[KimJongUn 664]

'likely cheating' what does that even mean

[BernieSanders 1775]

'likely cheating' what does that even mean

 

Do the plan on the condition that mexico gives us a dollar. 

Mexico says yes: It's always polite for the PM to give a dollar to Obama if he forgets his wallet and wants a drink 

Net benefit is the spending DA 

 

 

Yes, I know that the lie perm solves but dat's intrinsic and if he's caught it kills relations. 

Edited December 26, 2013 by RainSilves

[KimJongUn 664]

Do the plan on the condition that mexico gives us a dollar. 

Mexico says yes: It's always polite for the PM to give a dollar to Obama if he forgets his wallet and wants a drink 

Net benefit is the spending DA 

 

 

Yes, I know that the lie perm solves but dat's intrinsic and if he's caught it kills relations. 

Obama doesn't drink anything local.  Have you ever even watched a documentary on the pres?  They ship all his food and drink with him internationally so he can't be poisoned. Sounds like a pretty good aff answer.

[JosephOverman 1069]

Conditions is likely cheating. 

My 3 minute theory block begs to differ

[BernieSanders 1775]

My 3 minute theory block begs to differ

 

my 35 min 3JR (3rd Judge Ravaging) will make that judge always vote for me . 

Edited December 26, 2013 by RainSilves

[KimJongUn 664]

I know this talks about LD, but same idea.  

Kuang 13 (Former TOC Champ) The Desolation Of Theory¶ Guest Writer¶ The Desolation of Theory¶ By: Rebecca Kuang December 25, 2013 (¶ http://victorybriefs.com/vbd/2013/12/the-desolation-of-theory)

 

Theory in Lincoln-Douglas debate is currently in Europe’s Dark Ages, by which I mean it lacks innovation, makes us look bad, and stinks like the bubonic plague.¶ It would be a fool’s errand to attempt to revolutionize theory in one article, and there are smarter, more experienced people doing a better job of it at debate workshops. Here, though, I’ll rant about some of the most annoying theory trends I’ve seen in the past few years. My hope is that this will encourage debaters to change up the way they debate theory—or at the very least, rethink some things.¶ At the very least, the tips offered here might help you keep your judge from cringing the next time you say “first off, A is the interpretation…†¶ 1. Complain less, argue more.¶ If there’s one solution that could relieve judges of their theory woes, it’s this. A lot of debaters think arguments like “PICs bad,†“multiple off case positions bad,†“going straight ref bad,†and “counterplans bad†are legitimate arguments, and this shocks me. Whenever I see someone debate a clever counterplan, the 1AR is more likely to be four minutes of theory rather than…answers to the counterplan. These arguments then usually boil down to “this PIC is hard for me to answer, so they should lose.â€Â¶ Poor baby. Did they make debate difficult for you? Your opponent should have read the most predictable, inane, simplest arguments in the literature—yet they didn’t. They tried to win- and worse, tried to win in a smart, strategic way. Shame on them. God forbid you be forced to think on your feet and defend the necessity of your aff—or even worse, do research before the round and anticipate their strategy.¶ Here’s a novel idea- what if hard debate is good debate? What if there’s more to this activity than stopping after the first page of Google scholar and whining when someone does more research than that? What if we encouraged strategies that forced debaters to rummage the literature for answers? What if that research taught us more about the topic? What if debate made debaters learn?¶ The next time you’re inclined to read theory, stop and ask yourself: “Am I reading theory because this practice is actually bad for debate, or because I’m just lazy?†If it’s the former, I’m skeptical, but all power to you. If it’s the latter, take a deep breath, accept that you’re an indolent slug who probably doesn’t deserve the win, and work harder.¶ 2. Stop repeating mindless drivel.¶ “Reciprocity is a voter because both sides need equal access to the ballot. Fairness is a voter because debate is a competitive activity and things have to be fair for you to determine the better debater. Also, aff gets RVIs because affirming is hard.â€Â¶ These are the most commonly heard phrases in any theory debate, and they are not complete arguments. Arguments involve claims, warrants, and impacts. These here are barely claims. If more judges held these arguments to the same standard they’d hold any other argument, they’d realize how underdeveloped they are.¶ What does it mean for both sides to have equal access to the ballot? Why does the fact that debate is a competitive activity mean that fairness is the most important consideration for debate methodology? What does a fair debate even look like? Why does the fact that LD speech times are stupid mean that the aff suddenly gets to win on defense on theory? Maybe there are valid reasons for all of these claims, but they are never adequately explored by the debaters spitting them out.¶ Debaters too frequently rely on buzzwords and catchphrases they were taught at workshops and never depart from them, much less question them. It’s the easy thing to do—thinking of arguments on your own is a lot harder than recycling back-files. And recycling currently pays off, too, because we have a culture where judges validate these quasi-arguments with wins, a practice akin to awarding grapes to circus monkeys.¶ I’ve seen debaters scrunch up their eyes and recite phrases from memory, as if it is some great feat that they’ve managed to memorize the same balderdash that everyone else reads. Congrats, champ—not only can you prove what a brainwashed conformist you are, you can do it with your eyes closed.¶ You don’t have to read the same standards and voters as everyone else just because they told you to at workshop. You are your own person. You determine the debater you become. The world is big—break free of your chains and forge your own destiny.¶ 3. Impact your arguments.

[feldsy 1099]

That card is incredibly reductive and is more ad hominem than actual argumentation.  No Neg Fiat is a stupid arg, and Pics bad can be pretty bad, but you cannot ignore the validity of a lot of theory arguments.  Like I'm supposed to research AT: consult CPs for EVERY country in the world.  And that's only a small fraction of CP ground.  "CP: do mexican renewables except don't invest in this one random village. NB: someone in that village gets sad if his town gets investment"  How the fuck are you supposed to prepare for a PIC like that?  I don't see how its good for topic education to discuss doing the plan while changing where exactly from withing the USFG funding comes from. 

 

Also, it just pisses me off to see a former TOC champ use derogatory language like that.  Debate more than any other activity should prize actual arguments over petty and spiteful attacks.

 

And to top it off, the link is broken

[KimJongUn 664]

That card is incredibly reductive and is more ad hominem than actual argumentation.  No Neg Fiat is a stupid arg, and Pics bad can be pretty bad, but you cannot ignore the validity of a lot of theory arguments.  Like I'm supposed to research AT: consult CPs for EVERY country in the world.  And that's only a small fraction of CP ground.  "CP: do mexican renewables except don't invest in this one random village. NB: someone in that village gets sad if his town gets investment"  How the fuck are you supposed to prepare for a PIC like that?  I don't see how its good for topic education to discuss doing the plan while changing where exactly from withing the USFG funding comes from. 

 

Also, it just pisses me off to see a former TOC champ use derogatory language like that.  Debate more than any other activity should prize actual arguments over petty and spiteful attacks.

 

And to top it off, the link is broken

Few things

 

1) Don't worry, I don't think that all theory against stupid CPs are bad arguments.  Rather I don't like the mindset that 'this is cheating, this isn't'.  Lol it's not like I wouldn't read theory arguments against a consult CP.

2) links here dawg: http://victorybriefs.com/vbd/2013/12/the-desolation-of-theory

3) This card was posted here more as a troll, but for the record:

I intend it read it in LD rounds (since I'm suppose to do LD in a lay circuit, kill me) because there hasn't been a single round this year that I haven't encountered blippy theory arguments against even the most simple of positions (usually because they've never heard of Zizek or Baudrillard and don't know how to response to it if it isn't Locke).  No one does any prep on my circuit in LD other than cases and reading a few articles.

Edited December 26, 2013 by KimJongUn

[Snarf 3598]

"poor baby"?

 

What is this, middle school?

[BernieSanders 1775]

Yeah, I saw that article and I'm quite annoyed by the whole thing. I'd like to know why the fuck PICS are a thing in LD anyway? I know that plans happen but I've heard that they're rare. 

[JosephOverman 1069]

Too many freakin relations, heg, and multilat advantages. I miss my China fund CP from last year  

[KimJongUn 664]

Yeah, I saw that article and I'm quite annoyed by the whole thing. I'd like to know why the fuck PICS are a thing in LD anyway? I know that plans happen but I've heard that they're rare. 

There's not a single policy argument that hasn't  been integrated into the LD circuit (nationally, and I mean general Ks, types of CPs, etc).  A lot of times its a PIC of the resolution.(btw, I'd say a good portion (40-60%) of nat circuit LDers run plans.)

Edited December 26, 2013 by KimJongUn

[BrookeB 8]

a cuba property counterplan is often effective. its a PIC and a CP that conditions the cuban government against lifting. it works against affs that specify the embargo needing to be lifted fully and basically all normal "lift the embargo" affs

[Squirrelloid 935]

There are good plan-specific counter-plans and advantage counterplans. 

Example: Farm Mechanization vs. Migrant Workers (Combine with a racism or slavery attack as a net benefit).

 

Good generic CPs? Those almost never exist.

 

-Consult is terrible.  Bad theory, bad and frequently misrepresented evidence, arguably 'normal means' when you understand what consultation actually is, and the lie perm is pretty persuasive, since the impacts of getting caught in the lie should be dwarfed by plan harms (which the CP doesn't solve for when the consulted country says no). 

 

-Other agent - Can be persuasive iff you have plan specific evidence. 

---Other countries are usually bad.  The net benefit is going to be some hyper-generic DA, which is probably also bad, and the perm is pretty convincing a lot of the times (especially since the perm arguably solves for sphere of influence trade-off links).

---Courts can be awesome when run against something that the court is better suited to doing.  This doesn't cover many plans this year.

---XO vs. Congress is, eh, I don't see the net-benefit most of the time.  Arguably this opens you to getting link-turned on politics.  What's going to piss Congress off more, having debated plan but mysteriously passing it by fiat, or being sidelined by the president to do something you didn't like and now had no input in?  Further, what can be done by XO fiat is limited.  When it really does work, and you have an interesting net benefit that isn't generic politics, it could be good.

---Privatize can be good, but its going to need plan specific evidence, and only works on some plans.

 

I could go on, but the point is - CPs need to be plan specific to be persuasive, otherwise you're just hoping the aff drops the ball because you spread them out (or they aren't as good as you, and you could have won on anything).

[glg1995 309]

Consult country of origin, NB=colonialism. but you need a card for each country talking about how consultation is a more meditative mutual agreement which is different from the affs method of engagement. The perms are either severance or links to the kritik. you'd just need a nice consults good block.

[Zuul 666]

Pic out of the.

 

I don't understand why people run XO with a politics n/b. If Obama is like "no, you are not going to vote on this. I'm just gonna sneak this through the back door" I'm pretty sure hat would anger republicans more.

[SnarkosaurusRex 2831]

Pic out of the.

I don't understand why people run XO with a politics n/b. If Obama is like "no, you are not going to vote on this. I'm just gonna sneak this through the back door" I'm pretty sure hat would anger republicans more.

Politics only works as a net benefit because the disadvantage is only about that one bill. Realistically, Obama's PC would probably be hurt more by the CP, but if all we care about is immigration/debt/unemployment/etc. then it wouldn't matter.

[Edgehopper 397]

I agree with Squirrelloid, and I'd add to remember that the point of CPs isn't just to have a different argument; it's to steal advantages when you can't beat them normally. They're particularly well suited to Affs where there aren't decent case turns because they attack an obvious evil. One of my biggest wins on the 2000-01 privacy topic was Neg against an "Overturn Korematsu" Aff (Korematsu v. US was the atrocious Supreme Court decision that held Japanese internment to be constitutional). Obviously I'm not going to argue that racial internment camps are good. Hence, a Congress CP with a Judicial Activism DA gave me something to argue. But moving to this year, running a CP on any Cuba Embargo case just wouldn't make any sense.

 

You have to be choosy about your CPs. The China CP is popular this year...and I judged a team who tried to run it against a Cuba internet freedom Aff. Because China's all about freedom of communication. ::facepalm::

 

But a number of Affs are open to case-specific CPs this year, particularly squirrely ones. And those are a lot stronger than anything generic,

[TheBigDA 63]

Well I like the China-U.S. partnership CP.