Jump to content

Recommended Posts

As Neg, my partner and I tend to like our counterplans. They're homecut, (mostly my partner's work, I'll admit), and that makes them really hard to fight directly--there's no OpenEvidence direct answers to our cards.

 

So, the Aff teams usually go for Perm: do both, and we make the argument that the Perm is a cop-out: instead of debating the merits of our Negative strategy, they ignore it and continue to do their own thing, even going as far as to insinuate that THEY presented it. It's credit-stealing laziness--Bad for education; prevents the merits of possibly better ideas from being discussed, and discourages the use of home-cut arguments.

 

We usually win on this argument, but I'm worried about what will happen once we start facing better teams.

 

How does it sound? How can I make this argument better?

 

What can I expect against this argument against more competent debaters?

  • Upvote 5
  • Downvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well a Perm is just a test of competition. Your interp probably justifies reading a totally non competitive counter-plan and then the aff can't beat it because its Unpredictable . I wouldn't say it discourages home-cut arguments, all its really does is discourage non-competitive CPs. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well a Perm is just a test of competition. Your interp probably justifies reading a totally non competitive counter-plan and then the aff can't beat it because its Unpredictable . I wouldn't say it discourages home-cut arguments, all its really does is discourage non-competitive CPs. 

 

Does "do the PLAN, but with a different actor," and explaining why the other actor is better count as a non-competitive CP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does "do the PLAN, but with a different actor," and explaining why the other actor is better count as a non-competitive CP?

 

You need to make arguments about what constitutes a competitive CP if you're reading most agent CP's. 

 

That being said, assuming you have a NB to your agent CP, your answer to the perm doesn't need to be "no perms." The perm still does the plan, using the plan's actor, which means that your DA to their actor still is also a DA to the permutation. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, what about Counterplans that tack on addendums to the plan? Things like conditionality, extra things that the USFG should do to make things run smoothly?

 

These seem to be popular all around this year, where I'm from.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Neg, my partner and I tend to like our counterplans. They're homecut, (mostly my partner's work, I'll admit), and that makes them really hard to fight directly--there's no OpenEvidence direct answers to our cards.

 

So, the Aff teams usually go for Perm: do both, and we make the argument that the Perm is a cop-out: instead of debating the merits of our Negative strategy, they ignore it and continue to do their own thing, even going as far as to insinuate that THEY presented it. It's credit-stealing laziness--Bad for education; prevents the merits of possibly better ideas from being discussed, and discourages the use of home-cut arguments.

 

We usually win on this argument, but I'm worried about what will happen once we start facing better teams.

 

How does it sound? How can I make this argument better?

 

What can I expect against this argument against more competent debaters?

it sounds like an argument you shouldn't make if you hit good teams because the assertion that a perm is lazy, "credit-stealing" argument is not going to stand up to an aff simply explaining what competitiveness is when it comes to CP's. perms bad isn't a very strong theory argument and should NEVER be your A strat on the neg. you should instead explain why the competitive net benefit to the CP cannot be achieved if the aff were to be done also. If you have no reason why both the CP and the plan could theoretically be passed, then you should stop reading that CP and DA combo because there is no competition. 

 

If you debate people who know what they are doing they will simply explain the basic concepts of argumentation and why they get to make a perm. 

 

also you said "OK, what about Counterplans that tack on addendums to the plan? Things like conditionality, extra things that the USFG should do to make things run smoothly?"

 

CP that addon to the plan are PICs. conditionality is a status of a CP, not something the USfg can do. i would recommend looking at planet debate or something and finding CP lectures or just having someone explain to you how CPs work. i don't mean to be rude, you may know exactly what you're talking about, but by the way you've phrased these posts it sounds like you don't know 100% the argumentation behind CPs. mostly coming from the fact that you say the aff shouldn't get the perm. A perm is NOT stealing the negs advocacy. it is a test of competition between the plan and, in this case, the CP.

 

If I say that we should lift the Cuba embargo and then you read your homecut CP that says we should legalize weed, that's cool but what is the logical reason for why I am wrong now? there isn't one. 

 

BUT

 

if i say we should lift the embargo, and you say we should lift only 1 section of the embargo because there is only one bad part and lifting all of the embargo would lead to X bad thing happening, then you as the negative don't need to spin any theory about why perms are bad, you just have to say that both the plan and CP can't happen because if you were to do both, then X bad thing that would happen in the world of the Aff, would still happen, which means the perm wouldn't solve for the net benefit. and assuming that the CP solves the case, then there is no offensive reason why the perm would be good.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it sounds like an argument you shouldn't make if you hit good teams because the assertion that a perm is lazy, "credit-stealing" argument is not going to stand up to an aff simply explaining what competitiveness is when it comes to CP's. perms bad isn't a very strong theory argument and should NEVER be your A strat on the neg. you should instead explain why the competitive net benefit to the CP cannot be achieved if the aff were to be done also. If you have no reason why both the CP and the plan could theoretically be passed, then you should stop reading that CP and DA combo because there is no competition. 

 

If you debate people who know what they are doing they will simply explain the basic concepts of argumentation and why they get to make a perm. 

 

also you said "OK, what about Counterplans that tack on addendums to the plan? Things like conditionality, extra things that the USFG should do to make things run smoothly?"

 

CP that addon to the plan are PICs. conditionality is a status of a CP, not something the USfg can do. i would recommend looking at planet debate or something and finding CP lectures or just having someone explain to you how CPs work. i don't mean to be rude, you may know exactly what you're talking about, but by the way you've phrased these posts it sounds like you don't know 100% the argumentation behind CPs. mostly coming from the fact that you say the aff shouldn't get the perm. A perm is NOT stealing the negs advocacy. it is a test of competition between the plan and, in this case, the CP.

 

If I say that we should lift the Cuba embargo and then you read your homecut CP that says we should legalize weed, that's cool but what is the logical reason for why I am wrong now? there isn't one. 

 

BUT

 

if i say we should lift the embargo, and you say we should lift only 1 section of the embargo because there is only one bad part and lifting all of the embargo would lead to X bad thing happening, then you as the negative don't need to spin any theory about why perms are bad, you just have to say that both the plan and CP can't happen because if you were to do both, then X bad thing that would happen in the world of the Aff, would still happen, which means the perm wouldn't solve for the net benefit. and assuming that the CP solves the case, then there is no offensive reason why the perm would be good.

 

I meant "conditionality" as in, "the USFG should do the PLAN, but only if country acquiesces to this demand."

 

Not to worry. I know exactly what I'm doing. I'm just looking for ways to subvert the other teams, screw with them a little bit.

Edited by MarekIntan
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's not what conditionality is. that is a condition CP. conditionality is one of the ways in which you can run a CP. conditionality means you can kick the CP whenever in the round. that's condo. dispo means you can kick the CP/K if the aff perms it or straight turns it (this is shat i was taught but there are a variety of interpretations when it comes to dispo. unconditional is the status of a CP if you as the negative decide that you can't kick it, and it has to be in the 2NR.

 

but ya conditionality is a status of a CP, not a CP itself. and if you understand conditionality as anything other than a status, then i recommend you do not try to "screw" with other teams, especially teams that are better than the ones you've debated so far because they will destroy you in round if you try to make these kinds of arguments. i honestly don't know what teams you've hit when this strat has worked for you, but if you plan on getting more competitive, which i think is a great thing that you should try to do, you should talk to people who are incredibly good at what they do and try to get help on this kind of thing from people who have been successful doing what they do. i don't know where you debate but i'm sure there is  a way you could contact some college debaters near you and ask someone to explain to you how you should make/answer certain arguments. or just talk to your coach. if your coach affirms that conditionality isn't a status for a CP and that perms steal the negatives idea and are only for lazy debaters and prevent more academic discussions, then i can give you no advice that can help and recommend trying to attend a camp during the summer to help you improve and put you in an environment in which you can be around people who want to and are willing to work with you on what you want to do.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand a what a conditional CP is. I made a mistake with the terminology (laytalk vs. debatetalk).

And, I'm a high school debater in Chicago. I guess that explains why the strat works, because most high-schoolers I run into are pretty dumb. That's why I joined this forum, actually. I know you college debaters and coaches  know a lot more about this stuff than I do, and I want to learn from you guys. I'm here to ask dumb questions, about dumb things that I do, and improve myself as a debater.

 

Also, how many downvotes does it take to be banned? I mean, since I'm going to be asking a lot of rookie questions, I can expect lots and lots of downvotes.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you don't get banned from downvotes. i apologize if i sounded condescending in any way. looking back at my posts they seem to be a little. sorry about the miss-communication but still i think most of the comments here can help you out if you are looking for other ways to answer the perm (depending on which CP you read of course)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does "do the PLAN, but with a different actor," and explaining why the other actor is better count as a non-competitive CP?

 

Yes. If you don't have a unique reason why the plan is bad, than a perm is the best option. The key to making an advantage CP competitive is to have a NET BENEFIT such as not spending money and not triggering the spendia DA or something else like that. 

 

Otherwise the best option is to do both the plan and the cp to guarantee solvency. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the neg rep. "The aff doesn't get perms" is an increasingly common argument in college, though usually made in performance debates. At the very least it's a fair question.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it'd be best if we tried not to downvote novices and newcomers' questions. OP's asking an honest question for their theory block - even if we think it's a silly argument, I don't think it's worth the (literal) negativity.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perm is testing opportunity cost (ie key to best policy making and ultimately best decision-making)

 

The idea of both/and is (aka the perm) is fundamental to solving problems and to creating better solutions.

 

Beat the perm straight up (unless its super shady for other reasons).  There is a DA to the permutation.  That is the way you win this types of debates period.

 

1) Agent CPs.  Aff agent = bad type-disads (USFG action bad, specifically now).  Aff solvency mechanism is bad or the aff action crushes its own solvency mechanism. (sometimes tradeoff type disads).  USFG action on this issue = bad.

2) PICs.  Whatever the pic avoids is super bad.  

3) Process arguments.  My guess is you aren't cutting these.  Plus these are mostly shady anyway (aka theoretically suspect and you have to be able to roll on theory to run these arguments)

 

Not to mention the bias (and I don't think this bias is necessarily a bad one, BTW) you are heading against is HUGE.  Almost the only hope of this argument winning or somehow working out is for the other team to flat out drop it.  If thats what your strategy requires.....you must return to the drawing board (or the cutting floor or both).

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that SOME perms should be eaten by a pack of Orcs and thrown into Mount Doom, like timeframe perms and the infamous "perm do the plan and all non-competitive parts of the CP/K." The latter is either a: perm do both in disguise, or b: completely irrelevant against do nothing alternatives. 

But perm do both is still needed as a test of competition. Them saying "perm do both" isn't "stealing" your work, seeing as they probably will not have a deep understanding of the argument or access to any blocks or tricks up your sleeve. That's like saying that a NEG team is stealing your aff by debating against it since they get the flows. If the extent of the perm is just a 2 second "perm do both" in the 2AC and shadow extension without analysis in the rebuttals, you shouldn't have a problem winning anyways. If there's a solvency advocate/some card attached to the perm with more analysis, then it's probably a legitimate argument that you should expect they'll go for or at least try to go for. 

 

Another thing, you shouldn't be worried about others stealing your precious counterplans that no one else knows about. I understand where you're coming from, since I was similar two years ago, where I would cut an argument and tell no one (not even some people on my team, sigh...) of the argument. I've learned and you will learn that that mindset is inclusive and not educational. I'm not saying full disclosure is necessarily needed in your case, but having others argue a certain argument against your CP and thinking it's unfair since you spent a lot of time researching it is un-educational. Don't expect teams to have zero answers to anything, especially "competent debaters," as you said. Debaters will either:

A- Have only generic responses to your CP, in which case you should easily be able to win. Every team that wants to be successful will have a generic "A2 CP" block for counterplans that they've never heard. This includes random perms, extensions of important cards, add-ons, theory, and "plan key" cards. You should make good blocks against all of that stuff and stay ahead of the competitors. If a team only has generic responses to the CP, you should be able to beat them.

OR ...

B- Have good specific responses to the CP even though they've never heard of it, since they're also good researchers. Or, they'll research your CP after hearing it and have specific responses the next time.

 

tl;dr - don't worry about others knowing or 'stealing' your CP. It will only incentivize research and educational benefits of debate, and make you a better debater.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On what Keerthi is saying:

 

Having actual debates with the argument and feedback from debates helps you get better--much more than a simple surprise will.  Relying on surprise is a one-trick pony and one that takes WAY more effort than actually figuring out the.  Read that sentance again 10 times and internalize it--and act on it.

 

If you look at health, disease models, strength training, hegels dialectic, or almost any model with opposing forces (especially when those opposing forces have to collide multiple times)--it helps to be less secretive with your team.

 

Perhaps you can encourage the coach or the team to have a more reciprocal evidence sharing on the squad or you can trade for arguments on the squad (something to encourage more openness).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that SOME perms should be eaten by a pack of Orcs and thrown into Mount Doom, like timeframe perms and the infamous "perm do the plan and all non-competitive parts of the CP/K." The latter is either a: perm do both in disguise, or b: completely irrelevant against do nothing alternatives. 

 

Well, the perm double bind arose because people are terrible at articulating specific links from the 1AC to their Critique...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On what Keerthi is saying:

 

Having actual debates with the argument and feedback from debates helps you get better--much more than a simple surprise will.  Relying on surprise is a one-trick pony and one that takes WAY more effort than actually figuring out the.  Read that sentance again 10 times and internalize it--and act on it.

 

If you look at health, disease models, strength training, hegels dialectic, or almost any model with opposing forces (especially when those opposing forces have to collide multiple times)--it helps to be less secretive with your team.

 

Perhaps you can encourage the coach or the team to have a more reciprocal evidence sharing on the squad or you can trade for arguments on the squad (something to encourage more openness).

 

I think you misunderstand. I'm not secretive with my team. EVER. I try to share files, but only if I know they'll actually READ them (most of the time, they won't).

 

I just think that too often, opposing teams use the perm as a cop-out against a good argument, and it frustrates me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just think that too often, opposing teams use the perm as a cop-out against a good argument, and it frustrates me.

If the perm actually works against your argument, you have not forwarded a good argument. The idea that a perm is a cop-out is analogous to saying T is a cop-out vs an untopical aff. Perms are good aff strategy because they're short in the 2AC but take longer in the 2NC to answer, and they jive well with most other lines of aff answers to a CP or a K, so they're perfect for setting up the 2AR.

 

tldr perms good

Edited by Needs More Consult Japan
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you want to win debates?

 

Do you want teams to worry about your arguments rather than being able to blow them off?  Well then--hopefully the following advice will help:

 

Beating the perm on substance--it doesn't solve or makes the problem work versus "I just think its a cop-out" when theres not tangible debate impact to being a cop-out.  Even if you had

a debate impact you would have to relate it to the K impacts, the case impacts, or education and theory type arguments.

 

This isn't all that hard.  

1) Think it though.  Think about the assumptions of the argument.  Think about the interactivity of the two arguments.

2) Look for cards that explain that "each and every" is key or otherwise answer the permutation.3

3) Every one of your link arguments should be a reason that the perm doesn't solve.

4) Go find a decent perm block from another K and adapt it

5) Watch great debater answer the permuation.

 

Oh....one more thing....do you want judges to not like your argument and give you low speaks or do you want to get higher speaks and win debates?

 

Make substantive arguments on this issue.  

1) Read evidence

2) Explain the interactivity

 

I would re-iterate this:

 

Perm is testing opportunity cost (ie key to best policy making and ultimately best decision-making)

 

The idea of both/and is (aka the perm) is fundamental to solving problems and to creating better solutions.

 

Beat the perm straight up (unless its super shady for other reasons).  There is a DA to the permutation.  That is the way you win this types of debates period.

 

1) Agent CPs.  Aff agent = bad type-disads (USFG action bad, specifically now).  Aff solvency mechanism is bad or the aff action crushes its own solvency mechanism. (sometimes tradeoff type disads).  USFG action on this issue = bad.

2) PICs.  Whatever the pic avoids is super bad.  

3) Process arguments.  My guess is you aren't cutting these.  Plus these are mostly shady anyway (aka theoretically suspect and you have to be able to roll on theory to run these arguments)

 

Not to mention the bias (and I don't think this bias is necessarily a bad one, BTW) you are heading against is HUGE.  Almost the only hope of this argument winning or somehow working out is for the other team to flat out drop it.  If thats what your strategy requires.....you must return to the drawing board (or the cutting floor or both).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize much of the last response was based on the K.....and not the counterplan.....although it still applies.  Most of it you just insert counterplan where I said critique.

 

And when I say go find a frontline....I mean look in the files of quality camps.....not just backfiles.  Quality camps.  (aka Open Evidence Project files or other backfiles from quality camps)

 

Guess what.....when you run a counterplan without a net benefit.....that is the cop-out.  Thats what the perm proves--there is no forced choice.....there is no opportunity cost.

You can have your cake and eat it too with the perm.

 

Almost every example you can think of makes sense:

1) I want to go to get food

2) You want to go to get a movie

 

Without a disadvantage to getting food (money spent and the loss of entertainment or educational value of the movie----or the food at the restaurant I want to go to isn't nutrious)--then you can do both.  It makes the most sense.  Its win-win for everybody.

 

Given that I would suggest you focus your valuable speech time on arguments that can win debates and that matter--not arguments that are built on unsubstantiated labels and overall bad models for decision-making.  Running DAs to perms make sense and works in winning actual debates.....your method if it has an record of success pretty much only has to do with luck.  This isn't just my opinion--its the opinion of the majority of the debate community (or the quality part of the judging pool).

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...