Jump to content
Duckfreak44

Neg counter plan

Recommended Posts

hey guys,

I'm fairly new to policy but i've been doing some research and I stumbled across something that may work for a counter-plan to and offshore drilling for energy aff. Apparently there is an element called Thorium that could potentially power the United States for 1,000 years using just one deposit in Salmon, Idaho. here's the link,

 

 http://www.resourceinvestor.com/2009/02/04/is-this-the-dawning-of-the-age-of-thorium.

 

This is just one of the articles i've found. Long story short (too late) do you think this could be a passable counter-plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thorium thing was a popular Mexico case last year.

 

The problem with using it as a counter plan is that it's not mutually exclusive so it only competes through net benefits. In some areas this is fine, in other areas judges won't pick you up on NB CPs so it depends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thorium thing was a popular Mexico case last year.

 

The problem with using it as a counter plan is that it's not mutually exclusive so it only competes through net benefits. In some areas this is fine, in other areas judges won't pick you up on NB CPs so it depends.

 

'mutually exclusive'... not only is this the worst standard for CPs ever (yes, worse than requiring they be non-topical), it's also non-sensical.  The government can and does pass laws which clash with other laws.  Sorting it out is up to the courts and/or whomever is enforcing it.  There's no such thing as mutually exclusive, because all Congress sees is measures to be voted on, and you could literally pass 'increase taxes 2%' and 'decrease taxes 2%' in back-to-back votes with no logistical or legislative issues.  Just because two measures clash in some way does not make them exclusive at the level of Congressional action.

 

(I mean, seriously, we just had Republicans attempt to defund Obamacare repeatedly in the last year.... Mandating a program but refusing to fund it is pretty much the definition of mutually exclusive for a rational agent.)

 

At which point, there's really no such thing as mutual exclusivity.  It's a nonsense standard for CPs, and any judges who believe in it should feel bad.

 

(But yes, various Nuclear plans and CPs, including Thorium, can and have been run.)

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'mutually exclusive'... not only is this the worst standard for CPs ever (yes, worse than requiring they be non-topical), it's also non-sensical.  The government can and does pass laws which clash with other laws.  Sorting it out is up to the courts and/or whomever is enforcing it.  There's no such thing as mutually exclusive, because all Congress sees is measures to be voted on, and you could literally pass 'increase taxes 2%' and 'decrease taxes 2%' in back-to-back votes with no logistical or legislative issues.  Just because two measures clash in some way does not make them exclusive at the level of Congressional action.

 

(I mean, seriously, we just had Republicans attempt to defund Obamacare repeatedly in the last year.... Mandating a program but refusing to fund it is pretty much the definition of mutually exclusive for a rational agent.)

 

At which point, there's really no such thing as mutual exclusivity.  It's a nonsense standard for CPs, and any judges who believe in it should feel bad.

 

(But yes, various Nuclear plans and CPs, including Thorium, can and have been run.)

Re the mutual exclusive-even if it's theoretically legit, there's still no solvency

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't back to back votes technically be a timeframe perm?

 

And while it's not necessarily a legal procedure issue, it is a fairness and competitive equity issue. But there's more than one means of competition anyway. Mutual exclusivity (ignoring NB comp as a thing) is used, in my experience, to prevent the neg from completely screwing over affs by reciprocating at least some limits on advocacy.

 

And regardless of personal feelings on the matter, there are judges out there who won't vote on NB competition so you need to find out ahead of time so you know whether or not you want to run it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for the insight. I believe that it could be a viable counter-plan to an Offshore Drilling for Oil Aff, however I am new to this type of debate so I may be completely off :/  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And regardless of personal feelings on the matter, there are judges out there who won't vote on NB competition so you need to find out ahead of time so you know whether or not you want to run it.

If my partner and I do end up preparing a counter-plan for this we'll also make sure to prepare a standard Neg, just in case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its always good to have multiple off case you can go for prepared. For example, as much as I love thorium arguments, if I was debating in front of my old coach I couldn't go for it because he's against nuclear power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The thorium thing was a popular Mexico case last year.

 

The problem with using it as a counter plan is that it's not mutually exclusive so it only competes through net benefits. In some areas this is fine, in other areas judges won't pick you up on NB CPs so it depends.

Where do you live? like what the hell. How else do you even I can't ugh asdjfkldjfgkl;fdjskljgl

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do you live? like what the hell. How else do you even I can't ugh asdjfkldjfgkl;fdjskljgl

He lives in Missourah. Good old Missourah, where all of the judges paradigms are communication or "What's a paradigm?".

Source: I know him IRL

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He lives in Missourah. Good old Missourah, where all of the judges paradigms are communication or "What's a paradigm?".

Source: I know him IRL

Until you get to districts and you have judges that kind of know what policy is

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, a lot of judges (like me) dislike advantage CP's because the aff tends to be able to do a great job of using the perm as a guarantee to shield the link/solvency of the aff, and the "avoid politics" cards are always big fat lies. My favorite that I had to go against was a cap and trade adv CP that solved for warming and "Avoided politics". I forgot that cap and trade was popular with republicans...  puke:

 

True mutual exclusivity is both rare and the gold standard of CP competition. On the TI topic with the Dam removal aff, there were fantastic totally mutually exclusive CP's that solved with external net benefits that were ran successfully at the national level. Look for those. I tend to think that advantage CP's are usually a waste of time (just run politics by itself), but then again, my district is filled with teams who wouldn't know how to go for the CP even if their 2NR was fully written out and all they would have to do is read off of their computer. 

 

I still don't know what got me so incredibly conservative and militant on CP theory. I didn't lose any serious rounds to them. I'm not some shit stock-issues only person. I just can't stand sketchy ass CP's and how they tend to be either theoretically illegit or non-competitive. 

Edited by RainSilves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, a lot of judges (like me) dislike advantage CP's because the aff tends to be able to do a great job of using the perm as a guarantee to shield the link/solvency of the aff, and the "avoid politics" cards are always big fat lies. My favorite that I had to go against was a cap and trade adv CP that solved for warming and "Avoided politics". I forgot that cap and trade was popular with republicans...  puke:

 

True mutual exclusivity is both rare and the gold standard of CP competition. On the TI topic with the Dam removal aff, there were fantastic totally mutually exclusive CP's that solved with external net benefits that were ran successfully at the national level. Look for those. I tend to think that advantage CP's are usually a waste of time (just run politics by itself), but then again, my district is filled with teams who wouldn't know how to go for the CP even if their 2NR was fully written out and all they would have to do is read off of their computer. 

 

I still don't know what got me so incredibly conservative and militant on CP theory. I didn't lose any serious rounds to them. I'm not some shit stock-issues only person. I just can't stand sketchy ass CP's and how they tend to be either theoretically illegit or non-competitive. 

I agree "avoids politics" is usually bs, but its easy to avoid it by...running a CP that doesn't have politics as a NB.  Using Mexican politics as a NB was totally legit this year if you had a CP that didn't involve LA.  Also impact turning the other advantage way is a great way to force competition through NB in a way that imo is totally legit.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thorium is the truth though f'real

 

Yeah I read it at state. I'm pretty sure that it's not nearly as good as the evidence says though... Like I felt like I was straight up lying when I read the "we have enough for 300 years in this tiny ass mountain" card. 

 

 

I agree "avoids politics" is usually bs, but its easy to avoid it by...running a CP that doesn't have politics as a NB.  Using Mexican politics as a NB was totally legit this year if you had a CP that didn't involve LA.  Also impact turning the other advantage way is a great way to force competition through NB in a way that imo is totally legit.

 

If it was the THA Mexican politics, it went non-uq though. Other than that I fully agree with this, especially the impact turn point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, a lot of judges (like me) dislike advantage CP's because the aff tends to be able to do a great job of using the perm as a guarantee to shield the link/solvency of the aff, and the "avoid politics" cards are always big fat lies. My favorite that I had to go against was a cap and trade adv CP that solved for warming and "Avoided politics". I forgot that cap and trade was popular with republicans...  puke:

 

True mutual exclusivity is both rare and the gold standard of CP competition. On the TI topic with the Dam removal aff, there were fantastic totally mutually exclusive CP's that solved with external net benefits that were ran successfully at the national level. Look for those. I tend to think that advantage CP's are usually a waste of time (just run politics by itself), but then again, my district is filled with teams who wouldn't know how to go for the CP even if their 2NR was fully written out and all they would have to do is read off of their computer. 

 

I still don't know what got me so incredibly conservative and militant on CP theory. I didn't lose any serious rounds to them. I'm not some shit stock-issues only person. I just can't stand sketchy ass CP's and how they tend to be either theoretically illegit or non-competitive. 

 

Yeah, Politics is not a good NB for an advantage CP.

 

I think you're misunderstanding advantage CPs and how they work theoretically.  An advantage CP is basically a silver bullet which makes it so the aff doesn't get to talk about a particular advantage as a reason to vote aff.  In the world of the CP, advantage solved.  In the world of the plan, advantage solved.  So the perm is totally irrelevant, because both teams are advocating a world that solves the advantage.  (And if its a good advantage CP, there's no benefit to 'extra solvency' from doing plan too).

 

This means its about whether the rest of the effects of plan outweigh any negative offense.  If they don't, then just doing the advantage CP is better, and the CP beats the perm on NB.

 

The reason to deploy an advantage CP is because you don't want to have to deal with mitigating or outweighing a major extinction impact or the like.  So you might advantage CP a warming advantage to limit their benefits claims without having to have a hopeless debate over warming not happening or needing to win totally ridiculous DA impacts.  (You can still solvency turn their own solvency as a net benefit so that only the CP solves, but you'll need to generate offense elsewhere as well).  And since the affirmative's predictable response is almost always "perm", which is a meaningless response to an advantage CP, you get to write one of their advantages out of the round.  (Hint, if you get hit by an advantage CP, perm is a bad answer).

 

The best net benefits are always case turns.  This is why you want to spend 3-4 minutes on case.

 

Negatives planning on running advantage CPs should have a ~15-30s shell for the 2NC that basically says "The moment we win CP solvency, it means $advantage is solved for by the negative too, so its not a reason to vote affirmative because either side solves that problem.  This means the perm is meaningless.  The CP doesn't cause x,y,z..., and the plan can only weigh a,b,... against that. The CP has limited the policy issues to the comparison of those advantages and disadvantages.  If we win x,y,z... outweigh the rest of plan, the CP is NB to the perm and the negative wins."

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Politics is not a good NB for an advantage CP.

 

I think you're misunderstanding advantage CPs and how they work theoretically.  An advantage CP is basically a silver bullet which makes it so the aff doesn't get to talk about a particular advantage as a reason to vote aff.  In the world of the CP, advantage solved.  In the world of the plan, advantage solved.  So the perm is totally irrelevant, because both teams are advocating a world that solves the advantage.  (And if its a good advantage CP, there's no benefit to 'extra solvency' from doing plan too).

 

This means its about whether the rest of the effects of plan outweigh any negative offense.  If they don't, then just doing the advantage CP is better, and the CP beats the perm on NB.

 

The reason to deploy an advantage CP is because you don't want to have to deal with mitigating or outweighing a major extinction impact or the like.  So you might advantage CP a warming advantage to limit their benefits claims without having to have a hopeless debate over warming not happening or needing to win totally ridiculous DA impacts.  (You can still solvency turn their own solvency as a net benefit so that only the CP solves, but you'll need to generate offense elsewhere as well).  And since the affirmative's predictable response is almost always "perm", which is a meaningless response to an advantage CP, you get to write one of their advantages out of the round.  (Hint, if you get hit by an advantage CP, perm is a bad answer).

 

The best net benefits are always case turns.  This is why you want to spend 3-4 minutes on case.

 

Negatives planning on running advantage CPs should have a ~15-30s shell for the 2NC that basically says "The moment we win CP solvency, it means $advantage is solved for by the negative too, so its not a reason to vote affirmative because either side solves that problem.  This means the perm is meaningless.  The CP doesn't cause x,y,z..., and the plan can only weigh a,b,... against that. The CP has limited the policy issues to the comparison of those advantages and disadvantages.  If we win x,y,z... outweigh the rest of plan, the CP is NB to the perm and the negative wins."

 

I strongly disagree with you on one point. I don't believe most advantage CP's ever get to claim 100% solvency on an advantage. The aff shouldn't either, but if my plan is to build mass transit and they read a cap and trade CP that somehow "solves warming", the perm is probably going to reduce more emissions than either alone. (Hence why I strongly advocate for the perm as a good answer, because I strongly believe that "perm shields the link/solvency" is almost always true, and that either policy alone doesn't have as much of a guarantee of solving the harms in the advantage as they would together) 

 

I suspect there are times when legit advantage CP's that get 100% or near 100% solvency on an advantage, but I also think those are exceedingly rare. 

 

 

Also, especially on this topic, there are no good generic DA's except for politics, which meant that if you wanted to have advantage CP's that have the nb of not triggering a DA, it tended to be politics. At least back on TI we had spending to fall back on with advantage CP's that might actually have that as a legit nb, but there just wasn't anything that worked for this years. 

 

I suspect it will be even worse for oceans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I strongly disagree with you on one point. I don't believe most advantage CP's ever get to claim 100% solvency on an advantage. The aff shouldn't either, but if my plan is to build mass transit and they read a cap and trade CP that somehow "solves warming", the perm is probably going to reduce more emissions than either alone. (Hence why I strongly advocate for the perm as a good answer, because I strongly believe that "perm shields the link/solvency" is almost always true, and that either policy alone doesn't have as much of a guarantee of solving the harms in the advantage as they would together) 

 

I suspect there are times when legit advantage CP's that get 100% or near 100% solvency on an advantage, but I also think those are exceedingly rare. 

 

 

Also, especially on this topic, there are no good generic DA's except for politics, which meant that if you wanted to have advantage CP's that have the nb of not triggering a DA, it tended to be politics. At least back on TI we had spending to fall back on with advantage CP's that might actually have that as a legit nb, but there just wasn't anything that worked for this years. 

 

I suspect it will be even worse for oceans. 

 

For a legit advantage CP that gets ~100% solvency, check out the Taiwan CP in my file dump.  (Relative to the China relations advantages and Taiwan straits war advantages I saw, the CP dwarfs their effectiveness by several orders of magnitude, because it's pretty much exactly what China wants from the US, and it keeps Taiwan from declaring independence, which prevents the war entirely). 

 

But even in the case where there might be marginal but measurable solvency gains from the perm, quantifying those are pretty much impossible in the context of the round, so there's no reason to give the perm any extra weight on solvency.  Compared to the other advantages and NBs, any marginal solvency gain is going to be miniscule and won't really factor in.  How much is marginal solvency on an extinction impact worth?  Probably not much - CP is probably good enough to take any real teeth out.

 

Also, turning plan solvency relative to the advantage is always a good NB, since that implies CP alone is actually better than the perm.  Additionally, general solvency attacks will also mitigate that advantage along with the others, so its not like you've totally ignored it, you just haven't spent any specific effort on it.  This bolsters any claim about the marginal solvency from also doing plan being irrelevant.

 

Since CP solvency is rarely attacked with any good effect, and often conceded (especially with the 'go for the perm' mentality), you can usually spin that as CP solves 100%.  The moment CP solvency is dropped, there is zero marginal benefit to also doing plan on the advantage.  This is why perms are a bad idea against advantage CPs - what you need to do is attack their solvency.  It's not that making the perm hurts you, but that it tends to put strategic blinders on you.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An additional disadvantage to the "double solvency" perm is that it concedes your case doesn't solve on its own. For example, if the aff is sufficient to solve global warming on its own, then "double solvency" doesn't have an additional benefit - the aff solves plenty on its own. If there is an actual advantage to the perm from double solvency, it means the aff's plan alone doesn't solve the advantage. The larger you argue the double solvency's effect (to outweigh their net benefits), the more your aff doesn't solve. 

That puts you in a double bind - go for double solvency to outweigh other arguments, but concede a lot on case and hope they don't kick the CP, or see the advantage of double solvency shrink to nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update: thorium is still the truth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrFpLuX5NeY

 

 

Yeah I read it at state. I'm pretty sure that it's not nearly as good as the evidence says though... Like I felt like I was straight up lying when I read the "we have enough for 300 years in this tiny ass mountain" card. 

I mean it's not like there's a short supply of thorium, the question is whether we can make a fuel cycle that efficient. Alvin Weinberg (inventor of the LWR) seemed to think liquid fuel is the way to go. China and India have had small breakthroughs running from thorium. Even if it's BS, the history of thorium development is really really interesting. If you have access this article's pretty good:

 

Hargraves and Moir ’10 Robert Hargraves, teaches energy policy at the Institute for Lifelong Education at Dartmouth, PhD in physics from Brown, and Ralph Moir, Sc.D. in nuclear engineering from MIT, published 10 papers on molten-salt reactors during his career at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, “Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors: An old idea in nuclear power gets reexamined,†American Scientist, Vol. 98, No. 4, July-August 2010, http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactors

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do you live? like what the hell. How else do you even I can't ugh asdjfkldjfgkl;fdjskljgl

Expanding on this, we were told this by a judge early in the year (paraphrasing) "Yeah, I see what you were going for with the Brazil DA, but its not topical so I'm not going to vote on it." This wasn't predicated on an aff argument, just something the judge decided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...