Jump to content
Hatter

QPQ Counterplans

Recommended Posts

Let's start with this proposition: There are two worlds to every QPQ counter plan. 

A) The other party says yes. Now, they do the aff as part of the counter plan and thus it isn't competitive.

B) The other party says no and it thus doesn't solve.

Are QPQ counter plans mutually exclusive (Delay, Certainty?) or do perms overcome that? Also, slightly novice question, but is the role of a perm to prove that both the plan and the counter plan can be both carried out?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you read through the attached before?

 

Perm: permutation: "n. a type of argument used by affirmatives to illustrate non-competitiveness of counterplans, a legitimate permutation includees all of the plan and all or part of the counterplan. Affirmatives argue that, despite the texts of the plan and the counterplan, if it is possible to imagine the coexistence of the two plans, then the negative has not illustrated why the resolution should not be adopted. (see competitiveness)"

Emory Policy Manual.pdf

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A) The other party says yes. Now, they do the aff as part of the counter plan and thus it isn't competitive.

What?  This wouldn't make the CP non-competitive because it still adds the conditions to the plan.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right answer to QPQ CPs is the lie perm.  Pretend like we're going to QPQ, but lie and do plan anyway.

 

In world A, lie perm and CP are indistinguishable, because they agreed, so they never discover we were lying.

 

In world B, only the lie perm solves case, and the CP solves nothing.

 

Therefore, lie Perm > CP

 

QPQ CPs are dumb.  Making policies conditional on random other policies is never competitive.  The only thing they can do is put a good plan at risk for stakes that are smaller than plan.  (If the QPQ is bigger than plan, plan isn't sufficient leverage to ever make them agree to the condition).

  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Making policies conditional on random other policies is never competitive.

 

 

Why is that exactly?

 

Aff is unconditional.  Aff can't be conditional and affirm the resolution (both extra-topical and doesn't affirm the resolution)

 

If this was the case the aff could make it conditional on all the DA links.

 

Aff is X.....neg is close to X, but not x.  As long as you hold the aff to X......its pretty clear.

 

I think most of the net benefits may a bit silly and empircially denied....but thats another story.

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...