Jump to content
Superpanda8

Neg strat Ideas

Recommended Posts

I'm trying to get a beg strat together for this year. I like neg arguments that are always applicable no matter to the case area. 

My partner and I have been thinking of an argument like this "Oceans are shared international territory and the U.S. cannot explore or develop them by itself, international cooperation is necessary"  Would this be best run as a K or CP?


What is your neg strat?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My partner and I have been thinking of an argument like this "Oceans are shared international territory and the U.S. cannot explore or develop them by itself, international cooperation is necessary"  Would this be best run as a K or CP?

This would be best run not at all.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to get a beg strat together for this year. I like neg arguments that are always applicable no matter to the case area. 

My partner and I have been thinking of an argument like this "Oceans are shared international territory and the U.S. cannot explore or develop them by itself, international cooperation is necessary"  Would this be best run as a K or CP?

 

Im a huge K hack, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I would run this as a k. Any net benefit of the CP wouldn't be unique because amerika doesnt give a shit about the rest of the world.

 

The K version would attack a mindset of hegemony, exceptionalism, or any way amerika acts like it doesn't need to be equal to other countries. amerika acting in the ocean without the support of other nations would be your link, and you would need to figure out the impact and alt yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the K alt or Cp would probably be "have the UN do the plan" or something similar to that

I don't think the UN does much of anything; other than issue strongly worded letters to countries committing genocide

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to get a beg strat together for this year. I like neg arguments that are always applicable no matter to the case area. 

My partner and I have been thinking of an argument like this "Oceans are shared international territory and the U.S. cannot explore or develop them by itself, international cooperation is necessary"  Would this be best run as a K or CP?

What is your neg strat?

First, generic neg arguments are the weakest arguments. The more generic the argument the easier it is for the aff to no-link out of it and more experienced judges are likely to not give you as high speaks as if you were running more specific arguments. Specificity and nuance allow for deeper and better debate.

 

Second, as it's written, that's not an offensive argument but a solvency deficit with the potential for a CP. The problem is that that CP delves into the shady area called international fiat which is not somewhere you usually want to be, especially since the NB are going to be shady at best (you can't use a DA predicated off of the plan passing itself without linking back to the CP, so it's probably going to be PTX or similar). 

 

My recommendation is that you pursue more specific strategies at least because it will be better debate and far more educational than running the same thing every round.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First, generic neg arguments are the weakest arguments. The more generic the argument the easier it is for the aff to no-link out of it and more experienced judges are likely to not give you as high speaks as if you were running more specific arguments. Specificity and nuance allow for deeper and better debate.

 

Second, as it's written, that's not an offensive argument but a solvency deficit with the potential for a CP. The problem is that that CP delves into the shady area called international fiat which is not somewhere you usually want to be, especially since the NB are going to be shady at best (you can't use a DA predicated off of the plan passing itself without linking back to the CP, so it's probably going to be PTX or similar). 

 

My recommendation is that you pursue more specific strategies at least because it will be better debate and far more educational than running the same thing every round.

I've heard of this before (as International Fiat Bad, read against Actor CP's), what does that mean and how would you answer it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard of this before (as International Fiat Bad, read against Actor CP's), what does that mean and how would you answer it?

International fiat is fiating any actor from a nation other than the US.  The neg can say it's key to things like testing the "United States Federal Government" part of the resolution, checking unpredictable affs, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

International fiat is fiating any actor from a nation other than the US.  The neg can say it's key to things like testing the "United States Federal Government" part of the resolution, checking unpredictable affs, etc.

I understand this, but why is that bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand this, but why is that bad?

 

Because it's Utopian Fiat. It's hard to create a good "brightline" on what Utopian Fiat is but idc. If you use International Fiat you're a cheater nooblord. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand this, but why is that bad?

I mean it's pretty unfair from a competition standpoint, but I'm having problems thinking of theory arguments unique to international fiat because CP's are generally so shitty in that department that none of the points don't already apply to stuff that's accepted by the community for the most part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean it's pretty unfair from a competition standpoint, but I'm having problems thinking of theory arguments unique to international fiat because CP's are generally so shitty in that department that none of the points don't already apply to stuff that's accepted by the community for the most part.

I mean. As unique as it gets is saying that there are about 195 independent countries, along with a few international actors (EU, UN) that it's impossible to be able to debate any of the countries when presented.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean. As unique as it gets is saying that there are about 195 independent countries, along with a few international actors (EU, UN) that it's impossible to be able to debate any of the countries when presented.

True, but I don't think that applies in this case. It seems like the OP is fiating everyone. (Although it they refuse to clarify in CX then that definitely applies)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to get a beg strat together for this year. I like neg arguments that are always applicable no matter to the case area. 

My partner and I have been thinking of an argument like this "Oceans are shared international territory and the U.S. cannot explore or develop them by itself, international cooperation is necessary"  Would this be best run as a K or CP?

What is your neg strat?

 

Sounds more like a DA to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not a big K debater. As the 2n I find myself going for a commissions cp+ ptx da most of the time. Look at the commisions CP from Northwestern on Open ev. But be warned that JOCI does not need to be rejoined so the cp text will need to be tweaked. As for politics most on open ev are nonuq--and the one's that are stil unique I'm not a huge fan of-- I would recommend trying the Omnibus ptx da. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite strat is a Spending DA with Vagueness Theory, and whatever other offcase might apply. The reason that I like this is because you can typically claim that the case is vague in some way. An example of this would be against bioprospecting: if they claim that pharmaceutical companies would invest and partake in the plan, you can easily claim that if they can't specify how many companies will invest in bioprospecting. Look at it this way: lets say plan costs 18billion. By being vague, the aff team allows for any unspecified number of companies to partake in the plan. This means that Company A can say they need 17 billion dollars, then Company B only gets 1 billion dollars. When company B realizes they didn't get enough funding, they'll go back to the place where they initially received the funds. This links them into spending because vagueness causes cost overruns. NOTE: ONLY RUN THIS ON LAY. IT'S NOT GOOD AT ALL FOR FLOW. obviously. I understand these are both very weak arguments but they speak well to bus drivers

Edited by mallorypinson
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vagueness is possibly the worst theory violation in debate.  As you've noted, it makes literally every aff theoretically illegitimate because there's an infinite number of things that can be more specifically specified.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My favorite strat is a Spending DA with Vagueness Theory, and whatever other offcase might apply. The reason that I like this is because you can typically claim that the case is vague in some way. An example of this would be against bioprospecting: if they claim that pharmaceutical companies would invest and partake in the plan, you can easily claim that if they can't specify how many companies will invest in bioprospecting. Look at it this way: lets say plan costs 18billion. By being vague, the aff team allows for any unspecified number of companies to partake in the plan. This means that Company A can say they need 17 billion dollars, then Company B only gets 1 billion dollars. When company B realizes they didn't get enough funding, they'll go back to the place where they initially received the funds. This links them into spending because vagueness causes cost overruns. 

One of the worst DA's with one of the worst theory arguments?

 

-Vagueness is a terrible standard for debate. There is literally no way to spec everything. We have two hours in the debate round and only 9 (well 8 for you all) for the 1AC. Congressional bills are frequently thousands of pages long. Judges voting on this argument like you described destroys competitive equity. Furthermore, the example provided above is absolutely terrible because it's injecting a narrative that's may or may not actually be present/happen for the sake of generating a link to a DA. Unless you happen to have evidence that the companies will do that it in no way should be held against the aff.

 

-Spending is about 18 trillion dollars non-UQ looking at debt alone. This argument is empirically not true

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/Chart1_1.jpg

 

Hey look, spending more than we take in, and we're not all extinct. The government hasn't collapsed. This evidence is on the wrong side of the debate and has some of the worst internal links this side of PTX.

 

"On the other side were economists and politicians who wanted to cut spending to reduce deficits and "restore confidence." Government stimulus, these folks argued, would only increase debt loads, which were already alarmingly high. If governments did not cut spending, countries would soon cross a deadly debt-to-GDP threshold, after which economic growth would be permanently impaired. The countries would also be beset by hyper-inflation, as bond investors suddenly freaked out and demanded higher interest rates. Once government spending was cut, this theory went, deficits would shrink and "confidence" would return.

 

This debate has not just been academic. It has affected the global economy, and, with it, the jobs and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people.

 

Those in favor of economic stimulus won a brief victory in the depths of the financial crisis, with countries like the U.S. implementing stimulus packages. But the so-called "Austerians" fought back. And in the past several years, government policies in Europe and the U.S. have been shaped by the belief that governments had to cut spending or risk collapsing under the weight of staggering debts.

 

Over the course of this debate, evidence has gradually piled up that, however well-intentioned they might be, the "Austerians" were wrong. Japan, for example, has continued to increase its debt-to-GDP ratio well beyond the supposed collapse threshold, and its interest rates have remained stubbornly low. More notably, in Europe, countries that embraced (or were forced to adopt) austerity, like the U.K. and Greece, have endured multiple recessions (and, in the case of Greece, a depression). Moreover, because smaller economies produced less tax revenue, the countries' deficits also remained strikingly high.

 

So the empirical evidence increasingly favored the Nobel-prize winning Paul Krugman and the other economists and politicians arguing that governments could continue to spend aggressively until economic health was restored.

 

And then, last week, a startling discovery obliterated one of the key premises upon which the whole austerity movement was based.

 

An academic paper that found that a ratio of 90%-debt-to-GDP was a threshold above which countries experienced slow or no economic growth was found to contain an arithmetic calculation error.

 

Once the error was corrected, the "90% debt-to-GDP threshold" instantly disappeared. Higher government debt levels still correlated with slower economic growth, but the relationship was not nearly as pronounced. And there was no dangerous point-of-no-return that countries had to avoid exceeding at all costs.

 

The discovery of this simple math error eliminated one of the key "facts" upon which the austerity movement was based.

 

 

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-is-right-2013-4#ixzz3LR7Nxn6J"

 

Furthermore, we're at no risk of reaching a disasterous level of spending with any plan that's not a complete strawman

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/sep/05/barack-obama/obama-says-he-has-cut-national-deficit-half/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the worst DA's with one of the worst theory arguments?

 

-Vagueness is a terrible standard for debate. There is literally no way to spec everything. We have two hours in the debate round and only 9 (well 8 for you all) for the 1AC. Congressional bills are frequently thousands of pages long. Judges voting on this argument like you described destroys competitive equity. Furthermore, the example provided above is absolutely terrible because it's injecting a narrative that's may or may not actually be present/happen for the sake of generating a link to a DA. Unless you happen to have evidence that the companies will do that it in no way should be held against the aff.

 

-Spending is about 18 trillion dollars non-UQ looking at debt alone. This argument is empirically not true

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/Chart1_1.jpg

 

Hey look, spending more than we take in, and we're not all extinct. The government hasn't collapsed. This evidence is on the wrong side of the debate and has some of the worst internal links this side of PTX.

 

"On the other side were economists and politicians who wanted to cut spending to reduce deficits and "restore confidence." Government stimulus, these folks argued, would only increase debt loads, which were already alarmingly high. If governments did not cut spending, countries would soon cross a deadly debt-to-GDP threshold, after which economic growth would be permanently impaired. The countries would also be beset by hyper-inflation, as bond investors suddenly freaked out and demanded higher interest rates. Once government spending was cut, this theory went, deficits would shrink and "confidence" would return.

 

This debate has not just been academic. It has affected the global economy, and, with it, the jobs and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people.

 

Those in favor of economic stimulus won a brief victory in the depths of the financial crisis, with countries like the U.S. implementing stimulus packages. But the so-called "Austerians" fought back. And in the past several years, government policies in Europe and the U.S. have been shaped by the belief that governments had to cut spending or risk collapsing under the weight of staggering debts.

 

Over the course of this debate, evidence has gradually piled up that, however well-intentioned they might be, the "Austerians" were wrong. Japan, for example, has continued to increase its debt-to-GDP ratio well beyond the supposed collapse threshold, and its interest rates have remained stubbornly low. More notably, in Europe, countries that embraced (or were forced to adopt) austerity, like the U.K. and Greece, have endured multiple recessions (and, in the case of Greece, a depression). Moreover, because smaller economies produced less tax revenue, the countries' deficits also remained strikingly high.

 

So the empirical evidence increasingly favored the Nobel-prize winning Paul Krugman and the other economists and politicians arguing that governments could continue to spend aggressively until economic health was restored.

 

And then, last week, a startling discovery obliterated one of the key premises upon which the whole austerity movement was based.

 

An academic paper that found that a ratio of 90%-debt-to-GDP was a threshold above which countries experienced slow or no economic growth was found to contain an arithmetic calculation error.

 

Once the error was corrected, the "90% debt-to-GDP threshold" instantly disappeared. Higher government debt levels still correlated with slower economic growth, but the relationship was not nearly as pronounced. And there was no dangerous point-of-no-return that countries had to avoid exceeding at all costs.

 

The discovery of this simple math error eliminated one of the key "facts" upon which the austerity movement was based.

 

 

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-krugman-is-right-2013-4#ixzz3LR7Nxn6J"

 

Furthermore, we're at no risk of reaching a disasterous level of spending with any plan that's not a complete strawman

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/sep/05/barack-obama/obama-says-he-has-cut-national-deficit-half/

In all fairness, Vagueness/Spending are pretty simplistic and are some of the easiest arguments to sell to lay judges since they rely on little or no understanding of debate or international relations or really anything(not saying they're good on flow, but plan presses are REALLY effective with lays).

Edited by Mummyhandgrenade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all fairness, Vagueness/Spending are pretty simplistic and are some of the easiest arguments to sell to lay judges since they rely on little or no understanding of debate or international relations or really anything(not saying they're good on flow, but plan presses are REALLY effective with lays).

Problem is if your plan doesn't spend any money then you are SOL

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Problem is if your plan doesn't spend any money then you are SOL

I'm not defending the legitimacy of the neg strat, just pointing out it's an easy strat to run. On the topic of spending money, me and my partner had two teams read spending against our UNCLOS aff, one of whom actually contested that ratifying cost money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not defending the legitimacy of the neg strat, just pointing out it's an easy strat to run. On the topic of spending money, me and my partner had two teams read spending against our UNCLOS aff, one of whom actually contested that ratifying cost money.

We ran visas last year and when people would run spending my first question would be "How much does giving a visa cost?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand this, but why is that bad?

the best standard I ever heard was that the best literature against international actors is written in languages other than english, so that lit won't queue to our search terms. that int'l counterplans uniquely deprive the aff of ground. that coupled with the fact the CP does the entire aff is a pretty convincing abuse story.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the best standard I ever heard was that the best literature against international actors is written in languages other than english, so that lit won't queue to our search terms. that int'l counterplans uniquely deprive the aff of ground. that coupled with the fact the CP does the entire aff is a pretty convincing abuse story.

That's awesome and I really haven't though of that.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's awesome and I really haven't though of that.

that was my main 2NR argument when we went for intl fiat theory on the democracy assistance topic. it was really well received.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...