Jump to content
OceanDebater

Counterplans: Competition Theory

Recommended Posts

As I understand it, the CP is competitive if it gives a reason to reject the aff.  The CP must not only state why it's better than the plan- it must give reasons why the plan is bad or should be rejected.  On that note, are these arguments sufficient and legitimate for a counterplan to be competitive? The titles may be wrong- but they are just to convey the idea:

 

"Actor Key"- If I'm running an actor CP, and I have an "Actor key" card (e.g. coast guard key, NOAA key, etc), then isn't that a reason to reject the plan?

 

"Competing Resources"- In an actor CP, if the action is building icebreakers, the US does not need twice the number of sufficient icebreakers.  Thus, voting for the plan (or CP) is a reason why to reject the other, as once you build a set of 6, you don't need another.  If then we prove that the CP is more advantageous than the plan, isn't it a reason to reject the plan?

Edited by LionDebater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are reasons the CP is good, not why the plan is bad.

 

First example is like saying because you made this thread, anyone else who makes a similar thread should have it deleted.

 

The second is like saying if we both type up a similar post, yours should be deleted because it's similar to mine. It's arbitrary. Maybe my post should be deleted because it's similar to yours...

 

In order for a CP to be competitive, you MUST win that the CP is better than the plan AND that it's better than any combination of the plan and the CP. Giving a reason to reject the aff does NOT necessarily mean the CP is competitive, it just means the aff is bad. 

 

External net benefits do not make a CP competitive because they're a reason to reject the plan, but because they show why the CP is better than the plan and why the plan cannot be combined with the CP

Edited by ARGogate
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So specifically how can I win that the CP is better than all possible combinations of both the CP and the plan?

 

EDIT: And specifically what do you mean by 'combinations'?

Example:

If the plan was: USCG should paint a rocket.

CP was:  NASA should paint a rocket.

 

Is a combination: USCG should paint a rocket and NASA should paint a rocket (each paints one) OR USCG and NASA should collaborate to paint a single rocket?

Edited by LionDebater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need prove why NASA should paint the rocket and why uscg shouldn't even get close to a jar of paint.

 

Scenario:

1ac- uscg paints a rocket!

1nc- nasa paints the rocket, DA - uscg budget trade off (or any da that links specifically to why aff is bad and not your actor cp)

2a- perm do both, they can both paint rockets

Neg block- no you can't perm because of the DA, the aff alone is bad, but we solve their harms/impacts with the cp, so there is no reason to combine the aff and cp together because we solve it alone with the cp.

 

Then rebuttals are just telling the judge how awesome you're da was and why their evidence against it is bad, because the offense against the case is what you HAVE to win to receive a cp vote instead of an individual aff vote or a aff with permed cp vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need prove why NASA should paint the rocket and why uscg shouldn't even get close to a jar of paint.

 

Scenario:

1ac- uscg paints a rocket!

1nc- nasa paints the rocket, DA - uscg budget trade off (or any da that links specifically to why aff is bad and not your actor cp)

2a- perm do both, they can both paint rockets

Neg block- no you can't perm because of the DA, the aff alone is bad, but we solve their harms/impacts with the cp, so there is no reason to combine the aff and cp together because we solve it alone with the cp.

 

Then rebuttals are just telling the judge how awesome you're da was and why their evidence against it is bad, because the offense against the case is what you HAVE to win to receive a cp vote instead of an individual aff vote or a aff with permed cp vote.

Also, that type of perm seems intrinsic; run theory if you feel like it would be something you could defend (given abuse; like saying the perm solves the DA because it proves no link - that's an instance of loss of ground with intrinsic perms and proves affirmative condo being uniquely bad since they can easily just perm your offense and get out of the link - makes being negative impossible) 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One last question- using the USCG/NASA rocket scenario.  Is this legitimate?  This is what I was trying to convey by competing resources:

 

1ac- USCG should paint a rocket!

1nc- NASA should paint a rocket!  NASA can paint a rocket better than USCG.  They know space + rockets better.

2ac- Both can paint rockets- CP not a reason to reject aff

Neg block- USFG only needs only one painted rocket.  More than one is a waste of money and resources.  NASA does a better job, and only one should be painted, so you should vote for NASA painting the rocket (CP).  Perm bad because it wastes resources and money.

Edited by LionDebater
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One last question- using the USCG/NASA rocket scenario.  Is this legitimate?  This is what I was trying to convey by competing resources:

 

1ac- USCG should paint a rocket!

1nc- NASA should paint a rocket!  NASA can paint a rocket better than USCG.  They know space + rockets better.

2ac- Both can paint rockets- CP not a reason to reject aff

Neg block- USFG only needs only one painted rocket.  More than one is a waste of money and resources.  NASA does a better job, and only one should be painted, so you should vote for NASA painting the rocket (CP).  Perm bad because it wastes resources and money.

I feel like this is a scenario where you vote aff still simply because there's no reason to prefer the CP. Presuming the aff still has solvency then the two plans do the same thing logically. The CP may be good, but so is the aff. And there's no reason to vote neg. So it goes aff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One last question- using the USCG/NASA rocket scenario.  Is this legitimate?  This is what I was trying to convey by competing resources:

 

1ac- USCG should paint a rocket!

1nc- NASA should paint a rocket!  NASA can paint a rocket better than USCG.  They know space + rockets better.

2ac- Both can paint rockets- CP not a reason to reject aff

Neg block- USFG only needs only one painted rocket.  More than one is a waste of money and resources.  NASA does a better job, and only one should be painted, so you should vote for NASA painting the rocket (CP).  Perm bad because it wastes resources and money.

There's no net benefit in this scenario; if the aff wins risk of solvency (or IS winning solvency) then the aff wins in every possible instance. There's no specific reason as to why using the USCG to paint the rocket would be uniquely bad other than it "wastes resources and money" (what's the impact to that?) if the aff has a Heg advantage for example; then they can just impact turn those arguments and win the CP debate (they could also make no impact arguments; or as outweighs and the sorts - I think that this type of super-vague Actor-CP doesn't take into consideration the advantages in the 1AC - you can very easily beat this by proving that the specific actor of the 1AC isn't key, this becomes even easier if they don't have U.S. Key warrants in the 1AC. )

 

This can all be solved by having a good disad; the more specific the better (since the links are reasons why the permutation fails) - then you can use the Disad as offense against the permutation; assuming you win the link debate, that warrants a negative ballot.

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One last question- using the USCG/NASA rocket scenario.  Is this legitimate?  This is what I was trying to convey by competing resources:

 

1ac- USCG should paint a rocket!

1nc- NASA should paint a rocket!  NASA can paint a rocket better than USCG.  They know space + rockets better.

2ac- Both can paint rockets- CP not a reason to reject aff

Neg block- USFG only needs only one painted rocket.  More than one is a waste of money and resources.  NASA does a better job, and only one should be painted, so you should vote for NASA painting the rocket (CP).  Perm bad because it wastes resources and money.

Accidental minus rep will correct elsewhere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One last question- using the USCG/NASA rocket scenario.  Is this legitimate?  This is what I was trying to convey by competing resources:

 

1ac- USCG should paint a rocket!

1nc- NASA should paint a rocket!  NASA can paint a rocket better than USCG.  They know space + rockets better.

2ac- Both can paint rockets- CP not a reason to reject aff

Neg block- USFG only needs only one painted rocket.  More than one is a waste of money and resources.  NASA does a better job, and only one should be painted, so you should vote for NASA painting the rocket (CP).  Perm bad because it wastes resources and money.

The effectiveness of that argument is a function of the impact of "wasted resources and money" and the likelihood of "double solvency" resulting from doing the redundant action (in this example, does having two rockets increase the rocket program's prestige more than one? do two achieve whatever signal one might have sent in a stronger way?)

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...