Jump to content
LibidoBibleElbow

First time policy debating late in the season - what can I (we) run?

Recommended Posts

Hello Cross-X forum friends, my partner and I have been debate nomads at our school for a bit, and this week we've been drafted to cover for our school's only policy debate team.  We're not competing too seriously, of course, but we're looking not to make a fool out of ourselves or our school.  The team we're filling in for and googling/lurking has taught us the basics of the order and a lot of the vocabulary - and we think we have a good grasp of that stuff, as we've observed a couple rounds of Policy before.  We have no specific policy debate coach and our school wide coach tends to focus on LD debaters - basically we're coachless and mentor-less.  Left out to dry.

 

So, I've decided to come to what seems to be a pretty active cross-x forum to ask the noble denizens what case(s) I should run and a counterplan I can run in order to not make a mess of the debate round we're going to stand in for next weekend.  Our school provided us with "squirrel killers" which appear to amount to scattered evidence and a lot of "on-case" negative cards.  We've become familiar with Openevidence which seems to provide a multitude of cases we could run and a wide array of negative cards against given cases that we can use when it comes to debate day - but we have no idea which ones would be best for complete newbies like ourselves to run.  In addition, I've run into a bunch of "K" cases and counterplans and such on Openevidence that I can't make heads or tails of.  They reference a lot of specific philosophers I've never studied before and I can't exactly see how they win debates?  I'd love explanations of "K" arguments I'd probably run into because I don't really understand how to debate against that.  Having mostly debated parli in the past - it's usually data vs data but "K"'s seem out of my league.  Any resources or guides for newbies would be appreciated.  

 

Basically - huge noob, what case/counterplan should I run?

 

Thanks for helping me out, I'll tell you guys how it goes after the tournament if you're interested! 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, in terms of plans, you have quite a few different options.  These are only a few.

 

Development:
Renewable Energy Plans- Offshore Wind, OTEC

 

Exploiting the Seabed: Oil, Gas, Rare Earth Minerals

 

Making the Oceans stronger- Aquaculture, Pollution cleanup, Marine Protected Areas, Artificial reefs

 

Exploration:

Mapping

General Exploration

K Affs

 

If this is your first time doing policy, I'd suggest an exploration case- mapping or ocean exploration.  PM me if you have any more questions and want more specific help.

Edited by LionDebater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, I would like to welcome you to the wonderful world of Policy Debate. Next off, lets talk about Affs. Find an Aff that you understand completely, dont choose one that looks good because some varsity team runs it. You need an aff you understand, and an aff with good advantages you can fully support, make sure your partner is compliant with it as well. Lets start with the basics, every aff needs inherency, solvency, advantages and a plantext, not having one of these could cost you the round. You an find a list of previously cut affs on open evidence, link here http://openevidence.debatecoaches.org/bin/2014/Affirmatives but I highly recommend you run some of the affs the above have listed (your usual OTEC, Aquaculture, etc.). Make sure that the 2AC on your team creates blocks for specific argument the neg will run, you can find plenty of answers to; on open evidence. As for counterplans, run anything you thing is good, remember the neg's case isn't just made up of a single counterplan, don't forget the kritiks and other offcase args. As usual, counterplans, kritiks, and other offcase can be found on open evidence. Make sure your counterplan applies to the situation, meaning it solves for their advantages, has a net benefit, etc.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That username though...

 

Seriously though, there are many CP's you can run. There is really no CP that will work for all affs - each has strengths and weaknesses for different plans. International actor CP's (China CP, Japan CP, EU CP, etc.) are generally applicable to any aff because they just use a different actor in lieu of the USfg (these are plan inclusive counterplans - they contain the aff plan with a small change) - but they're not the strongest. The most important thing to ask the aff in cross-x is if the USfg is key to doing their plan. If they cannot prove that, then you could run one of those CP's pretty easily. Another common actor CP, the States CP, just has the states do the plan. There are also process CP's (Executive Order, Negotiated Rulemaking, Prizes CP, etc.) that implement the plan through a different process. And then there are CP's that enact a totally different plan that can solve the aff's harms/advantages. Like I said before, there is no one size fits all for CP's - each case is different. As such, you might have to adapt your strategy to accommodate the aff. Instead of running a CP as a standalone argument, most debaters choose to also read a disadvantage that doesn't link to the CP as a reason to do the CP over the aff. That's called a net benefit. For example, let's say the negative is running the States CP. Instead of just arguing that the states can solve better, they can also run the Federalism DA alongside it. The Federalism DA says that USfg intervention will cause a decline in federalism in ocean policy. That links to the aff (because the use the United States federal government), but not to the CP (because it uses the states). They can then claim that as an advantage of doing the CP instead of the aff. Another important thing to take into consideration is how to defend a CP. The aff team will likely read a permutation (a.k.a. perm) in the 2AC to argue against the CP. There are multiple types of perms, but the most common (and simplest) is "Perm: do both". This perm basically argues that the plan and the CP are not competitive, so therefore the CP is not legitimate. If the aff and the CP are mutually exclusive (i.e. they cannot exist alongside each other), then you should argue that the CP is valid and the perm fails. Another possible way to argue competitiveness is to use a net benefit (such as a DA). I know, this post is really long and awkwardly written and probably glosses over important details. And I've used the word"CP" about 22 times. So there's that.

 

I apologize in advance if I explained something wrong (it's pretty likely).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Cross-X forum friends, my partner and I have been debate nomads at our school for a bit, and this week we've been drafted to cover for our school's only policy debate team.  We're not competing too seriously, of course, but we're looking not to make a fool out of ourselves or our school.  The team we're filling in for and googling/lurking has taught us the basics of the order and a lot of the vocabulary - and we think we have a good grasp of that stuff, as we've observed a couple rounds of Policy before.  We have no specific policy debate coach and our school wide coach tends to focus on LD debaters - basically we're coachless and mentor-less.  Left out to dry.

 

So, I've decided to come to what seems to be a pretty active cross-x forum to ask the noble denizens what case(s) I should run and a counterplan I can run in order to not make a mess of the debate round we're going to stand in for next weekend.  Our school provided us with "squirrel killers" which appear to amount to scattered evidence and a lot of "on-case" negative cards.  We've become familiar with Openevidence which seems to provide a multitude of cases we could run and a wide array of negative cards against given cases that we can use when it comes to debate day - but we have no idea which ones would be best for complete newbies like ourselves to run.  In addition, I've run into a bunch of "K" cases and counterplans and such on Openevidence that I can't make heads or tails of.  They reference a lot of specific philosophers I've never studied before and I can't exactly see how they win debates?  I'd love explanations of "K" arguments I'd probably run into because I don't really understand how to debate against that.  Having mostly debated parli in the past - it's usually data vs data but "K"'s seem out of my league.  Any resources or guides for newbies would be appreciated.  

 

Basically - huge noob, what case/counterplan should I run?

 

Thanks for helping me out, I'll tell you guys how it goes after the tournament if you're interested! 

 

Ctrl-F'd "Deluze" and "DnG" and got 0 results so ayyyy lmao 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay guys, I met with my partner today (well technically yesterday by this point) and we discussed all the things posted here and incorporated them into our strategy as best we can.  

 

First thank you goes to Lion Debater, we looked up all of his affs on Openevidence and found an OTEC case specifically labelled "novice" and which we have decided to use, soley for that reason.  Having read over other ones, it seems this novice case is shorter and simpler which I like, but has a focus on extinction I find somewhat strange but I have been told by our senior that human annihilation is a staple of policy debate so it's okay I guess.

 

Janxtang - I guess you mean are the judges lay judges or do they "write flows"? (whatever that means) The judges are all coaches and current and former varsity debaters to my knowledge.

 

Yeets - Any offcase negs or Kritiks you like that a novice like myself can comprehend/run?  I don't have much prepared in the realm of negs outside what I was given in squirrel kills and what I plan to find on Openevidence so if you can please point me in the right direction to find generic offcase negs and Kritiks I would be grateful.

 

Jhiggins - I think you're underselling yourself, this was great information!  What you wrote on the States CP makes me think I understand it better especially as Federalism was something we went over in U.S. History.  It seems impossible to get enough negs/disads to run an entire negative case on, and since I don't understand Kritiks I think I'm going to be relying on the counterplan a lot.  Thanks for the help!

 

Rainsilves - Dank meme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based off everyone else advice : Easiest offcase :
K realm; Heidegger (pm if you need help on that) ,  like this is basically going like Nature is its on entity of itself  then what your aff does is manages it in a way where you ignore it where then its basically allowing this justification for all issues of the world to go wrong because of how "its not natural" or tis a short term solution to a long term issue , such as putting a band-aid to someone who was just shot fatally. Yeahhhh thats really not going to work because of how they are going to die , but that band-aid is what you do to make yourself blinded by the reality of the situtation , 

CP : Ive been contemplating this myself after not running these at all  but with new partner kinda needa , but I recommend do research for devlopment aff's and expoloration aff's and make those into two different catergories , kinda like what general actors can adress this .... and from their if your short on time I always recommend mabye getting a Japan CP and States CP off openev...... From their kinda re-cut whats needed 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.texasspeechanddebatecamp.com/policy-lab.html

I really love all of these affs. The hadal zone exploration case is very well put together. You will need your 2ac blocks but unlike with other affs, people tend to have some trouble deciding what to run against this--or at least that was the case when I ran it. The best advice I can give you is know your 1ac like the back of your hand. Also, I saw somebody posted the link to the open evidence project. Go ahead and look into Michigan 7 week's japan cp. It's an easy cp to master and they have very good solvency cards for most affs. 

 

Looking forward to hearing how your tournament goes!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based off everyone else advice : Easiest offcase :

K realm; Heidegger (pm if you need help on that) ,  like this is basically going like Nature is its on entity of itself  then what your aff does is manages it in a way where you ignore it where then its basically allowing this justification for all issues of the world to go wrong because of how "its not natural" or tis a short term solution to a long term issue , such as putting a band-aid to someone who was just shot fatally. Yeahhhh thats really not going to work because of how they are going to die , but that band-aid is what you do to make yourself blinded by the reality of the situtation , 

 

Heidegger says that there is an essence to an object that CONCEALS itself from us because of our insistence on rationality - When we THROW ourselves onto the object to try and understand it, the object only rescinds from us and reveals to us what we WANT IT to reveal, meaning that we make the object referential to a signifier. This is what produces the subject/object dichotomy. It is in this manifestation of calculative though that we produce an "inauthentic" mode of living - meaning that we live in a world where the subject is inextricably separated from the object. This form of living accepts what is tautologically true (a contradiction in Heideggers philosophy) in the status quo producing a sort of corrupted form of living (inauthenticity). 

 

Heidegger presents us with a phenomenology of the mind (i.e. mediative thinking) that allows the object to REVEAL itself to us so we can see the ESSENCE of the object. Is in this "alternative," so to speak, that we find a solution to what Zimmerman would call "ontological damnation" or the Anthropocene - So the alt is sort of like a manifestation of Daesin (what allow us to produce, from the human locus point, relations and meaning to other objects/subjects) in which being-in-the-world (that is, being entirely immanent with the subject and the object), or being-unto-death (as a particular mode to achieve authenticity), that we can break down the insistence of rationality (calculative thought, managerialism, etc). 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any offcase negs or Kritiks you like that a novice like myself can comprehend/run?  I don't have much prepared in the realm of negs outside what I was given in squirrel kills and what I plan to find on Openevidence so if you can please point me in the right direction to find generic offcase negs and Kritiks I would be grateful.

 

CP's- For off case there are a lot of options. You can also run advantage counterplans. They are pretty much counterplans that solve for their impacts. So if they run a warming advantage you can run a carbon tax counter plan. Then run either a politics scenario or a da as the net benefit. For politics you cant use open evidence though. You will either have to cut yourself or ask you coach/other schools for politics stuff. Also you have to make sure that your counter plan does not link to politics.

 

DA's- You can run something like a china renewables da if they run an energy aff (i.e. OTEC, Offshore Wind, etc.). You can also run something like spending. Although spending is not particularly strong it is always an option. PM me if you want some stuff on politics and/or china renewables.

 

Kritiks- These are a little complicated to run and to run against. For K's to run I'd suggest cap k (capitalism) or security. They both are pretty easy to understand and link to just about every case. Cap K pretty much says that their plan pushes capitalism forward and that capitalism is bad and causes impacts/turns case. I personally like to run that cap turns their impacts. For security I don't have much experience running, but I know that it talks about who the aff impacts aren't real and that they are just made up (i.e. they say nuclear war, but it is only going to happen because they say it will). You run it like the impacts are false and that aff talking about them will cause the impacts. Heidegger was mentioned above. I don't think it is the best k for new debaters unless you understand the arg. It focuses a lot on ontology. You can read up on it and if it makes sense to you then feel free to run it.

Answering Kritiks- There are different ways to do this. One of these is for example case outweighs. This is pretty much the most generic and standard argument against K's. Also say Perm do Both. You can list off other perms as well but make sure you say perm. If they don't answer as to why the perm won't solve, then you win that they can both be done. You can also say something like perm do plan then alt. This works well for things where you can say that the plan solve for some impact (i.e. warming) that needs to be solved but the alt cant solve that so we must do plan to solve warming then solve for whatever impact they claim. Pretty much means you won that flow. Also depended on the k run things like no link or alt too vague.

 

PM me if you need anything else I would be happy to help with whatever I can.

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CP's- For off case there are a lot of options. You can also run advantage counterplans. They are pretty much counterplans that solve for their impacts. So if they run a warming advantage you can run a carbon tax counter plan. Then run either a politics scenario or a da as the net benefit. For politics you cant use open evidence though. You will either have to cut yourself or ask you coach/other schools for politics stuff. Also you have to make sure that your counter plan does not link to politics

I knew one had to certain sacrifices for debating politics, but I didn't know one must resort to such measures...

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> first time debating policy

> everyone in this thread is talking about kritiks

 

What the hell are y'all doing!?

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> first time debating policy

> everyone in this thread is talking about kritiks

What the hell are y'all doing!?

People don't stop running Kritiks simply because a novice can't understand them - this is symptomatic of the lower divisions and newer varsity debaters, people win rounds not out of skill but out of reading and/or making arguments that the other team doesn't understand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×