Jump to content
pandapocentrism

Counterplans?

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

I have a bunch of questions about these.  First of all, let's say the XO counterplan, which solves for cyberterror, is run against an aff.  How does that the mean the aff is bad?  Does a counterplan have to show that the aff is a bad idea, or just show that there is a competitive better option?

 

Second of all, how do advantage counterplans work?  Do they have to be competitive?

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Counterplans don't have to disprove the aff as long as they compete.

 

 

Advantage counterplans generally compete through the net benefit (commonly, if the aff has two advantages, you can impact turn one of them).  They provide an alternative method by which to resolve the harms of the 1ac.

Edited by BobbyTables

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Counterplans don't have to disprove the aff as long as they compete.

 

 

Advantage counterplans generally compete through the net benefit (commonly, if the aff has two advantages, you can impact turn one of them).  They provide an alternative method by which to resolve the harms of the 1ac.

To add on; there are two types of (good) counterplans in debate.

First, the mutually exclusive CP. The mutually exclusive counterplan, in order to win, simply has to prove it is better than the plan. Whether it's because of a DA to the plan, or a solvency deficit, if the CP is better than the plan, and you can't do both, neg wins.

 

Second, and far more common, the net-benefit CP. This CP isn't mutually exclusive, but it is better than both the plan, and the perm (combo of plan and CP). Like BobbyTables said, they can do so by solving for one advantage, and impact turning the other. That's an advantage CP. Or, they can have a DA (e.g Politics, Spending, something more specific) that links into the plan/perm but not the CP.

 

EDIT: Wow, my first Best Answer on this site. I'd like to thank my coach for teaching me CPs, and myself for wasting time in class on this site.

Edited by Nodulux
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like actor CP's as long as they're not topical. An XO CP is topical (Since USFG includes the executive branch) and means that "perm do CP" is a viable (if theoretically questionable) perm in this case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like actor CP's as long as they're not topical. An XO CP is topical (Since USFG includes the executive branch) and means that "perm do CP" is a viable (if theoretically questionable) perm in this case. 

Now, wouldn't you have to have left the actor unspecified beyond "the USFG" in order to do that perm? If you specified Congress, that would be severance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, wouldn't you have to have left the actor unspecified beyond "the USFG" in order to do that perm? If you specified Congress, that would be severance.

 

Oh I know it's severance... I argue either A. Severance good since those fuckers just mooted your entire ground with a topical CP or B. Hypothesis Testing as the only way to evaluate round which means the topical CP is still a reason to vote aff. 

 

If you left it ambiguous you could get hit with A-Spec but ask yourself how likely you think it is that you'll lose to A-Spec. 

Edited by RainSilves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I know it's severance...

 

It's not severance. If the plan just says USFG, you can strategically clarify that later as meaning XO or Congress or NASA or Australia or whatever you want, so you still get access to PDCP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not severance. If the plan just says USFG, you can strategically clarify that later as meaning XO or Congress or NASA or Australia or whatever you want, so you still get access to PDCP.

This was effectively my point. I think that the decision is between specifying your actor (meaning you have to win Severance Good to PDCP) or leaving it ambiguous (leaving you open to A-spec). Really, it's just a question of which you feel more comfortable defending.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey everyone,

 

Thanks for the answers!  I just wanna check I got it right, ...

ie. They run an aff with advantages warming + economic collapse.

 

Would running a cp which solves for warming, such as CO2 ag, as well as an econ turn, like dedev or a link turn, be a good strat?

 

Thx :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They run an aff with advantages warming + economic collapse.

 

Would running a cp which solves for warming, such as CO2 ag, as well as an econ turn, like dedev or a link turn, be a good strat?

 

Yes, that would be a good strat. An advantage CP, with a turn on the other advantage as the NB over the perm. That specific approach might be dangerous, as I would call DeDev a solvency takeout on both the CP and the Plan; how can you do CO2 ag when the world is effectively in chaos from the ongoing dedev? But as far as the CP's interaction with the plan goes, you seem to have that down.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not severance. If the plan just says USFG, you can strategically clarify that later as meaning XO or Congress or NASA or Australia or whatever you want, so you still get access to PDCP.

Ummm...well Australia isn't the United States federal government...

 

Anyways, it's almost always better to have the A spec debate than to have the PIC debate simply because more judges are willing to vote on a PIC than ASPEC. Furthermore, there's a better time trade off because to win on ASPEC in the 2nr will cost the negative a much bigger investment than just winning a 1% risk of the DA.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm...well Australia isn't the United States federal government...

 

Anyways, it's almost always better to have the A spec debate than to have the PIC debate simply because more judges are willing to vote on a PIC than ASPEC. Furthermore, there's a better time trade off because to win on ASPEC in the 2nr will cost the negative a much bigger investment than just winning a 1% risk of the DA.

Words to live by 

Edited by Theparanoiacmachine
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SnarkosaurusRex advocates taking words out of context; best framework.

JUDGE, HE'S TAKING MY WORDS OUT OF CONTEXT!

  • Upvote 4

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...