Jump to content
OceanDebater

Answering the Politics Disadvantage

Recommended Posts

What are the best ways to answer a politics DA (and what are the common ones going to be run at NSDA Nats), besides "no-link"? 

 

I'm looking for efficient and maybe something which won't take up a huge time for prep.

 

Also, is anyone interested in starting a politics prep group for Nats?

Edited by OceanDebater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

duhbait.com will have NCFL and NSDA politics files for $5, so there's always that. 

 

As far as scenarios go, I figure it will be TPA and maybe Iran, but it's kinda hard to predict a month out. 

 

I'd be willing to be a part of a prep group, just PM with the details. 

 

 

Non-Unique ev/args

Link not intrinsic 

Fiat solves the link 

No Link (if applicable for your aff) 

Plan popular/unpopular (depending on the scenario) 

Scenario defense (TPA doesn't lead to economic growth)/Scenario offense (TTIP leads to Asian instability) 

Impact defense/offense

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generic stuff you want:

Link turn (plan popular) or no link

Internal link defense (PC Theory wrong)

Impact defense or turns

Obama doesn't have PC

Thumpers

 

Specific stuff you want if you have time:

Uniqueness updates

Specific internal link take-outs to the scenario (TPA doesn't boost Econ)

 

Possible theory:

Fiat solves the link (ps, it doesn't)

Intrinsiness (DA has to be an opportunity cost to the plan itself)

Edited by MartyP
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the ocean topic, no link and thumpers Will almost always be the best way to go, but they depend on your plan:

 

Plan category A: Exploration & research projects that spend a billion dollars or less - no one cares about these in the general public. Just get some specific cards to that effect and you should be fine. Also probably applies to minor regulatory Affs (e.g., aquaculture, aquatic invasive species, TEDs).

 

Plan category B: Major environmental spending (e.g., desalination, OSW) - Will piss off Republicans. Probably the best approach here are cards saying that political cap in environmental issues doesn't trade off with foreign policy (Iran scenarios) or trade (TPA scenarios)

 

Plan category C: Brown energy Affs (e.g. OCS drilling) - Loved by Republicans. Unless the scenario is specifically a Democratic revolt against TPA, you should be able to link turn the main politics scenarios.

 

Remember that when it comes to Politics DAs, plan-specific evidence vastly outweighs generic evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please impact turn ptx

 

Any TPP related stuff needs fatty impact turns. That stuff literally destroys copyright law in this country. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any TPP related stuff needs fatty impact turns. That stuff literally destroys copyright law in this country. 

And fractures global trade by promoting PTAs over multilateral solutions which causes China to start its own PTAs which fosters even more divided trade blocs than already exist.

 

WTO collapse impacts anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And fractures global trade by promoting PTAs over multilateral solutions which causes China to start its own PTAs which fosters even more divided trade blocs than already exist.

 

WTO collapse impacts anyone?

 

Not to mention the  (Computer) Piracy good DA to it that ends in total economic collapse due to falling media sales. Also, it kills 3D printing tech which is key to solving other impacts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Generic stuff you want:

Link turn (plan popular) or no link

Internal link defense (PC Theory wrong)

Impact defense or turns

Obama doesn't have PC

Thumpers

 

Specific stuff you want if you have time:

Uniqueness updates

Specific internal link take-outs to the scenario (TPA doesn't boost Econ)

 

Possible theory:

Fiat solves the link (ps, it doesn't)

Intrinsiness (DA has to be an opportunity cost to the plan itself)

I know very little about politics- what's a thumper, and what is intrinsicness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A thumper is a bill that will come up before the one in the politics scenario and takes out link uniqueness.

 

Intrinsicness is essentially the argument that the judge can fiat the passing of both the plan and the DA scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Intrinsicness is essentially the argument that the judge can fiat the passing of both the plan and the DA scenario.

 

Sort of.

 

Intrinsicness is about whether the DA is intrinsic to plan or not.  That is, plan trades off directly with whatever measure the PTX DA is using for its scenario, not just tangentially (via political capital or otherwise).  Ie, it's a test of competition.  If you imagine the PTX DA is instead a CP: Do (PTX scenario bill), Intrinsicness is identical to a do both permutation.

 

Other kinds of intrinsicness arguments will point out that there's no reason doing plan will impact that particular bill, because there isn't a vacuum where nothing else happens except plan and the PTX scenario.  Congress might fight over something else instead.  The party which isn't backlashing in the PTX DA scenario might intentionally provoke a fight over something else so the PTX scenario bill isn't affected (introduce an immigration bill so the fallout burns out before they get to debating TPP).  Back channel deals which prevent fallout on the particular bill might be negotiated.   Basically, there are alternatives to avoid the PTX scenario which don't involve not passing plan.  Sort of Perm do plan and take actions such that PTX scenario is avoided.

 

In general, intrinsicness is attacking the competition between plan and the ptx scenario, and/or the direct causal linkage between plan and the failure of the ptx scenario, and says that the DA is only valid if the scenario competes directly with plan.

Edited by Squirrelloid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know very little about politics- what's a thumper, and what is intrinsicness?

  

A thumper is a bill that will come up before the one in the politics scenario and takes out link uniqueness.

 

Intrinsicness is essentially the argument that the judge can fiat the passing of both the plan and the DA scenario.

More accurately, intrinsicness is the argument that a logical decision maker can pass both, and that disads should be a test of the desirability of the implementation of the plan itself, whereas the politics disad doesn't do so

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw the intrinsicness arg is bad and you should never go for it unless you have the layest of lay judges or are against a very ignorant team. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw the intrinsicness arg is bad and you should never go for it unless you have the layest of lay judges or are against a very ignorant team. 

 

I'm not sure why the community seems to have reached this consensus.  PTX DAs are just really bad counterplans, and there's no reason they shouldnt be held to the same standards of competition as CPs are.  No one disagrees the logic behind the PTX DA is terrible, and a large part of the reason for that is lack of intrinsicness - so why the hate when people argue it?

 

(A decent explanation of the PTX DA intrinsicness problem would win the PTX flow for me.  Or, for that matter, an explanation of a policymaker RoB which creates a model for what fiat means in the round and makes the PTX DA not a valid construction within that RoB - think less magic 'we pretend the government actually does this' and more 'this is what you should believe the government should do').

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
btw the intrinsicness arg is bad and you should never go for it unless you have the layest of lay judges or are against a very ignorant team.

 

 

Judges vote for perms all the time.

 

Also, it was in the final round of Emory.  Forget the topic.  Maybe investment in renewable energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure why the community seems to have reached this consensus.  PTX DAs are just really bad counterplans, and there's no reason they shouldnt be held to the same standards of competition as CPs are.  No one disagrees the logic behind the PTX DA is terrible, and a large part of the reason for that is lack of intrinsicness - so why the hate when people argue it?

 

(A decent explanation of the PTX DA intrinsicness problem would win the PTX flow for me.  Or, for that matter, an explanation of a policymaker RoB which creates a model for what fiat means in the round and makes the PTX DA not a valid construction within that RoB - think less magic 'we pretend the government actually does this' and more 'this is what you should believe the government should do').

If they have a specific link and uniqueness for that link this arg kinda goes away however. Good evidence on the neg side as well as good spin should be able to defuse this argument without too much work. The reason many people have come to the conclusion that the intrinsicness arg is bad is because it's mostly read as a blippy trick theory argument, as a lot of development in the 2AC is time consuming and can be thrown out for good if they have a good piece of block link/link uq evidence. It's just too much of a risk to take to develop it a lot, so when teams read it it is usually just one blippy line. Judges hate blippy theory arguments in general, therefore they are likely to hate this one as well.

 

It doesn't have anything to do with the "truth" of the argument, it's just the fact that it's unstrategic to run well, and is only strategic to run poorly, which means judges will rarely if ever see the argument run well. This is what creates stigma for towards "bad" arguments.

Edited by yee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what would be an example of a "thumper"?

The link would function from the affirmative plan of action, let's say Drones, would cause political backlash and splits the GOP. The Aff would be like, no there's this cybersecurity bill in Congress right now that's controversial, which would have already triggered/going to trigger your impact.

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...