Jump to content
DiamondLouisXIV

counterplan competition?

Recommended Posts

It seems like everyone relies on mutual exclusivity to determine competition but from what I understand, it must simply be less advantageous to do the perm than to do the plan + CP. Or in otherwords, mutual exlusion is just one form of competition. Doesn't this basically means all you baseline-need (to compete and win) is a winning disad and full adv (or weighing the Net Benifit  as greater than the other adv) solvency? If wrong why is it wrong.

 

Do you need to solve the advantage(s)? or does anything go so long as the CP is competitive?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like everyone relies on mutual exclusivity to determine competition but from what I understand, it must simply be less advantageous to do the perm than to do the plan + CP. Or in otherwords, mutual exlusion is just one form of competition. Doesn't this basically means all you baseline-need (to compete and win) is a winning disad and full adv (or weighing the Net Benifit  as greater than the other adv) solvency? If wrong why is it wrong.

 

Do you need to solve the advantage(s)? or does anything go so long as the CP is competitive?

 

Let's first distinguish between what some judges want and what is logically necessary.

 

CPs historically were required to meet three checkpoints:

1. Be non-topical

2. Be competitive

3. Be net beneficial

 

Over time, 1 has mostly fallen out of favor (although there are still some, and many new judges are taught this), but 2 is still common among the judging pool.  In general, a judge who believes a given number is required also believes everything below it.  But there are judges who think 3 is all that's required, and that it logically entails competition on outcomes.

 

Note: In its theory construction, competitiveness (of which mutual exclusivity is a special type) means that the CP directly trades off with plan in some way.  Indirect trade-offs (links to a DA, for example) are not a method to compete under this theory.  Not many people, however, believe competitiveness requires mutual exclusivity, although there are some.

 

(Part of the reason for that last part is that the government can and does do many things that are contradictory - finding policies which are actually mutually exclusive is really hard.  That there's a conflict between two policies does not make them exclusive, either in theory or in the real world.  But they certainly compete with each other.)

 

---------------------

 

So, for a number of judges, net beneficiality is the only checkbox you need to achieve.  (If you plan to run a CP, when you ask about paradigm, specifically ask some CP questions, but generally tabula rasa (tab) judges will only require net beneficial CPs, and some policy maker judges feel the same).  And you can do that in anyway that is logically plausible - it is of course up to you to demonstrate that the CP alone is better than the Plan or any articulated perm on net benefits.

 

Which brings us to: do you need to solve plan advantages.  No.  

-Some types of CP are specifically tailored to only solve a particular advantage (Advantage CPs).  They expressly don't solve the other advantages.

-It is theoretically possible to run a CP which solves none of plan's advantages.  However, there's little strategic reason for doing so.  You open yourself up to attack on a constructed position which doesn't do anything for you.

-CPs are a strategic tool to disarm the affirmative of one or more advantages. You can only do that by solving plan advantages.

-The CP does not need to solve the advantage(s) in the same way as plan.  It can take a dramatically different approach, and this can be very effective, especially when combined with attacks on plan solvency or aff rhetoric.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Squirreloid's post is mostly accurate and you should take a lot from it. One possible correction is that "net benefits" are actually a form of competition. Competition is simply how you answer the question, "why not combine the two?"

 

In addition to net benefits ("the NB are reasons not to combine the two"), mutual exclusivity is another common form of competition ("it's impossible to combine the two"). Some have articulated theories of philosophical competition (Hester and Sharp did this in the pro debate tournament when they asked about the principles underlying the aff's politics and then advocated their opposite). 

 

There are even more forms of competition when you debate kritiks (methodological competition, and performance based arguments about competition), but those are beyond the scope of this post.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Squirreloid's post is mostly accurate and you should take a lot from it. One possible correction is that "net benefits" are actually a form of competition. Competition is simply how you answer the question, "why not combine the two?"

 

In addition to net benefits ("the NB are reasons not to combine the two"), mutual exclusivity is another common form of competition ("it's impossible to combine the two"). Some have articulated theories of philosophical competition (Hester and Sharp did this in the pro debate tournament when they asked about the principles underlying the aff's politics and then advocated their opposite). 

 

There are even more forms of competition when you debate kritiks (methodological competition, and performance based arguments about competition), but those are beyond the scope of this post.

 

I distinguish competition from net benefits because they are considered different in older theory, and judges can be found who distinguish them.

 

I did note that judges who believe all you need are net benefits do believe being net beneficial is competition.

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...