Jump to content
renaes

CPs against "We demand" plans?

Recommended Posts

Yes. Those type of plans are called Kritik affirmatives and function relatively the same just under different framework then a plan text. I would suggest always reading framework vs k affs. Good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if you can run a counterPLAN against a kritikal affirmative that doesn't defend a plan because there is no plan to counter against. You can't say "My partner and I demand blank" and then counterplan to say "The USFG should demand blank."

However, counteradvocacies and PICs (or AIKs in this instance i guess) are something you should worry about. A counteradvocacy just says that we can advocate for something else to resolve the same harms mentioned in your 1AC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if you can run a counterPLAN against a kritikal affirmative that doesn't defend a plan because there is no plan to counter against. You can't say "My partner and I demand blank" and then counterplan to say "The USFG should demand blank."

However, counteradvocacies and PICs (or AIKs in this instance i guess) are something you should worry about. A counteradvocacy just says that we can advocate for something else to resolve the same harms mentioned in your 1AC.

In that case, how would we answer counterplans if for whatever reason they do end up running it against our "demand" plan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case, how would we answer counterplans if for whatever reason they do end up running it against our "demand" plan?

permutation do both -- the counterplan is not mutually exclusive with the advocacy of the 1ac

Edited by DonaldTrump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why you couldn't run a CP, seems like if you simply altered your CP text to make it "My partner and I demand that the USFG should...", it'd function no different a regular one. You'd still have to prove why the action you demand that the USFG does is better than theirs & that there's a net benefit that precludes the perm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know why you couldn't run a CP, seems like if you simply altered your CP text to make it "My partner and I demand that the USFG should...", it'd function no different a regular one. You'd still have to prove why the action you demand that the USFG does is better than theirs & that there's a net benefit that precludes the perm.

 

From what I've understood, the difference between "We demand" plans and normal ones is that if you say "The USFG should..", you're roleplaying the USFG, and you're trying to pretend like you're the actual policymaker that wants the plan to get passed. If you say "My partner and I demand that the USFG curtail..", you're not roleplaying the USFG but rather standing as activists that demand for state action. Most of the time, people who run "We demand" plans do so because theyre trying to endorse the type of politics they are creating rather than the actual plan itself, and go for in round solvency instead of fiat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've understood, the difference between "We demand" plans and normal ones is that if you say "The USFG should..", you're roleplaying the USFG, and you're trying to pretend like you're the actual policymaker that wants the plan to get passed. If you say "My partner and I demand that the USFG curtail..", you're not roleplaying the USFG but rather standing as activists that demand for state action. Most of the time, people who run "We demand" plans do so because theyre trying to endorse the type of politics they are creating rather than the actual plan itself, and go for in round solvency instead of fiat.

 

I've seen it run both ways, though usually in my experience teams that say "we demand the usfg should..." are willing to defend the material/fiat based actions of their plan as well as reasons why their in round epistemology is good, which will still give you room for a CP/DA. And there's no reason why they should call on the USFG to do something & base the majority of the 1ac off of why the USFG doing that thing is good yet refuse to defend it later on in the debate. If the neg wins that the affs demand on the USFG is ultimately bad/causes the DA, & can be solved better by the CP, then it's a more than viable strat.

 

But it's probably a good idea to throw a short framework shell or a T violation into the 1nc if you're worried about that; that way, if they try to no-link out of DA's & claim epistemology deficits to the CP you have a fallback & in round evidence that they made debate impossible for the neg.

 

Side note: I honestly don't understand the strategic value of a so-called K aff or aff that wants to solely focus on pedagogy yet still relies on the USFG...it leaves you open to attack on literally all fronts i.e. both framework args & any K's that link to the state & CP/DA strats. Also probably still links to some of common role playing type args like Antonio 95, because you're still abdicating your agency to the state to carry out the demands & are still imagining a fiated world in which the USFG does the action of the demand. So by all means go for it but I wouldn't recommend expecting to win all CP/DA rounds vs decent teams by being shifty on whether you defend USFG action & then going for "in round politics good" in the 2ar.

Edited by alwayinherent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've understood, the difference between "We demand" plans and normal ones is that if you say "The USFG should..", you're roleplaying the USFG, and you're trying to pretend like you're the actual policymaker that wants the plan to get passed. If you say "My partner and I demand that the USFG curtail..", you're not roleplaying the USFG but rather standing as activists that demand for state action. Most of the time, people who run "We demand" plans do so because theyre trying to endorse the type of politics they are creating rather than the actual plan itself, and go for in round solvency instead of fiat.

 

That's not how fiat works and no one does role playing. The closest thing to role playing in the speech and debate community is Congress, which is only a simulation and not actual role playing (because you're not pretending to take on the identities of real people in Congress).

 

I'm not sure if you can run a counterPLAN against a kritikal affirmative that doesn't defend a plan because there is no plan to counter against. You can't say "My partner and I demand blank" and then counterplan to say "The USFG should demand blank."

However, counteradvocacies and PICs (or AIKs in this instance i guess) are something you should worry about. A counteradvocacy just says that we can advocate for something else to resolve the same harms mentioned in your 1AC.

What you described in the first paragraph is basically the Topical Version of the Aff in a framework debate.

 

It doesn't work as an external counterplan because they could just perm it. It works with FW/T because there are fairness DA's to that perm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've understood, the difference between "We demand" plans and normal ones is that if you say "The USFG should..", you're roleplaying the USFG, and you're trying to pretend like you're the actual policymaker that wants the plan to get passed. If you say "My partner and I demand that the USFG curtail..", you're not roleplaying the USFG but rather standing as activists that demand for state action. Most of the time, people who run "We demand" plans do so because theyre trying to endorse the type of politics they are creating rather than the actual plan itself, and go for in round solvency instead of fiat. 

 

I don't really wanna read a K Aff, but I don't want to run into state bad stuff either.

Newman ‘10 [saul, Reader in Political Theory at Goldsmiths, U of London, Theory & Event Volume 13, Issue 2]

There are two aspects that I would like to address here. Firstly, the notion of demand: making certain demands on the state – say for higher wages, equal rights for excluded groups, to not go to war, or an end to draconian policing – is one of the basic strategies of social movements and radical groups. Making such demands does not necessarily mean working within the state or reaffirming its legitimacy. On the contrary, demands are made from a position outside the political order, and they often exceed the question of the implementation of this or that specific measure. They implicitly call into question the legitimacy and even the sovereignty of the state by highlighting fundamental inconsistencies between, for instance, a formal constitutional order which guarantees certain rights and equalities, and state practices which in reality violate and deny them.

  • 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...