Jump to content
Ausar

Help with Counter-Warrants Needed

Recommended Posts

So I just learned about counter warrants. How exactly do I make such an argument into a shell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plan is in some understandings supposed to be an example that proves the resolution true. The counterwarrant is the opposite, an example that proves the resolution false. It's bogus for multiple reasons, but a big one that stands out to me is that thinking of terrible ideas is a trillion times easier than thinking of good ideas. For example, a negative team using counterwarrants could argue that the US should not increase its diplomatic cooperation with China because if the US and China were to team up in a military alliance against the rest of the world and bomb everyone, that would be bad. Or imagine if a team said that we shouldn't end surveillance on pedophiles, and this proved the entire curtail surveillance resolution false. When reading counterwarrants you basically ignore the affirmative's plan, make an anti-plan of your own, and then say that the anti-plan creates more problems than the plan solves so the negative should win the round.

Edited by Chaos
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plan is in some understandings supposed to be an example that proves the resolution true. The counterwarrant is the opposite, an example that proves the resolution false. It's bogus for multiple reasons, but a big one that stands out to me is that thinking of terrible ideas is a trillion times easier than thinking of good ideas. For example, a negative team using counterwarrants could argue that the US should not increase its diplomatic cooperation with China because if the US and China were to team up in a military alliance against the rest of the world and bomb everyone, that would be bad. Or imagine if a team said that we shouldn't end surveillance on pedophiles, and this proved the entire curtail surveillance resolution false.

"prove the entire resolution false"

 

This does sound terrible. Remember procedurals kids! The resolution is good!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But isn't the neg team usually against the resolution (and therefore all the ways it could potentially be implemented)? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends on the framework that's being read. In my opinion, frameworks that argue the negative team is against the entire resolution make no sense. What if the resolution is bidirectional? What if some potential policies are good while others are bad? What if the question of the resolution is so broad or generic that it can't be answered without additional specifics?

You should read up on theory arguments about "Topical CPs bad/good", because those arguments are relevant here. I would say topical CPs are good.

@FUDGE, your signature makes no sense. Plenty of animals exhibit curiosity, or get bored without stimuli. You should read up on Harlow's monkey experiments.

Edited by Chaos
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is hypo testing bad? Yes. Topical CP's are worse though so fucking keep fighting the good fight OP 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is hypo testing bad? Yes. Topical CP's are Neg Fiat is worse though so fucking keep fighting the good fight OP 

 

FTFY.

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

×