Jump to content
BernieSanders

Why topical CP's are always cheating

Recommended Posts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoy_effect

 

Literally cheating your way to victory. 

 

Except that's not how topical counterplans are argued at all.  Because for that to be the case, the topical cp would have to be run to lose (to the status quo, presumably, so negative still wins).  Ie, it's not a decoy if you want the judge to actually prefer it.  Basically, the decoy effect can only work if you can introduce a *losing* strategy which increases preference for *a different independent strategy you're also advocating*.  So this is really just a theory argument for condo bad and/or why conditional CPs are bad (much weaker for the second, because there's little legitimacy to deny the negative the status quo even if they advocate another solution - the aff certainly shouldn't get it).

 

Also, two different topical actions generally compete on more than just two variables.  It's not clear that it would even be remotely possible to construct a toy position which could reliably access the decoy effect - you'd have to narrow down the multitude of things the position is competing on as being relevant to the judge's thoughts (which could vary from judge to judge), and have already arranged it so that it is incompletely dominating plan with respect to those options, and strictly inferior to your other position.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that's not how topical counterplans are argued at all.  Because for that to be the case, the topical cp would have to be run to lose (to the status quo, presumably, so negative still wins).  Ie, it's not a decoy if you want the judge to actually prefer it.  Basically, the decoy effect can only work if you can introduce a *losing* strategy which increases preference for *a different independent strategy you're also advocating*.  So this is really just a theory argument for condo bad and/or why conditional CPs are bad (much weaker for the second, because there's little legitimacy to deny the negative the status quo even if they advocate another solution - the aff certainly shouldn't get it).

 

Also, two different topical actions generally compete on more than just two variables.  It's not clear that it would even be remotely possible to construct a toy position which could reliably access the decoy effect - you'd have to narrow down the multitude of things the position is competing on as being relevant to the judge's thoughts (which could vary from judge to judge), and have already arranged it so that it is incompletely dominating plan with respect to those options, and strictly inferior to your other position.

 

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=How+to+get+baited+by+a+shitpost+

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More proof debates should be among 3 teams, not 2, and the aff should get 2AC counterplans. 

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love that. Alternate debate formats are awesome. Polemicism has value, but so do different variations of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually have a card on the decoy theory which words it a little better than the Wikipedia page. You can message me if you want it​

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...