Jump to content
OopsPlanFlaw

Why aren't condition CPs plan plus?

Recommended Posts

Plan isn't conditional unless it's already a QPQ. If it is, then neg might say that perm do both destroys cp solvency because China picks the better deal, but they have no actual argument against perm do the CP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

qpq cp vs uncondo aff:

 

---aff arg: the cp just adds a condition to the plan therefore its plan plus so perm do the counterplan

--- neg arg: a) the perm severs out of engagement which must be unconditional <reads interp of "engagement"> and B) the cp happens in less worlds bc if the aff is unconditional then it happens 100% of the time but the cp only happens if china says yes

 

double condition cp vs qpq aff

---aff: the cp just adds another condition

---neg: ok, we concede, we suck at debate bc double condition CPs arent competitive

 

i do think that "change a condition cp" vs qpq affs is definitely competitive, as is the unconditional cp vs qpq affs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A point against the perm from originally unconditional affs- the perm makes them a moving target- they never said in the 1ac that they were conditional policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A point against the perm from originally unconditional affs- the perm makes them a moving target- they never said in the 1ac that they were conditional policy.

depends - if the plan text is like "us should negotiate x with china", then the qpq cp could be included as a part of the plan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but that potentially allows Aff to gain 2ac infinite quo advantages which is intrinsically abusive. They shouldn't get to add 2 their plan in the 2ac.

Edited by Raj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but that potentially allows Aff to gain 2ac infinite quo advantages which is intrinsically abusive. They shouldn't get to add 2 their plan in the 2ac.

 

perms are tests of competition. they don't get to advocate the perm or the quo of the counterplan, which solves your "add to their plan" offense, but the counterplan to add another condition isn't competitive with an aff that just fiats negotiation with china -- adding another condition is something that could potentially be done under the scope of the plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well for consult/conditions, the idea is that the CP is competing with the certainty of the plan. The neg might read a card saying "should" = certain- a consultation/condition means the plan's implementation isn't certain. Perm do the CP severs out of certainty.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems to get to the heart of textual versus functional competition (a distinction which is critical to both critiques and counterplans)

 

You seem to be saying: look you can write the plan out and add the consultation.

 

The reason its functionality based.

 

China or whatever agent here can say no.  

 

While I tend to think that consultation counterplans are generally a cop-out, I'm not sure this is the ultimate answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This seems to get to the heart of textual versus functional competition (a distinction which is critical to both critiques and counterplans)

 

You seem to be saying: look you can write the plan out and add the consultation.

 

The reason its functionality based.

 

China or whatever agent here can say no.  

 

While I tend to think that consultation counterplans are generally a cop-out, I'm not sure this is the ultimate answer.

 

it's also not functionally competitive. the only thing the plan fiats is that we make the offer to china (for most affs). the neg offer encompasses all of the aff offer, but more

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

perms are tests of competition. they don't get to advocate the perm or the quo of the counterplan, which solves your "add to their plan" offense, but the counterplan to add another condition isn't competitive with an aff that just fiats negotiation with china -- adding another condition is something that could potentially be done under the scope of the plan.

I agree, but that doesn't disprove the arg that the perm is still illegitimate.

 

If the Aff wants to gain adv under that scope it should specify in the plan text, otherwise it destroys condition cp ground.

Edited by Raj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, but that doesn't disprove the arg that the perm is still illegitimate.

 

If the Aff wants to gain adv under that scope it should specify in the plan text, otherwise it destroys condition cp ground.

 

if the cp is plan plus, then specification in the plan text shouldnt matter.

 

i.e. plan = pass BIT; cp = pass BIT and fund space colonization; the aff should get to perm do the cp since it's plan plus

 

or, if the plan text is worded "negotiate", then the cp is just another form of negotiation

 

i.e. plan = negotiate a tpp deal; cp: negotiate a tpp deal using yellow paper and only speaking mandarin; the cp is not competitive with the plan even if its not specified

 

 

condition CP ground isnt key anyway -- this topic has tons of lit and a bunch of creative strats if you just start digging.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, but that potentially allows Aff to gain 2ac infinite quo advantages which is intrinsically abusive. They shouldn't get to add 2 their plan in the 2ac.

Under this definition of permutation, isn't every perm illegitimate? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CP only does the plan if China agrees to (insert x) - that means the sq is a potential outcome of the CP, which isn't true for the plan. 

  • Upvote 1

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...