Jump to content
TheSnowball

ODT R1: TheSnowball [A] vs. nicorhanley [N]

Recommended Posts

[insert rant]

 

hey beck! i'm still trying to get some more tips / information about the actual debate proper, so if y'all could express discuss this whole issue through pm or something that would make it much easier to follow posts that have actually useful content

 

 

yeah - the "spin" is what i'm about to explain (and not anything that happened in debate, just the best way to go for perm do both against the uncondo cp):

 

permutation do both -- the plan fiats an OFFER to sever commitment if china makes territorial concessions, and that is negotiated -- the counterplan IMMEDIATELY ends defense commitment to Taiwan -- the permutation does both the offer AND end defense commitment -- which means that in a world of the perm, China would ALREADY GET TAIWAN (which is what they want), so in that world where they already have taiwan, there is zero way they'd say yes to signing away all of the scs and the ecs for something that they already have (especially if the neg's xi link is true). thus, in a world of the perm, they accept the cp but SAY NO to the aff, which shields the link to the xi DA because then they don't have to make concessions

 

actually that explanation is incredibly good - so basically you're saying that because the outcome of the offer isn't immediately fiated that it would allow China to pocket the concession then functionally always result in the cp because of that time differential between immediate implementation of a policy and immediate implementation of an offer, right?

 

i wish someone had told me about this before edina crushed me at blake w/ the unilat cp lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

actually that explanation is incredibly good - so basically you're saying that because the outcome of the offer isn't immediately fiated that it would allow China to pocket the concession then functionally always result in the cp because of that time differential between immediate implementation of a policy and immediate implementation of an offer, right?

exactly!

 

i wish someone had told me about this before edina crushed me at blake w/ the unilat cp lol

i feel lol, when someone explained this to me for the first time i was like LOL glad im never losing to the unilat cp again

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah - the "spin" is what i'm about to explain (and not anything that happened in debate, just the best way to go for perm do both against the uncondo cp):

 

permutation do both -- the plan fiats an OFFER to sever commitment if china makes territorial concessions, and that is negotiated -- the counterplan IMMEDIATELY ends defense commitment to Taiwan -- the permutation does both the offer AND end defense commitment -- which means that in a world of the perm, China would ALREADY GET TAIWAN (which is what they want), so in that world where they already have taiwan, there is zero way they'd say yes to signing away all of the scs and the ecs for something that they already have (especially if the neg's xi link is true). thus, in a world of the perm, they accept the cp but SAY NO to the aff, which shields the link to the xi DA because then they don't have to make concessions

I had to read that 3 times before I understood why it was an Affirmative argument not a Negative argument.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 hell, this almost feels like the manhood academy disaster again 

 

it's pretty funny to me that invoking manhood academy has found its way into the vocabulary of this community. like any time something starts to get out of hand, we just get reminded of how horribly unpleasant internet disputes can become, and just decide to let it go. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's pretty funny to me that invoking manhood academy has found its way into the vocabulary of this community. like any time something starts to get out of hand, we just get reminded of how horribly unpleasant internet disputes can become, and just decide to let it go. 

The cross-x regulars have a culture of all their own

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah - the "spin" is what i'm about to explain (and not anything that happened in debate, just the best way to go for perm do both against the uncondo cp):

 

permutation do both -- the plan fiats an OFFER to sever commitment if china makes territorial concessions, and that is negotiated -- the counterplan IMMEDIATELY ends defense commitment to Taiwan -- the permutation does both the offer AND end defense commitment -- which means that in a world of the perm, China would ALREADY GET TAIWAN (which is what they want), so in that world where they already have taiwan, there is zero way they'd say yes to signing away all of the scs and the ecs for something that they already have (especially if the neg's xi link is true). thus, in a world of the perm, they accept the cp but SAY NO to the aff, which shields the link to the xi DA because then they don't have to make concessions

 

then why not just reject the perm and vote on the CP, if the perm is essentially doing the CP?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then why not just reject the perm and vote on the CP, if the perm is essentially doing the CP?

 

er bc it's not competitive.? the perm shields the link? bc it's functionally perm do the cp?

 

edit: like theoretically any time the aff wins "perm do the cp" against a process counterplan or what have you, you could just say "well then if they win perm do the cp, why not reject the perm and vote on the cp, if the perm is essentially doing the cp?" - you see what i'm saying

Edited by youdidntseeme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

er bc it's not competitive.? the perm shields the link? bc it's functionally perm do the cp?

 

edit: like theoretically any time the aff wins "perm do the cp" against a process counterplan or what have you, you could just say "well then if they win perm do the cp, why not reject the perm and vote on the cp, if the perm is essentially doing the cp?" - you see what i'm saying

Yeah, and why doesn't that result in a neg ballot? Like, you make a solvency deficit against yourself and argue for CP solvency - wouldn't that get a neg ballot? Maybe I just don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, and why doesn't that result in a neg ballot? Like, you make a solvency deficit against yourself and argue for CP solvency - wouldn't that get a neg ballot? Maybe I just don't get it.

 

er bc it's not competitive.? the perm shields the link? bc it's functionally perm do the cp?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That doesn't answer the question. If the CP competes through net benefits, ie, the aff via the say yes/no debate, what's the point in doing the aff if it doesn't work? I'm not trying to start more hostility on this thread, I just don't get the argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't answer the question. If the CP competes through net benefits, ie, the aff via the say yes/no debate, what's the point in doing the aff if it doesn't work? I'm not trying to start more hostility on this thread, I just don't get the argument.

 

I feel like we're kinda talking past each other here ---

To win the debate, neg must win that their CP is better than a) the aff and B) the permutation. Debate 101. The net benefit was the Xi DA. The perm shields the link, ergo, the counterplan is not preferable to the permutation

 

what if you evaluated this debate:

-- aff: plan the usfg should give youdontseeme a trillion bucks

--- 2nr: cp the usfg should give youdontseeme a trillion bucks

 

the 2ar goes for perm do the cp, the aff wins -- even though the perm essentially does the cp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like we're kinda talking past each other here ---

To win the debate, neg must win that their CP is better than a) the aff and B) the permutation. Debate 101. The net benefit was the Xi DA. The perm shields the link, ergo, the counterplan is not preferable to the permutation

 

what if you evaluated this debate:

-- aff: plan the usfg should give youdontseeme a trillion bucks

--- 2nr: cp the usfg should give youdontseeme a trillion bucks

 

the 2ar goes for perm do the cp, the aff wins -- even though the perm essentially does the cp

But the aff and 2NR would be very different in the context of a real debate, for instance, usfg should cooperate to resolve the taiwan issue (or whatever the exact plan was), vs usfg should just stop supporting taiwan (or whatever the exact CP was). the perm would prove that the aff does nothing, at which point, the CP is better than the aff, bc the aff guts their solvency, even if it avoids the DA, which the CP also does. idk. i'll think about it some more, but that doesnt seem like it adds up to me. whatever wins, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the aff and 2NR would be very different in the context of a real debate, for instance, usfg should cooperate to resolve the taiwan issue (or whatever the exact plan was), vs usfg should just stop supporting taiwan (or whatever the exact CP was). the perm would prove that the aff does nothing, at which point, the CP is better than the aff, bc the aff guts their solvency, even if it avoids the DA, which the CP also does. idk. i'll think about it some more, but that doesnt seem like it adds up to me. whatever wins, though.

Giving China Taiwan solves the Affirmative because it fixes a relations-drain and avoids U.S. draw-in to a dispute. Yet, the permutation doesn't make China give up its stance in the SCS so it doesn't make Xi look weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

honestly you could even say the perm is net better -- it allows xi to "say no" to a western-led initiative which would win him a lot of political support at home among the nationalists for standing up to America and refusing to make concessions

 

definitely not a round winner, but just a musing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imo a perm doesn't need to be better than the CP, it just needs to prove there's no opportunity cost. If perm: do both solves the case and the DA, it doesn't matter that it's not better than the CP because even if 100% of solvency comes from the CP, it's not an opportunity cost with the plan

 

Edit: basically a perm doesn't need to be better than the CP, it needs to be equal.

Edited by PailAmbrose

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...