Jump to content
thedeleuzer

Consult CP/ Process CP mutual exclusivity arguments

Recommended Posts

I am running a Consult CP/Process CP on the topic: A just government ought to prioritize civil liberties over national security. I was wondering how you would argue competitiveness though? Do you just compete through a politics disad? Couldn't the aff just delay perm the CP and say do the cp than the aff. what are the best responses for delay perms on process CP's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consult counterplans AREN'T competitive. Find a better strategy.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consult counterplans AREN'T competitive. Find a better strategy.

I second. Consult CP's are plan plus and lack competition. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am running a Consult CP/Process CP on the topic: A just government ought to prioritize civil liberties over national security. I was wondering how you would argue competitiveness though? Do you just compete through a politics disad? Couldn't the aff just delay perm the CP and say do the cp than the aff. what are the best responses for delay perms on process CP's.

delay perms are intrinsic. that's the first problem. Secondly, the perm doesnt make sense. You cant enter into binding consultation over the aff, then do the aff regardless. Even if the country says yes, the fact that it never depended on their answer means you aren't actually doing the CP so it can't solve

 

consult counterplans compete on net benefit, so you're correct about that. I usually run them with a relations disad, but i can see it solving politics as well

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

delay perms are intrinsic. that's the first problem. Secondly, the perm doesnt make sense. You cant enter into binding consultation over the aff, then do the aff regardless. Even if the country says yes, the fact that it never depended on their answer means you aren't actually doing the CP so it can't solve

 

consult counterplans compete on net benefit, so you're correct about that. I usually run them with a relations disad, but i can see it solving politics as well

This is true, but Consult counterplans are incredibly arbitrary because you insert x country that can do the plan. To the OP, the aff will more than likely impact turn the net benefit and read theory. It isn't a winning battle and most judges have a high threshold for consult counterplans. If I were you I'd invest my research and energy into a more realistic and effective counterplan that competes with an affirmative. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Competition via net benefits is artificial at best and a bastardization of logic at worst.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is true, but Consult counterplans are incredibly arbitrary because you insert x country that can do the plan. To the OP, the aff will more than likely impact turn the net benefit and read theory. It isn't a winning battle and most judges have a high threshold for consult counterplans. If I were you I'd invest my research and energy into a more realistic and effective counterplan that competes with an affirmative. 

 

Maybe this is different in the case of the OP, and I wouldnt know because I don't understand policy args in LD at all, but I don't understand how that's supposed to be some kind of death blow to the counterplan. Just extend your impact and read consult good. Obviously if your judge doesn't like consult, it wouldn't be a great idea to read one, but still i don't understand why the strategy is so bad in and of itself

 

 

Competition via net benefits is artificial at best and a bastardization of logic at worst.

 

i disagree. competition is not only a question of whether the perm can function but also whether the perm is a good option. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe this is different in the case of the OP, and I wouldnt know because I don't understand policy args in LD at all, but I don't understand how that's supposed to be some kind of death blow to the counterplan. Just extend your impact and read consult good. Obviously if your judge doesn't like consult, it wouldn't be a great idea to read one, but still i don't understand why the strategy is so bad in and of itself

 

 

 

i disagree. competition is not only a question of whether the perm can function but also whether the perm is a good option. 

That's the problem, though. From my experience there is an overwhelmingly high threshold for consult CP's just because they do not compete and they are arbitrary. It is easier for a sub-par debater to win consult cp bad theory than a top tier debater to win consult cp theory good in front of a policy hack. You are right, it is easy to extend impact ev and do line by line. However, there are more legitimate counterplans that functionally compete with affirmatives that don't have relations net benefits. Again, just my two cents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i disagree. competition is not only a question of whether the perm can function but also whether the perm is a good option.

 

First, the perm DOES function in consult. There are two worlds with consult: agent consulted says yes/agent consulted says no.

 

If the agent consulted says yes, then the CP is plan plus. If the agent consulted says no, the CP is plan minus.

 

In a world where plan plus is legitimized, the negative can run any Neg Policy Option (NPO) with zero relevance to the aff or resolution as long as the combination of plan and counterplan is worse than the counterplan alone. The plan can be educate inner city kids and CP is Spark-cities (limited nuke war in cities). This is infinitely abusive to the aff as it would need to prepare against not just non-topical policy options but ANY irrelevant policy option.

 

In a world in which plan minus is legitimate, the Neg also has the option of countering the aff education policy with "decommission nukes but do NOT do plan". Again, infinitely abusive for the same reason.

 

Consult counter plans justify all manner of bad behavior in debate.

 

Second, you can't look to effects of policy to determine competitiveness any more than you can look to effects of plan to determine topicality. All the same reasoning applies.

Edited by Ankur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the problem, though. From my experience there is an overwhelmingly high threshold for consult CP's just because they do not compete and they are arbitrary. It is easier for a sub-par debater to win consult cp bad theory than a top tier debater to win consult cp theory good in front of a policy hack. You are right, it is easy to extend impact ev and do line by line. However, there are more legitimate counterplans that functionally compete with affirmatives that don't have relations net benefits. Again, just my two cents. 

I just don't agree. Outside of fundamentally indefensible stuff like "racism good" or timecube, it's pretty much always easier for a top-tier debater to win a given argument than for a sub-par debater to win its opposite, regardless of community bias. I also don't even think it's that abusive outside of you all's issues about competition. If they read a relations DA, there's pretty much always going to be a reasonable "says no" argument.  And if net benefit competition is really so illegitimate, just beat the net benefit or explain why you should get a perm. I just don't see the abuse

 

 

First, the perm DOES function in consult. There are two worlds with consult: agent consulted says yes/agent consulted says no.

 

If the agent consulted says yes, then the CP is plan plus. If the agent consulted says no, the CP is plan minus.

 

In a world where plan plus is legitimized, the negative can run any Neg Policy Option (NPO) with zero relevance to the aff or resolution as long as the combination of plan and counterplan is worse than the counterplan alone. The plan can be educate inner city kids and CP is Spark-cities (limited nuke war in cities). This is infinitely abusive to the aff as it would need to prepare against not just non-topical policy options but ANY irrelevant policy option.

 

In a world in which plan minus is legitimate, the Neg also has the option of countering the aff education policy with "decommission nukes but do NOT do plan". Again, infinitely abusive for the same reason.

 

Consult counter plans justify all manner of bad behavior in debate.

 

Second, you can't look to effects of policy to determine competitiveness any more than you can look to effects of plan to determine topicality. All the same reasoning applies.

 

i think there's a very legitimate case to be made that it's plan plus, which is bad for the reasons you outlined above, but i view it as a variance in process. It really only argues a different method for doing the plan, which is extremely different from spark cities which is in no way bound to the action of the plan. Plus, every type of process counterplan could be framed as plan plus using your logic. Also, consult japan is pretty relevant to this topic. If i were judging, i'd have a high threshold for "consult japan justifies irrelevant policy options"

 

to your second point, again, the perm can function but the question is whether it's a good idea. If you want to say it's "effects competition", fine, but i dont really follow the analogy between T and counterplan competition. But it's fine, you all are free to hate consult; it's a perfectly valid opinion. I just wanted to offer my two cents :)

Edited by Nonegfiat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Competition is NOT "is the CP a good idea/the perm is not". If someone taught you that, that's terribly incorrect. Competition is a test of whether the judge can evaluate the counterplan as an alternative to the plan. The whole point of a permutation (e.g. do both) was to show that the two policies are not mutually exclusive ergo no reason to reject the aff when there is no tradeoff. Essentially, you first test the CP, and if it is exclusive, THEN you evaluate whether it's a better policy option.

 

Fast forward some time later, and people get cute with their interpretation. They claim that the tradeoff (above) is the net benefits disad. But this is not real competition - it's artificial because you CAN do both (its called the CP). The interp the negative brings is that the aff is implicit "do not consult" because it was not explicitly stated in plan. Well it was also not explicitly stated in plan that the copy signed by Trump would be printed on 70% recycled content paper, and environmental leadership begins with the president and environmental leadership key to all leadership and without US leadership nuke war results... would you say such is "legitimate"?

 

Process arguments are inherently infinitely regressive. There is no limit the level of detail one can demand in the "implementation" of policy. There is no way to establish a brightline as to what is and is not legitimate vs what is and is not abuse. That's why my interpretation is superior. It DOES set a brightline.

 

Lastly, ever wonder why if you run nothing but disads against an aff you don't have to issue a competitiveness argument? Because the default negative policy option is the status quo which is guaranteed to be competitive with the aff which is a deviation from the status quo. If your interpretation is better, then one needs to have a competition "test" with a disad only strategy as well, no? Because it's about whether it's a "desirable policy option", no?

 

;)

  • 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...