Jump to content
THEMOISTDOLPHIN

Two plans as one?

Recommended Posts

So I've seen multiple teams running two plans smashed into one, for example, Overturn Milken and congress redesigns funding schemes. Is there some sort of theory I can run on this saying that running two separate plans (jammed together) is abusive or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better idea is to concede the ability of one to solve a lot of the problem, PIC out of the other, and run a DA to the actor you PIC'd out of.

 

In a normal debate (plan uses Congress, CP overturns Milliken) you have to prove the CP actor is sufficient to solve. In this case, they make your CP solvency argument for you by defending both actors in the 1AC and letting you pick which one you want to defend.

 

Two-actor plans are anti-strategic.

Edited by TheSnowball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better idea is to concede the ability of one to solve a lot of the problem, PIC out of the other, and run a DA to the actor you PIC'd out of.

 

In a normal debate (plan uses Congress, CP overturns Milliken) you have to prove the CP actor is sufficient to solve. In this case, they make your CP solvency argument for you by defending both actors in the 1AC and letting you pick which one you want to defend.

 

Two-actor plans are anti-strategic.

Awesome. Thanks!

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

×