Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I need help with DA's and counter plans. 

 

Last tournament, I ran a courts counter plan and won. The thing is that the judge stated that the affirmative is the counter plan because the AFF never specified which branch of government is enacting their plan. 

 

If this is the case, when would you run the courts counter plan?

I've thought about making sure to ask which branch of government would enact the AFF plan in the first cross ex to set myself up for DAs. I would make a Congress DA, courts CP, executive order DA, courts CP, Courts DA, congress CP.

 

Then I thought about what if they refuse to answer. What then can I do? Any suggestions?
 

Also, giving any other generic CP would be nice as well.

Edited by WoahLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need help with DA's and counter plans. 

 

Last tournament, I ran a courts counter plan and won. The thing is that the judge stated that the affirmative is the counter plan because they AFF never specified which branch of government is enacting their plan. 

 

If this is the case, when would your run the courts counter plan?

I've thought about making sure to ask which branch of government would enact the AFF plan in the first cross ex to set myself up for DAs. I would make a Congress DA, courts CP, executive order DA, courts CP, Courts DA, congress CP.

 

Then I thought about what if they refuse to answer. What then can I do? Any suggestions?

 

Also, giving any other generic CP would be nice as well.

You're missing the best CP there is-- the STATES CP!!! 

Seriously though I've beaten curriculum and funding affs every time on this.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

 

There are a few ways you can argue that your counterplan is not the same as the Affirmative plan.

 

First, sometimes a plan-text will have words in it that refer to particular actors. So if a plan-text says "The United States federal government should overturn its decision in Milliken v. Bradley" you can argue that the Supreme Court is the only actor able to do so, even though the plan says U.S.f.g. Similarly, you can find evidence that says "funding" has to be through Congress (because they have the power of the purse) and that "regulation" has to be through an executive agency. I've attached some cards that make some of these arguments.

 

Second, you should clarify in CX, like you said. A lot of the time, they'll be willing to specify.

 

Third, you can make arguments against "permutation--do the counterplan." If it's true that the Affirmative uses the whole USFG, then only using the executive branch in the permutation, for example, is severance out of the other parts of the USFG that the plan originally used. You should argue that's unfair because it makes the Affirmative a moving target.

 

Finally, as BatailleLives stated, there's an argument called "ASPEC" which stands for "actor-specification" or "agent-specification." I've also included a 1NC ASPEC shell you can run. I'd just make sure you try to get them to clarify in CX first, because that'll make judges more sympathetic. Some judges just don't want to hear ASPEC because they think it's a waste of time.

 

It's good that you're coming from this from the perspective of actually not being able to run the counterplans you want. Some people just make these arguments at a time-skew.

 

I think that having a CP/DA for each branch of government is interesting, but keep in mind some of the potential difficulties. If the Affirmative wants to fund STEM, you can't just say the Supreme Court should rule that STEM is funded, or executive order money into existence. Other than that, good luck.

 

edit: a note on ASPEC--I'd run both your counter-plan of choice and ASPEC in the 1NC. If they want to clarify their actor to get out of ASPEC, I'd consider letting them do that, and then running with the counterplan. If they either refuse to specify or suddenly want to specify that their plan happens exactly the way the CP does, you can go for ASPEC in the 2NR explaining that there was in-round abuse in them denying you the counterplan you wanted to run. ASPEC is generally meant to force their hand, rather than being something you just go for like topicality.

Definitions.docx

Edited by TheSnowball
  • Upvote 3

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...