Jump to content

How do I answer and Advantage CP

Recommended Posts

Permutation to do both, arguing the cumulative solvency of the permutation outweighs the link to the net-benefit.


I have separate theory shells for individual advantage counterplans, advantage counterplans with multiple planks, and multi-plank counterplans in which each plank is conditional (can be removed). If it's a mutli-plank counterplan you should also make a permutation to do the Affirmative with every possible combination of planks.


If it's irrelevant to the topic, you probably have some kind of topic-related DA to the CP. For example, if it's education and you're running funding equity, the counterplan might to something to solve your overall economic inequality impact, but if they don't resolve inequities between schools, a lot of poor and minority students still aren't getting the education they need.


You can also read a new advantage to the Affirmative in the 2AC (just 2-3 cards) that the counterplan doesn't solve. Be careful because the Negative block may try to impact-turn this new advantage into being a new net-benefit to the counterplan.


If it links to the net-benefit, you should point that out. If the net-benefit is a politics DA of some sort (agenda politics, midterms, trade-offs, whatever) then you can probably come up with an analytic argument for why that would be the case. So if the advantage counterplan for global warming is solar panels, and the net-benefit is politics, you can say GOP Congress might oppose solar panels quite a bit.


Even if the counterplan solves your impact, it probably doesn't solve your internal link. Say you're running a STEM case with a manufacturing internal link to the economy. The Negative reads a counterplan that says tax cuts promote economic growth. If you have evidence that says the economy's doing great now but the inevitable decline of manufacturing will derail it, it doesn't matter how much we cut taxes. I first heard this argument in the context of the 2014 oceans topic. I forget who, but I think it was a lecture video I was watching that gave the example of "yeah, they might have some weird process to save the fish and help bio-diversity, but our Affirmative solves oil spills that will irreparably damage bio-diversity regardless." You can either frame it as "only the Affirmative is sufficient" or as "the impact is inevitable absent the Affirmative."


Go through Open Evidence on the topic you're debating and seek out every advantage counterplan to every advantage you plan to defend. Also, come up with a list of obvious policies that address your advantage. Then, find at least one piece of evidence for each of these counterplans for why it fails, doesn't solve, is counter-productive, etc.


There's probably more possible arguments, but that's what comes to mind.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Always say perm do both to every cp. But for advantage cps it doesn't accomplish enough because doing the cp with the aff doesn't resolve the link to the net benefit, which is the point of a perm.


Leverage your advantage the cp doesn't solve as offense.


Read an add on in the 2ac on the cp as more offense.


Leverage the internal links of the advantage that the cp claims to solve as solvency deficits to the cp (any good advantage makes a "this action key" arg.


And most importantly, answer the net benefit with offense, defense won't get you much if they win that they solve the aff because theres still a small risk of the net benefit to break the tie.


The above post mentioning theory is meh. Advantage cps are the most theoretically legitimate cps. Multi plank advantage cps are only a problem if individual planks are kickable, make sure to clarify that in 1nc cross x.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites



 Multi plank advantage cps are only a problem if individual planks are kickable, make sure to clarify that in 1nc cross x.

If anyone cares, I did the math on this at a tournament a few weeks ago and found it interesting. My naive estimate was that the number of possibilities would be X factorial where X is the number of planks, but that's an overestimate because permutations are sensitive to the ordering of groups. Strictly speaking, we're interested in combinations. It turns out that the number of distinct options available if there's, say, a five plank counterplan corresponds to 5 pick X, where X is every integer from 0 to 5. In other words, you add the number of options for 5 pick 0, 5 pick 1, 5 pick 2, 5 pick 3, 5 pick 4, and 5 pick 5. The equation for Y pick X is


(Ignore the second line, it's just an example.)

Consequently, if there are five planks, that means there are 1+5+10+10+5+1=32 possible worlds the negative can go for, assuming no other conditional options in the round. For four planks, there are 1+4+6+4+1=16. For three planks, there are 8 worlds. For two planks, 4. It turns out that this corresponds to adding up the different rows of Pascal's triangle, which was pretty unexpected. The conclusion is that 2 plank counterplans where each plank can be kicked probably aren't that abusive, but 3 plank counterplans or more have a lot of potential to be. (Obviously, it's not like the negative's likely to have a strategy that depends on some precise combination of planks, so this doesn't necessarily matter too much, but it's a nice way to illustrate the worst-case potential of the problem involved.)

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.

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.


  • Create New...