Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'do both'.
Found 1 result
As Neg, my partner and I tend to like our counterplans. They're homecut, (mostly my partner's work, I'll admit), and that makes them really hard to fight directly--there's no OpenEvidence direct answers to our cards. So, the Aff teams usually go for Perm: do both, and we make the argument that the Perm is a cop-out: instead of debating the merits of our Negative strategy, they ignore it and continue to do their own thing, even going as far as to insinuate that THEY presented it. It's credit-stealing laziness--Bad for education; prevents the merits of possibly better ideas from being discussed, and discourages the use of home-cut arguments. We usually win on this argument, but I'm worried about what will happen once we start facing better teams. How does it sound? How can I make this argument better? What can I expect against this argument against more competent debaters?