Jump to content

Photo
- - - - -

Two plans as one?


  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 THEMOISTDOLPHIN

THEMOISTDOLPHIN

    Junior-Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
0
Neutral
  • Name:Evan

Posted 04 December 2017 - 12:46 PM

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?


  • 0

#2 TheSnowball

TheSnowball

    Hall of Fame

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,682 posts
1,069
Excellent
  • Name:Ryan

Posted 04 December 2017 - 01:54 PM

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, 04 December 2017 - 02:08 PM.

  • 0

Daily Evidence Card!
Exodus Files!

This cross-ex is taking too long.

Kafka 25 (Franz, Novelist, Translated by David Wyllie, "The Trial", 1925) //Snowball

K. was informed by telephone that there would be a small hearing concerning his case the following Sunday. He was made aware that these cross examinations would follow one another regularly, perhaps not every week but quite frequently. On the one hand it was in everyone’s interest to bring proceedings quickly to their conclusion, but on the other hand every aspect of the examinations had to be carried out thoroughly without lasting too long because of the associated stress. For these reasons, it had been decided to hold a series of brief examinations following on one after another. Sunday had been chosen as the day for the hearings so that K. would not be disturbed in his professional work. It was assumed that he would be in agreement with this, but if he wished for another date then, as far as possible, he would be accommodated. Cross-examinations could even be held in the night, for instance, but K. would probably not be fresh enough at that time. Anyway, as long as K. made no objection, the hearing would be left on Sundays. It was a matter of course that he would have to appear without fail, there was probably no need to point this out to him. He would be given the number of the building where he was to present himself, which was in a street in a suburb well away from the city centre which K. had never been to before.


#3 THEMOISTDOLPHIN

THEMOISTDOLPHIN

    Junior-Varsity

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts
0
Neutral
  • Name:Evan

Posted 05 December 2017 - 11:46 AM

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!


  • 0





Similar Topics Collapse

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users