homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:47 am
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 20 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Counterplans
PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:59 pm
Posts: 349
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: In my room, reading books
What makes a counterplan legit? Thoughts? :?

_________________
OIW (Obama Isn't Working): http://obamaisntworking.com/splash/stop-the-spending/

Is the private sector doing "fine"? Check this out: http://obamaisntworking.com/videos/


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Counterplans
PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 21, 2010 3:52 am
Posts: 636
Home Schooled: Yes
There aren't any rules, but some of my thoughts are they have to be mutually exclusive, or otherwise competitive (ie, a reason to reject aff plan), nontopical, and use the USFG as an agent.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Counterplans
PostPosted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 6:36 pm 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2955
Home Schooled: Yes
Two things: competitiveness and net benefits. Fundamentally, a counterplan is an opportunity cost disadvantage. It claims that the affirmative plan forfeits the opportunity to achieve the advantages in a better way. Therefore, a counterplan is legitimate if the counterplan alone is better than the plan plus the counterplan (competitiveness) and if it is better than the plan alone (net benefits).

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Counterplans
PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:35 am
Posts: 137
Home Schooled: No
Location: SGV, CA
Nothing makes a counterplan legit. Neg's don't have fiat.

Fairness makes a counterplan legit: the aff gets a plan, so should the neg.

Boredom makes a counterplan legit: debate w/o counterplans = boring debate.

The list can go on and on.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Counterplans
PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:45 am 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2955
Home Schooled: Yes
boredguy8 wrote:
Nothing makes a counterplan legit. Neg's don't have fiat.
They do have fiat in a sense. Aff's fiat comes from the resolution. The parametricized resolution says that the USFG should enact aff's plan, so aff gets to compare the world in which the USFG does enact their plan (aff's fiat) to the world in which it does not enact their plan (neg's default fiat).

Basically, "fiat" is the assumption that a team's advocacy (whether it is a plan, a counterplan, or just sticking with the status quo) does happen. This is assumed for the sake of argument in order to decide whether the assumption should come true. Fiat is not some rule of debate (and I don't think you would claim it to be a rule).

Neg's fiat comes from the opposite of the parametricized resolution. They have fiat in the sense that they can examine the world that occurs from a counterplan which contradicts the parametricized resolution. In relation to the resolution, this is no different from "fiating" that nothing happens. Basically, if neg can examine the future status quo in the same way in which aff can examine the world following aff's plan, then neg can examine the world following the counterplan (which, because of competitiveness, is a world without aff's plan) in the same way. This is called "fiat" by definition.

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Counterplans
PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:35 am
Posts: 137
Home Schooled: No
Location: SGV, CA
Halogen wrote:
boredguy8 wrote:
Nothing makes a counterplan legit. Neg's don't have fiat.
They do have fiat in a sense. Aff's fiat comes from the resolution. The parametricized resolution says that the USFG should enact aff's plan, so aff gets to compare the world in which the USFG does enact their plan (aff's fiat) to the world in which it does not enact their plan (neg's default fiat).

Basically, "fiat" is the assumption that a team's advocacy (whether it is a plan, a counterplan, or just sticking with the status quo) does happen. This is assumed for the sake of argument in order to decide whether the assumption should come true. Fiat is not some rule of debate (and I don't think you would claim it to be a rule).

Neg's fiat comes from the opposite of the parametricized resolution. They have fiat in the sense that they can examine the world that occurs from a counterplan which contradicts the parametricized resolution. In relation to the resolution, this is no different from "fiating" that nothing happens. Basically, if neg can examine the future status quo in the same way in which aff can examine the world following aff's plan, then neg can examine the world following the counterplan (which, because of competitiveness, is a world without aff's plan) in the same way. This is called "fiat" by definition.

Again, you're free to say whatever you want on a theory debate. My point is that there are arguments for and against any argumentative strategy not precluded by the rules.

But you're fundamentally mistaken about the role, nature, and function of fiat. Fiat is derived, as the affirmative, from the word "should" in the resolution. The word "should" allows the affirmative to ignore questions of "Would the United States do such-and-so?" and instead focus on questions of "Should they?"

Insofar as theory can be called a "rule", the affirmative's ability to ignore questions of "would Obama do such-and-so" is universal. (I've never heard an argument as to why the affirmative wouldn't have fiat, except when the resolution doesn't say 'should' in it, which hasn't happened in policy debate for quite a while.) That the negatives equally have access to fiat is far more disputed (though at this point, there's a high bias towards considering the CP a legitimate strategy, broadly speaking).


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Counterplans
PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:40 am 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2955
Home Schooled: Yes
boredguy8 wrote:
Fiat is derived, as the affirmative, from the word "should" in the resolution. The word "should" allows the affirmative to ignore questions of "Would the United States do such-and-so?" and instead focus on questions of "Should they?"
Which is fundamentally what I was saying. Affirmative fiat is derived from "should". Negative fiat is derived from "should not". If aff can ignore questions of "would they" and instead focus on questions of "should they", neg can ignore questions of "would they not" and focus on questions of "should they not". A counterplan, as an opportunity cost DA, is one way of advocating that "they should not".

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Counterplans
PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:35 am
Posts: 137
Home Schooled: No
Location: SGV, CA
The negative does not "have" a "should not". The negative is not affirming a null hypothesis. A vote for the negative does not mean "I think it's true that the United States Federal Government should not significantly reform its policy toward Russia." So yes, a CP *is* advocating "shouldn't do plan", but neg fiat is not derived from a resolution. So you have to look elsewhere for your justification (like fairness, as I highlighted above, or perhaps 'real world' or something). But arguing the neg gets fiat because of "should not" is not going to get you far unless you're debating someone bad at theory.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Counterplans
PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:17 pm
Posts: 1547
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Researching...
Ominous Question:

Does the Affirmative even affirm the resolution at all? 8-)

OooOOooOo

Delta_FC

_________________
Cartman wrote:
Josh R.

Dawn wrote:
Josh R

Yes?
+X wrote:
Hm. Eminem/MNM would mean Delta F_C... oF course

Join the epidemic
Variola Eradication, Geneva, May 2011


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Counterplans
PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:21 pm
Posts: 806
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Running the opposite way
Delta_FC wrote:
Ominous Question:

Does the Affirmative even affirm the resolution at all? 8-)

OooOOooOo

Delta_FC

They should...whether they do or not is entirely relative to their choice of case.

I think counterplans should be mutually exclusive, competitive, and non-topical. Simple, straightforward, and oh so defensible. 8-)

_________________
"Don't waste your life making yourself look good. Spend your life making God look good."
--John Piper


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Counterplans
PostPosted: Thu Nov 11, 2010 10:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:35 am
Posts: 137
Home Schooled: No
Location: SGV, CA
OppositeWay wrote:
and non-topical. Simple, straightforward, and oh so defensible.

Depending on what you mean by "non-topical" it's not particularly defensible at all, really. (See plenty of discussions here and elsewhere.)


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Counterplans
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:16 am
Posts: 170
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Either "I can see Russia from my house" or "::stealing Jacob Dean's location::"
boredguy8 wrote:
A vote for the negative does not mean "I think it's true that the United States Federal Government should not significantly reform its policy toward Russia."
So what does a vote for the NEG mean?

Think clash. A vote for the AFF means "The USFG should significantly reform its policy toward Russia." Otherwise, there is no reason why the AFF should present a case that supports the res. If a vote for the NEG doesn't mean the opposite, then what is the ideological conflict in the round?

_________________
Quote:
Why is irresponsibility automatically a bad thing?

Say wha...? Must I answer?


"The nine most feared words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'" (Ronald Reagan)

Quote:
Insert random statement useful for nothing but narcissism


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Counterplans
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 2:51 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 8:35 am
Posts: 137
Home Schooled: No
Location: SGV, CA
"I voted for the:" with a box by "Affirmative" "Double Loss" and "Negative" is what my ballot says.

You're taking huge steps to from "think clash" to "ergo negation theory is true."

So yes, I do think of clash. Then I think of what the negative has to do. And all they have to do is show why the judge shouldn't vote affirmative. There are plenty of ways to do that beyond negating the resolution.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Counterplans
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 4:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 21, 2010 8:21 pm
Posts: 806
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Running the opposite way
boredguy8 wrote:
"I voted for the:" with a box by "Affirmative" "Double Loss" and "Negative" is what my ballot says.

You're taking huge steps to from "think clash" to "ergo negation theory is true."

So yes, I do think of clash. Then I think of what the negative has to do. And all they have to do is show why the judge shouldn't vote affirmative. There are plenty of ways to do that beyond negating the resolution.

And if the resolution is upheld...why shouldn't you vote affirmative? The affirmative team's plan is a defense of the resolution (much like a logical proof). If the negative team proves the aff plan false/harmful/non-solvent/etc. then the resolution has been negated. If they present an alternate course of action that is superior to/exclusive of the aff plan, then resolution has also been negated. If they present a topical counterplan, they are simply providing an alternate (maybe even better) defense of the resolution. Thus, an affirmative ballot is warranted since their job of upholding the resolution has been fulfilled.

The whole thing about "my ballot says..." never made sense to me...could you explain what having 3 boxes you can check off has to do with CP theory?

_________________
"Don't waste your life making yourself look good. Spend your life making God look good."
--John Piper


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Counterplans
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 7:21 am 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2955
Home Schooled: Yes
boredguy8 wrote:
The negative does not "have" a "should not". The negative is not affirming a null hypothesis. A vote for the negative does not mean "I think it's true that the United States Federal Government should not significantly reform its policy toward Russia." So yes, a CP *is* advocating "shouldn't do plan", but neg fiat is not derived from a resolution. So you have to look elsewhere for your justification (like fairness, as I highlighted above, or perhaps 'real world' or something). But arguing the neg gets fiat because of "should not" is not going to get you far unless you're debating someone bad at theory.
Neg fiat is derived from the parametricized resolution, which is equal to aff's plan.

Neg is affirming a negative hypothesis, i.e. the hypothesis that the USFG should not enact aff's plan. A proof of "should not" is a proof that "should" is false.

Fundamentally, aff fiat is the "if A does B" part of "A should do B, because if A does B, then C will happen." So neg fiat is the "if A does D" part of "A should not do B because (1) if A does B, then A cannot do D and because (2) E will happen only if A does D."

A = USFG; B = plan; C = aff's advantages; D = counterplan; E = neg's advantages

To the question "what makes a counterplan legitimate," I have one answer explained in two different ways.

Plain english: it proves that aff's plan should not happen because the counterplan alone is better than the plan and better than the combination of the plan plus the counterplan.

Debaterish: I first rephrase the question as "what is the source of neg fiat," then define neg fiat as I describe it above, then argue that the source of neg fiat is neg's burden to negate the parametricized resolution.

Your fairness and boredom legitimizations are responses to hypothetical arguments that counterplans consequentially harm debate. That's one way of understanding the word "legitimate" -- you define it as "beneficial" or as "not harmful". The way I understand the "legitimacy" of an argument is "the reason why the argument is a reason to vote for the team that runs it."
Joshthinian wrote:
Otherwise, there is no reason why the AFF should present a case that supports the res. If a vote for the NEG doesn't mean the opposite, then what is the ideological conflict in the round?
Fairness is the reason why aff should present a case that supports the round. It's commonly understood in debate culture that aff is limited to the resolution. People generally limit their research to resolutional topics. Aff should respect that.

The ideological conflict is the conflict over the plan. Aff's resolution is that their plan should happen. Neg's resolution is that aff's plan should not happen. How does this make a counterplan legitimate? If a counterplan is better than the plan and better than the perm, then the plan should not happen (neg's resolution) because the CP should happen instead.
OppositeWay wrote:
If the negative team proves the aff plan false/harmful/non-solvent/etc. then the resolution has been negated.
You're talking about the parametricized resolution (i.e. aff's plan). A proof that aff's plan should not happen is not a proof that the USFG should not significantly reform its policy toward Russia. Aff's plan is not the only way in which the USFG to significantly reform its policy toward Russia.
OppositeWay wrote:
If they present a topical counterplan, they are simply providing an alternate (maybe even better) defense of the resolution.
They're defending the original resolution, which doesn't matter because that's not the resolution being debated. The resolution being debated is the parametricized resolution, which is aff's plan. Anything that negates the parametricized resolution is a negative argument, not an affirmative argument.
OppositeWay wrote:
Thus, an affirmative ballot is warranted since their job of upholding the resolution has been fulfilled.

The whole thing about "my ballot says..." never made sense to me...could you explain what having 3 boxes you can check off has to do with CP theory?
Voting aff means "I voted for the affirmative team", not "I voted that the USFG should significantly reform its policy toward Russia." This is significant because the act of running a specific plan means that aff's resolution is their plan, not the original resolution. Unless a kritikal framework is run, "I voted aff" = "I am persuaded that aff's parametricized resolution is true."

I think this is the most straightforward argument in favor of topical counterplans: if aff runs a plan, and if the judge is persuaded that aff's plan should not happen, then aff should lose. It's as simple as that. How can aff win if neg successfully beats their plan? Aff certainly hasn't done the necessary work to defend their plan, so how can they earn the ballot?

Again, let's tie this to the original question: a topical counterplan is legitimate (i.e. a reason to vote negative) because it is a reason why aff's plan should not happen. It is a reason why aff's plan should not happen because it is an opportunity sacrificed by aff's plan.

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Counterplans
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 8:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:54 am
Posts: 321
Home Schooled: Yes
boredguy8 wrote:
So yes, I do think of clash. Then I think of what the negative has to do. And all they have to do is show why the judge shouldn't vote affirmative. There are plenty of ways to do that beyond negating the resolution.


Showing the judge any reason why he/she should vote negative IS proving that they should negate the resolution.

Affirming the resolution simply means proving that it is a true statement. Proving anything else proves that it is false. Therefore showing the judge any reason to not believe that the resolution is true, is negating the resolution. Counterplan or no counterplan.

_________________
Caleb Howell (Alumnus), former President of In Veritate Victoria (Derby, KS).


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Counterplans
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 8:38 pm 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2955
Home Schooled: Yes
curlyhairedmenace wrote:
Showing the judge any reason why he/she should vote negative IS proving that they should negate the resolution.
A language kritik is a reason to vote negative, but it doesn't negate the resolution.

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Counterplans
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 11:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 18, 2010 4:54 am
Posts: 321
Home Schooled: Yes
Halogen wrote:
curlyhairedmenace wrote:
Showing the judge any reason why he/she should vote negative IS proving that they should negate the resolution.
A language kritik is a reason to vote negative, but it doesn't negate the resolution.


Um..I'm a second year tp debater with no coach. What is a language kritik?

_________________
Caleb Howell (Alumnus), former President of In Veritate Victoria (Derby, KS).


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Counterplans
PostPosted: Fri Nov 12, 2010 11:45 pm 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2955
Home Schooled: Yes
A language kritik is when neg argues that aff's case contains harmful language and that the judge should therefore vote negative. There are a variety of frameworks (reasons why aff's harmful language should lead to a negative ballot) and impacts that neg can run, but a possible impact is that the judge should vote negative in order to avoid rewarding such language. In this case, neg has given the judge a reason to vote negative without negating the resolution.

In other words, unlike a counterplan, the source of its legitimacy in the debate is not neg's burden to negate aff's plan -- the source of its legitimacy is neg's new framework.

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Counterplans
PostPosted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 2:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 12:16 am
Posts: 170
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Either "I can see Russia from my house" or "::stealing Jacob Dean's location::"
Halogen wrote:
Neg fiat is derived from the parametricized resolution, which is equal to aff's plan.
I don't understand why this follows. What is your reasoning here?
Halogen wrote:
Fundamentally, aff fiat is the "if A does B" part of "A should do B, because if A does B, then C will happen." So neg fiat is the "if A does D" part of "A should not do B because (1) if A does B, then A cannot do D and because (2) E will happen only if A does D."
A = USFG; B = plan; C = aff's advantages; D = counterplan; E = neg's advantages
This is one way for the NEG to run a counterplan. If the NEG says that F (another actor) instead of A should be the one to do either B or D, that would also be a counterplan that contradicted the AFF case.
Halogen wrote:
Joshthinian wrote:
Otherwise, there is no reason why the AFF should present a case that supports the res. If a vote for the NEG doesn't mean the opposite, then what is the ideological conflict in the round?
Fairness is the reason why aff should present a case that supports the round. It's commonly understood in debate culture that aff is limited to the resolution. People generally limit their research to resolutional topics. Aff should respect that.
Fairness sounds whiny. Besides everything is up for debate in the round, including what is commonly accepted in debate culture. The much stronger argument to make is the one that convinced the debate culture that this should be commonly accepted in the first place. Isn't that enough?
Halogen wrote:
The ideological conflict is the conflict over the plan.
I'm sorry, but I thought I just saw you write that the ideological conflict in the round is over the pragmatic expression of opposing ideologies. I define plan as a pragmatic expression of the ideal presented by the resolution.
Halogen wrote:
OppositeWay wrote:
If the negative team proves the aff plan false/harmful/non-solvent/etc. then the resolution has been negated.
You're talking about the parametricized resolution (i.e. aff's plan). A proof that aff's plan should not happen is not a proof that the USFG should not significantly reform its policy toward Russia. Aff's plan is not the only way in which the USFG to significantly reform its policy toward Russia.
This goes back to burden of proof (and a fundamental disagreement about the legitimacy of parametrics). The AFF must prove that the resolution is true, in at least one instance. They present that one instance in the 1AC, and the rest of the round focuses on that. To defeat the AFF attempts to fulfill their burden of proof, the NEG must show that either this instance of the resolution is bad, or that the AFF is actually defending a NEG position on the resolution (i.e. winning T). If the NEG advocates another policy that also confirms the AFF side of the resolution, then they are doing the AFF's job for them. They don't change anything by saying that their instance is even better than the one presented by the AFF. See OppositeWay's summary below:
OppositeWay wrote:
If they present a topical counterplan, they are simply providing an alternate (maybe even better) defense of the resolution.

Halogen wrote:
They're defending the original resolution, which doesn't matter because that's not the resolution being debated. The resolution being debated is the parametricized resolution, which is aff's plan. Anything that negates the parametricized resolution is a negative argument, not an affirmative argument.
Great explanation of parametric theory. I believe that your premise is incorrect, so for me, this is a great indirect proof debunking the hypothesis (not theory) ;) of parametrics.
Halogen wrote:
Voting aff means "I voted for the affirmative team", not "I voted that the USFG should significantly reform its policy toward Russia."
Then what does "I voted for the affirmative team" mean? In my understanding of debate theory, "I voted for the affirmative team" MEANS "I voted that the USFG should significantly reform its policy toward Russia." I don't see how you can say that these two are in any sense contradictory
Halogen wrote:
I think this is the most straightforward argument in favor of topical counterplans: if aff runs a plan, and if the judge is persuaded that aff's plan should not happen, then aff should lose. It's as simple as that.
Why is this the case? I believe it is because the NEG side of the resolution has defeated the AFF side of the resolution in this particular round. Thus, this is true in most instances (i.e. the ones in which the NEG presents a direct refutation of the AFF case. However, when the NEG attacks in a different way, they risk surrendering the underlying assumptions that give them equal ground in the debate.
Halogen wrote:
How can aff win if neg successfully beats their plan? Aff certainly hasn't done the necessary work to defend their plan, so how can they earn the ballot?
They don't have to do the work if the NEG does it for them.

_________________
Quote:
Why is irresponsibility automatically a bad thing?

Say wha...? Must I answer?


"The nine most feared words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'" (Ronald Reagan)

Quote:
Insert random statement useful for nothing but narcissism


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 20 posts ] 

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited