I ran eight or nine or so during my time... I think I ended up winning all but one.
I think that one was me... fun times.
Also, holy cow I'm old.
Judge reception to topical CPs will always be... mixed.
Topical CPs actually win more often than they probably should, mostly not because the Neg mounts a particularly good defense, but rather because the judge doesn't really understand what's going on and goes with whichever plan sounds better. As a coach, I can't in good conscience advise teams to run topical CPs just to capitalize on judges' ignorance, but if you genuinely believe in them, you're prepared to mount a good defense, and you're OK with having a lot of unpredictable rounds and/or frustrated opponents - have at it! You might just win.
I have some notoriety in this issue because of my mildly notable blog post about parametrics
; strangely, though, as a judge, I have no problem with topical counterplans. I'll probably be more naturally sympathetic to a well-reasoned defense of rezcentrism than a well-reasoned defense of a topical CP, but either is a good show if you argue it well.
I think I've also gotten more ambivalent about the whole issue over the years. I still think rezcentrism is a more elegant and theoretically coherent framework, but honestly, viewing the debate from a purely team-versus-team, plan-versus-plan framework usually works fine. (I still think parametrics is stupid, though. It's a bizarre compromise solution to a nonexistent problem that accomplishes nothing except to give smug second-years a way to confuse novices. If you're going to run a topical CP, at least have the decency not to pretend you're still debating for and against the resolution.
_________________Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe
- "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook
- NCFCA/Stoa (thread)Factsmith research software
- v1.5 currently available (thread)Loose Nukes debate blog
- stuff to read with your eyes.