homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Sun Nov 19, 2017 2:15 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




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:17 pm
Posts: 59
Home Schooled: Yes
sons_of_thunder wrote:
I just had a thought: What if there are two possible solutions, let's say between a constitutional amendment and a statute, and the affirmative is promoting the constitutional amendment? Would it be a valid neg argument to say that because it's easier to get a statute passed than a constitutional amendment, then a counter plan doing that would be better?


I don't quite think that would work, mainly bc debaters try to not pass amendments (it is hard to get a judge to pass an amendment) so they only do them when they are absolutely necessary i.e. Term Limits or Retention Elections. So my guess is your statute change would be shot down by a good team, although a novice-ish team might pull out a case which they haven't run by anyone that includes an amendment but the chances of that are slim.

_________________
Hammy wrote:
Noah is right


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1377
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
sons_of_thunder wrote:
I just had a thought: What if there are two possible solutions, let's say between a constitutional amendment and a statute, and the affirmative is promoting the constitutional amendment? Would it be a valid neg argument to say that because it's easier to get a statute passed than a constitutional amendment, then a counter plan doing that would be better?

Fiat power takes care of the question of whether or not it would actually happen. The only ground that you would have to run this counter plan is if you could somehow show how there is a unique disadvantage to a constitutional amendment in this case. It's highly unlikely such reasoning would exist and most judges would probably vote against you for trying to cheese your way to victory. :P

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 7:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2889
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
sons_of_thunder wrote:
I just had a thought: What if there are two possible solutions, let's say between a constitutional amendment and a statute, and the affirmative is promoting the constitutional amendment? Would it be a valid neg argument to say that because it's easier to get a statute passed than a constitutional amendment, then a counter plan doing that would be better?

Whether or not a counterplan is legitimate depends on whether there is "competition," which can be tested with a "permutation" or perm.

A perm is a test to see if the world with the counterplan is better than the world with the plan AND the counterplan. If the world with just the counterplan is better, then there's competition--there's some reason that we can't (or shouldn't) do both.

In your case, I can't really see a reason not to have both a statute and a constitutional amendment.

(As an aside, the others are generally right; there are few cases where a statute would be better than an amendment.)

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:14 pm
Posts: 51
Home Schooled: Yes
I see. Another question. (Sorry, but as I said, I'm new to this… I've only been in 1 qualifier so far) Among the ranks of possible neg arguments, stock issues, topicality, disadvantages, etc., where would counter plans rank in terms of strength of argument?

_________________
- Joshua Beckman
Region X

Beckman/Hopkins 2015-2016
LD 2016-2017
Ellerslie Discipleship Training Summer 2017
http://www.ellerslie.com


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:17 pm
Posts: 59
Home Schooled: Yes
sons_of_thunder wrote:
I see. Another question. (Sorry, but as I said, I'm new to this… I've only been in 1 qualifier so far) Among the ranks of possible neg arguments, stock issues, topicality, disadvantages, etc., where would counter plans rank in terms of strength of argument?


Depends on the strength of the counter-plan. My partner and I run inferred counter-plans so they fall on the level of DA's (i.e. if you pass this you don't pass something better). However, some teams run an all out counter-plan which falls on the level of Suicide T, either you win on it or lose bc you didn't run anything else. Does that answer you question?

_________________
Hammy wrote:
Noah is right


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 2:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:14 pm
Posts: 51
Home Schooled: Yes
NerdRipper7 wrote:
Does that answer you question?


Yes, thanks.

_________________
- Joshua Beckman
Region X

Beckman/Hopkins 2015-2016
LD 2016-2017
Ellerslie Discipleship Training Summer 2017
http://www.ellerslie.com


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1377
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
NerdRipper7 wrote:
My partner and I run inferred counter-plans so they fall on the level of DA's (i.e. if you pass this you don't pass something better).

Inferred counter plans are dangerous because they showcase a lack of commitment. I've had a good bit of success by arguing sticking to your guns against inferred counter plans. You press neg to either commit (claim their advantages) or to abandon (their plan doesn't pass).

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:13 pm
Posts: 471
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Purcellville, VA
Hammy wrote:
NerdRipper7 wrote:
My partner and I run inferred counter-plans so they fall on the level of DA's (i.e. if you pass this you don't pass something better).

Inferred counter plans are dangerous because they showcase a lack of commitment. I've had a good bit of success by arguing sticking to your guns against inferred counter plans. You press neg to either commit (claim their advantages) or to abandon (their plan doesn't pass).
I disagree. Implied CPs are perfectly acceptable. It's about the concept of opportunity cost. If you pass the affirmative team's plan, you lose the opportunity/political capital to make XYZ better reform. Of course, it has to be impacted correctly. But I think that implied CPs are valid - we've used them all the time with great success.

_________________
RIX Alum | Patrick Henry College | Class of 2019


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:17 pm
Posts: 59
Home Schooled: Yes
marinadelayne wrote:
Hammy wrote:
NerdRipper7 wrote:
My partner and I run inferred counter-plans so they fall on the level of DA's (i.e. if you pass this you don't pass something better).

Inferred counter plans are dangerous because they showcase a lack of commitment. I've had a good bit of success by arguing sticking to your guns against inferred counter plans. You press neg to either commit (claim their advantages) or to abandon (their plan doesn't pass).
I disagree. Implied CPs are perfectly acceptable. It's about the concept of opportunity cost. If you pass the affirmative team's plan, you lose the opportunity/political capital to make XYZ better reform. Of course, it has to be impacted correctly. But I think that implied CPs are valid - we've used them all the time with great success.

Exactly, I stick to my guns as in I stick to the argument that you have the wrong reform. If there is a legitimate problem I can't deny that but I can say you don't solve for it in the best way and in fact your own evidence advocates a different reform. I don't claim advantages, give mandates, or even do a traditional compare and contrast, my point is the AFF reform isn't the best reform the bill should be amended/we should pass a different bill altogether but as far as this round is concerned an AFF ballot is unwarranted.

_________________
Hammy wrote:
Noah is right


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1377
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
marinadelayne wrote:
I disagree. Implied CPs are perfectly acceptable.

I never argued that they are illegitimate, just that they are relatively easy to defeat.

NerdRipper7 wrote:
Exactly, I stick to my guns as in I stick to the argument that you have the wrong reform. If there is a legitimate problem I can't deny that but I can say you don't solve for it in the best way and in fact your own evidence advocates a different reform. I don't claim advantages, give mandates, or even do a traditional compare and contrast, my point is the AFF reform isn't the best reform the bill should be amended/we should pass a different bill altogether but as far as this round is concerned an AFF ballot is unwarranted.

You make a valid point, but all Aff has to do is link to two worlds and weigh accordingly. The judge isn't making a choice between the Aff world and the Neg possibilities but rather the Aff world and the Neg world. Now if you have arguments of why the Aff plan won't work, perfect, Solvency. But if you aren't presenting a counter plan of your idea then the judge has no reason to side with you other than the status quo. The mere possibility of a plan taking place is generally unconvincing and won't win many judges over.

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:14 pm
Posts: 51
Home Schooled: Yes
Hammy wrote:
The mere possibility of a plan taking place is generally unconvincing and won't win many judges over.


As long as the Aff team argues the right way and exposes that.

_________________
- Joshua Beckman
Region X

Beckman/Hopkins 2015-2016
LD 2016-2017
Ellerslie Discipleship Training Summer 2017
http://www.ellerslie.com


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:17 pm
Posts: 59
Home Schooled: Yes
Hammy wrote:
NerdRipper7 wrote:
Exactly, I stick to my guns as in I stick to the argument that you have the wrong reform. If there is a legitimate problem I can't deny that but I can say you don't solve for it in the best way and in fact your own evidence advocates a different reform. I don't claim advantages, give mandates, or even do a traditional compare and contrast, my point is the AFF reform isn't the best reform the bill should be amended/we should pass a different bill altogether but as far as this round is concerned an AFF ballot is unwarranted.

You make a valid point, but all Aff has to do is link to two worlds and weigh accordingly. The judge isn't making a choice between the Aff world and the Neg possibilities but rather the Aff world and the Neg world. Now if you have arguments of why the Aff plan won't work, perfect, Solvency. But if you aren't presenting a counter plan of your idea then the judge has no reason to side with you other than the status quo. The mere possibility of a plan taking place is generally unconvincing and won't win many judges over.


Not so fast, that is why people reject inferred counter-plans but it is actually one of the easiest arguments to beat. All you do is run a congressional permutation. The AFF world passes an ineffective policy with XYZ DAs, The NEG world on the other hand rejects the bad policy in favor of looking at better more competitive policies and passing one of those after the merits and DAs of each have been debated. The AFF team's plan is still failed just in a different mindset.

_________________
Hammy wrote:
Noah is right


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1377
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
NerdRipper7 wrote:
Not so fast, that is why people reject inferred counter-plans but it is actually one of the easiest arguments to beat. All you do is run a congressional permutation. The AFF world passes an ineffective policy with XYZ DAs, The NEG world on the other hand rejects the bad policy in favor of looking at better more competitive policies and passing one of those after the merits and DAs of each have been debated. The AFF team's plan is still failed just in a different mindset.

But there's no point then. If you have XYZ DAs, then why bother with the whole mindset idea? All Neg has to do is show that the Aff plan is a wrong move. Unless there is a plan currently being implemented (Inherency) then you're just blowing smoke with no impact.

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 4:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:13 pm
Posts: 471
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Purcellville, VA
Hammy wrote:
NerdRipper7 wrote:
Not so fast, that is why people reject inferred counter-plans but it is actually one of the easiest arguments to beat. All you do is run a congressional permutation. The AFF world passes an ineffective policy with XYZ DAs, The NEG world on the other hand rejects the bad policy in favor of looking at better more competitive policies and passing one of those after the merits and DAs of each have been debated. The AFF team's plan is still failed just in a different mindset.

But there's no point then. If you have XYZ DAs, then why bother with the whole mindset idea? All Neg has to do is show that the Aff plan is a wrong move. Unless there is a plan currently being implemented (Inherency) then you're just blowing smoke with no impact.
If you explain opportunity cost/political capital, then the implied CP is a DA.

_________________
RIX Alum | Patrick Henry College | Class of 2019


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 4:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2889
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
sons_of_thunder wrote:
I see. Another question. (Sorry, but as I said, I'm new to this… I've only been in 1 qualifier so far) Among the ranks of possible neg arguments, stock issues, topicality, disadvantages, etc., where would counter plans rank in terms of strength of argument?

I won all but one counterplan I ran over my four year career, and I probably ran at least a dozen.

If you understand them better than everyone else and practice explaining the theory in common terms, they become very powerful. I'd recommend thinking about them a lot, even if you don't run them. They really help you develop a solid understanding of debate. But it's also very easy to become "that team" that just runs CPs for the heck of it. There's a happy medium somewhere. :)

Side note: if you run the same arguments as everyone else against really good affirmatives, you will lose unless you run them better than everyone else. If you run different arguments, however....

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 5:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:17 pm
Posts: 59
Home Schooled: Yes
Hammy wrote:
NerdRipper7 wrote:
Not so fast, that is why people reject inferred counter-plans but it is actually one of the easiest arguments to beat. All you do is run a congressional permutation. The AFF world passes an ineffective policy with XYZ DAs, The NEG world on the other hand rejects the bad policy in favor of looking at better more competitive policies and passing one of those after the merits and DAs of each have been debated. The AFF team's plan is still failed just in a different mindset.

But there's no point then. If you have XYZ DAs, then why bother with the whole mindset idea? All Neg has to do is show that the Aff plan is a wrong move. Unless there is a plan currently being implemented (Inherency) then you're just blowing smoke with no impact.


Because XYZ DAs are outweighed, they say the DAs don't matter comparatively, you say the DAs can easily be avoided by changing the plan to inferred counter-plan.

_________________
Hammy wrote:
Noah is right


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 9:34 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1377
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
NerdRipper7 wrote:
Because XYZ DAs are outweighed, they say the DAs don't matter comparatively, you say the DAs can easily be avoided by changing the plan to inferred counter-plan.

Could you explain this further? It's not making sense to me. :)

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 1:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:17 pm
Posts: 59
Home Schooled: Yes
Hammy wrote:
NerdRipper7 wrote:
Because XYZ DAs are outweighed, they say the DAs don't matter comparatively, you say the DAs can easily be avoided by changing the plan to inferred counter-plan.

Could you explain this further? It's not making sense to me. :)

Sure, Its basically saying their ADV outweigh you DA's so in order to counteract that your counter plan them with a plan that doesn't have those DAs providing a reason to negate the resolution. Make sense?

_________________
Hammy wrote:
Noah is right


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 2:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1377
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
NerdRipper7 wrote:
Sure, Its basically saying their ADV outweigh you DA's so in order to counteract that your counter plan them with a plan that doesn't have those DAs providing a reason to negate the resolution. Make sense?

Yep, got it. :) But their advantages still outweigh your inferred counter plan because nothing actually happens on a neg ballot, just an obscure possibility that something might happen if we leave the status quo alone. The real problem is that your DAs can't outweigh their advantages. It would be more convincing to de-link their advantages or to buff your DAs, otherwise, the judge makes a choice between a plan with benefits (shown by outweighing your DAs) or the chance that one day the plan will be solved.

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:19 pm
Posts: 123
Home Schooled: Yes
Hammy wrote:
But their advantages still outweigh your inferred counter plan because nothing actually happens on a neg ballot, just an obscure possibility that something might happen if we leave the status quo alone.

This is where knowing solid debate theory is helpful.
1. Most debaters (and judges) view TP as a policy discussion. (Many people use the analogy of congress, however, that's not completely accurate because the actor in most resolutions is the US federal government as a whole not just the legislative branch.)
2. In a policy discussion it would be rather ridiculous for the federal government to say, "Plan B > Plan A > Status Quo but since Plan A was introduced first and B is similar to it we're going to go with Plan A." In a policy discussion, proposing a counter solution that is better than the original solution (competitive), and can not be done if the original plan is passed (mutually exclusive) refutes the first solution. In other words, if a plan would eliminate the opportunity for the actor in the situation to do something better than that plan is a bad idea.
3. The argument of "the government probably won't pass your implied CP" is rather weird if you understand that the judge you are arguing to is pretending to be the government for the sake of the debate. That should never be a reason for a policy maker (what the judge is pretending to be) to pass a plan that he thinks is worse than an alternative. I think this is what you disagree with. The problem is your assumption that "nothing actually happens on a neg ballot." A neg ballot is not necessarily a vote for the status quo, (if you believed that you would have to decry all CPs as illegitimate) it's a vote against the affirmative team. And the possibilities of what the judge could do after rejecting the affirmative team's plan are endless. The judge could say "I reject the affirmative plan because the status quo is better." Or they could say, "I reject the affirmative team's plan because this other option is better and if this were real policy making I wouldn't support Aff's plan when I knew this better option existed." Both are negative ballots.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

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