PLAN-PLAN THREAD
AKA, "Competition Sucks"
The Complete CEDA-L Thread
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 11:33:24 -0500
From: mk48@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (Michael Miroslav Korcok)
To: ceda-l@cornell.edu
Subject: COMPETITION SUCKS
well, not really, but i do want to start a thread that might interest folks.
i can't think of any simple reasons to reject
TOPICAL but NONCOMPETITIVE counterplans.
to avoid possible copyright violations, i'll mention here that this is NOT
my idea originally: at dinner last night, ***JEFF WOODS***, a future star on
our squad, asked (while Meg was discussing Hopper or someone ...) why these
could not be legitimate negative arguments. all i could say at the time,
was "well, i dunno, let me think about it. (stuff mouth with Chinese food)"
now that i've thought about it, i STILL don't have a good answer.
meets all the easy tests:
1) ground is fine:
a) one possible world vs. one possible world,
b) negative ground is CONSTRAINED. not by competition anymore, but now by
topicality. of course, there IS a second-order ground effect: if 1nc could
run EITHER a competitive OR a topical counterplan (or a counterplan which is
both, of course) then negative ground IS expanded by the set of TOPICAL but
NONCOMPETITIVE counterplan worlds. whether or not this is too much negative
ground would seem to me to depend on the RESOLUTION and is certainly
debatable rather than obvious. negative COULD be willing to commit to ONLY
topical noncompetitive counterplans in 1nc.
c) nothing OBVIOUSLY abusive comes to mind. plan plus a buck counterplans
are now legitimized, but aff should word plan as normal means and intent or
be able to defend any PARTICULAR levels of resource use that they specify.
similarly, plan a day earlier is now ok, but, like above, aff should either
NOT specify implementation timing or be prepared to defend any timing which
IS specified. Mark Jones' considerations of "substantial difference"
between plan and counterplan might be an additional constraint rather than
merely counterplan is DIFFERENT than plan.
2) there is no longer FORCED CHOICE, but so what?
at the end of the debate, the judge still has to vote either aff or neg.
still decides between plan or counterplan. the counterplan may NOT be a
reason to reject the plan, but it IS one of two DIFFERENT options available
to the critic.
competitiveness testing has become an arcane and over-developed art anyway -
don't need to worry about net benefits, permutations, mutual exclusivity,
etc. with THESE counterplans. neg shows that counterplan is not plan and
that counterplan IS TOPICAL.
3) "plan focus" would need modification, but these are cruddy arguments anyway:
if the judge decides for or against the plan, then topical noncompetitive
counterplans are irrelevant: they do not FORCE CHOICE with the plan. well,
so what? why aff gets to hoodwink folks into "plan focus" still escapes me.
these arguments are almost entirely self-serving snippets of assertion and
whine. almost all of them are also GROUND arguments PREMISED on the
ASSumption that the ALTERNATIVE is whole-rez or rez-focus: almost all of
them are useless against THIS alternative. aff picks their plan world from
the set of topical possible worlds. neg picks their counterplan world from
the same set of topical possible worlds. the debate is a comparison between
them and the better one wins.
4) clash is fine:
big motivation to run disads to aff plan and disads to neg counterplan. the
clash is appropriately comparison-based.
5) reciprocal research pressures and creativity pressures exist
aff has to research negative counterplans and the comparisons to THEIR plan,
while negative has to research aff plans and the comparisons to THEIR
counterplans. aff no longer gets to be lazy running the same damned aff
arguments round after round - now they have the same pain that the neg has
scrambling to research. neg now DOES potentially get to sit on their
counterplan a little more, but so what? also, if these delegitimize, OTHER
negative approaches, then both aff and neg research becomes focussed on the
resolutions at hand -- nontopical counterplan ev doesn't need to be lugged
around anymore.
anyway, if there IS a problem, it ain't obvious to me. and there ARE
potential advantages:
1) less worry about whether a RESOLUTION divides ground fairly between aff
and neg - both aff and neg are constrained to the same ground (if neg is
ONLY running TOPICAL NONCOMPETITIVE counterplans because they choose to or
because we have decided that other kinds of counterplans are uncool or
because aff/neg wins the theory arguments).
2) TOPICALITY mutates ELEGANTLY:
a) negative T now becomes RECIPROCAL: the violations apply to both aff plan
and neg counterplan. T is nasty because it is a free shot for neg now -
this way it is the double-edged sword it ought to be. perhaps an
auto-reverse voter. if both plan and counterplan are nontopical i'm not
sure who wins, but i don't think that this is an unsolvable problem -
perhaps the team that FIRST RAISED the violation that dooms both plan and
counterplan LOSES. just deserts for making the round more miserable. if
the plan and counterplan lose different violations, then there needs to be a
COMPARISON between the quality of the two different T positions, etc.
b) standards-counterstandards becomes de-emphasized: each neg standard makes
their counterplan more likely to become nontopical, each aff counterstandard
makes counterplan topicality easier to meet. each side now needs to be more
cautious when presenting these gems of lucidity.
3) no non-topical fiat nightmares:
aff and neg both get resolutional fiat constraints. goodbye counterplan
fiat limitations angst.
4) EASY, EASY, EASY to understand
the busdriver doesn't get confused by "well, the affirmative isn't really
proving the resolution true, they indecipherable jargon ..." anyone can
understand:
decide if you like the affirmative plan or the negative counterplan better.
the resolution only specifies the policy they need to advocate.
anyway, pretty neat idea. i know, i know, it was proposed first by someone
else long ago or something... until someone shows that, i give the initial
credit to JEFF WOODS, future Cornell debate star.
:) michaeel korcok :)
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 12:49:13 -0500
From: BATESBENJ@urvax.urich.edu
To: Michael Miroslav Korcok <mk48@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: COMPETITION SUCKS
Competition is key to having two plans weighed against one
another. If the neg should run a non-competitional CP, then there are
three possible scenarios for the judge to follow.
1) The aff plan doesn't fly because it has no solvency or advantages to
it. Regardless of whether or not there is a CP, competitional or not,
won't really matter because any judge from proffessionals to bus drivers
can see that the Aff plan will not work, so why bother doing it. maybe
this judge would buy a non-competitional CP, but the ballot would be
based on the fact that the aff doesn't work, not on the basis that the
Neg has a better plan out there... it woul donly be frosting on the cake.
2) The aff perms the non-competitional CP. If it's not competitional,
the neg really has no defense againt this attack. All the Aff has to do
is get up and say, "look, our plan's great, their plan's great, there's
nothing saying that we can't do both of them, so the CP doesn't give you
a reason to drop us." That's why a CP has to be competitional... if they
don't compete then there is absolutely no reason not to accept the aff.
3) The judge gets really confused. Many judges have just gotten all of
the rules down pat. They have figured out certain rules, one of which
has classically been that if, and only iff, the Neg presents a CP then it
should be non-T and it should be competitional. By overturning one of
the classical rules of CP, it may well confuse the judge (and your
opponents). If he/she/it gets confused, which is
likly to happen with inexperienced judges or judges who don't have much
training in debate, then they are going to go on the basis of
presentation alone. This may be a total toss-up for the two teams, but
many judges will buy into the team that it thinks is following the rules
of debate and public speaking the best.
Of course, there may be a few other scenarios, but these three are the
ones that I think are the most likely... and two of them do not bode
well for the neg. The other scenario is one where the neg would win
without a CP of any kind, let alone a risky new one.
It is an interesting idea to try out non-competitional CP's, but
I think that a large number of people simply will not accept the
idea that you are having two policies go head to head, even
though they don't exclude each other. If there's no reason you
can't do both, then why not do both.
However, be adventurous, pioneer an new concept, and best'o'luck to ye.
BENJAMIN R. BATES I (The I exists even though I don't have kids)
UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND (Where I go to school)
BATESBENJ@URVAX.URICH.EDU (My e-mail adress)
1463 (# of pages in Les Miserables)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 13:01:47 -0500
From: "Matthew K. Roskoski" <mroskoski@CCTR.UMKC.EDU>
To: ceda-l@cornell.edu
Subject: Mike & Woods Are On Whippets
Well, not really, but the COMPETITION SUCKS argument has us wondering...
Once I finished running around my apartment screaming "What!?" and tearing my
hair, I paused briefly to fetch Randi so she could make and I could type the
following lucid argument:
There's always one or two true cases within the scope of the resolution, to
which there just aren't any acceptable disads. I will recite examples:
Emory's Homosexual Panic case
SMS's CBMs to India case
KSU's women should fight back against rapists case
Now, we're not saying that there are "NO" arguments to be made against these
cases but rather that the affirmative arguments (in an environment of roughly
equally skilled advocates and equal time) will crush the negative arguments.
As an aside, if you think negatives should get counterplans at all, you
fundamentally must endorse this view. We originally gave counterplans to the
negative to acknowledge that "yes, sometimes the status quo does suck in a
topical way." We noticed that there were a few affirmatives that it was almost
impossible to negate in the standard way because they were genuinely "true."
IF that is the case AND we shift to the Korcok/Woods alternative view of
counterplan burdens, THEN reasonably competent negatives will evidence an
amazing win ratio. Here's the Roskoski/Vickers (alphabetical order only...)
generic negative strategy number 1 for the punishment topic:
Do the plan plus repeal the homosexual panic defense.
What's the aff gonna do? Well, they can't argue that it doesn't compete,
thereby proving that it might be irrelevant. They could try to say it's not
topical, but I don't think they'll succeed (remember, we have the block.
Incidentally, YAWEH him/herself help affirmatives on bidirectional topics).
They could run disads to repealing the homosexual panic defense. Yeah, that
ever did anybody much good... (remember, it has to be a disad they don't get.
Vermont had one, but Emory had decent link turns.) I think what the aff will
do is bend over.
Incidentally, there's another problem. We think differentiating counterplans
that are too similar to the plan (i.e. plan plus one buck, plan for one more
person, plan but agents in sexier uniforms, plan plus pat Korcok on the head)
is impossible without the tool of competition. Remember, it's damn hard to do
in the present world where we do have competition.
Randi & Matt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Matthew K. Roskoski | "Extremely pompous quote to make you think I read |
| UMKC Debate Forum | fine literature in the bathroom on a daily basis." |
| Kansas City, MO | Random Pompous Person |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 14:39:22 -0500
From: LUCHETTIS@urvax.urich.edu
To: CEDA-L Listserver <ceda-l@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: COMPETITION SUCKS
Hmm.. Well an interesting idea, actually I remember hearing about this,
tho. I never saw it in HS. I'll see if I can find anything in my files
for or against this idea... I do however have one idea...
There was a comment on who would win if both lose T. Well, to my
knowledge, I believe Neg could run a conditional CP, then have the right
to sever, defend Status Quo, and take out Solvency, winning the round.
Hey it may not be pretty, but I believe it is possible.
Another thing. From what I know about CEDA, you shouldn't really have to
search for reasons to possibly reject the idea. It appears that you are
searching for the subsection in the Official CEDA Rulebook that says you
can or can't do this. There is no CEDA rulebook - that, as I understand
it, is one of the big things about CEDA, and from what I've seen so far
(One semester) that's one of the things I like about CEDA. If your
dedaters want to try to run a Topical Noncompetitive CP, tell 'em to give
the judge all the reasons you just posted, and let the rest of us come up
with arguments why it can't be done, and why those reasons are crap.
Just keep in mind that what you have posted here is public domain, and
there is no reason why the rest of us can't use any of this in our own
rounds...
> 2) TOPICALITY mutates ELEGANTLY:
> a) negative T now becomes RECIPROCAL: the violations apply to both aff plan
> and neg counterplan. T is nasty because it is a free shot for neg now -
> this way it is the double-edged sword it ought to be. perhaps an
> auto-reverse voter. if both plan and counterplan are nontopical i'm not
> sure who wins, but i don't think that this is an unsolvable problem -
> perhaps the team that FIRST RAISED the violation that dooms both plan and
> counterplan LOSES. just deserts for making the round more miserable. if
> the plan and counterplan lose different violations, then there needs to be a
> COMPARISON between the quality of the two different T positions, etc.
Scott Luchetti
Univ. of Richmond
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 16:07:48 -0500
From: Thompson Brad S <bst363s@nic.smsu.edu>
To: Michael Miroslav Korcok <mk48@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: COMPETITION SUCKS
If competition is eliminated as a standard for a legitimate
counterplan then the negative will win every time. The reason is
simple. It is very difficult to win a disad to the counterplan. Unless
the negative block is either slow or stupid or both then the 1AR is
screwed if they have to go for the disad to the counterplan. Not only do
you have to crush the disads or case turns but you most likely must deal
with topicality/kritiks and then win a case advantage. I'm not
complaining just because Hopper is slow - this is a very, VERY difficult
task for a greecy fast, smart 1AR even against a mediocre team. This is why we
always go for the competition
arguments on the counterplan in the 1AR. If that option is eliminated then
the Affirmative is screwed. The block will always have enough time to
win the counterplan and a disad. Think about, Mike, the 2NC spends 8
minutes answering the disad to the counterplan and turning or mitigating
case and then the 1NR sits on a disad to the case for 5 minutes. Game
over. Maybe I have a natural inclination toward the Aff. but this idea
seems at best absurd, Mike. Why make it MORE difficult for Cornell to
win Aff rounds? : )
Brad Thompson, SMS Debate.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 15:42:21 -0500
From: "Matthew K. Roskoski" <mroskoski@CCTR.UMKC.EDU>
To: ceda-l@cornell.edu
Subject: More Whippets for Korcok
We're pretty sure we know who wins if both plan and counterplan are
non-topical. Neg wins. Only affirmatives have the burden of upholding the
rez/an example thereof. For negs, it is just an option.
You know that because they don't HAVE to run a topical noncompetitive
counterplan. Rather, such a counterplan is just an option. Hence, if the
optional counterplan is proven nontopical, it goes away. If the mandatory plan
is proven nontopical, the affirmative loses.
Even if you don't subscribe to the "nontopical plan is a proceedural voting
issue" argument, you can still assume negatives win on presumption. If both
the plan and the counterplan are removed due to nontopicality, then no warrant
for anything exists at all. In that situation, the affirmative fails to meet
their (extremely small - note for Pat) burden of proof.
Randi & Matt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Matthew K. Roskoski | "Extremely pompous quote to make you think I read |
| UMKC Debate Forum | fine literature in the bathroom on a daily basis." |
| Kansas City, MO | Random Pompous Person |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 16:59:18 -0500
From: djw4@cornell.edu (Jeff Woods)
To: ceda-l@cornell.edu
Subject: Re: COMPETITION SUCKS
Now, let's talk about Benjamin's post.
> Competition is key to having two plans weighed against one
>another.
No. I say weigh the plan against the counterplan. Whichever is more
beneficial wins. Remember, I say the focus of the round is on the
comparison between the plan and the counterplan, not on whether or not the
plan that the aff chooses supports the resolution.
If the neg should run a non-competitional CP, then there are
>three possible scenarios for the judge to follow.
I'll bet there are more than three. (Mike's got a car he's willing to bet.)
>1) The aff plan doesn't fly because it has no solvency or advantages to
>it. Regardless of whether or not there is a CP, competitional or not,
>won't really matter because any judge from proffessionals to bus drivers
>can see that the Aff plan will not work, so why bother doing it. maybe
>this judge would buy a non-competitional CP, but the ballot would be
>based on the fact that the aff doesn't work, not on the basis that the
>Neg has a better plan out there... it woul donly be frosting on the cake.
Hmmm. You're right. Why is this important? I think everyone in the
community agrees with you.
>2) The aff perms the non-competitional CP. If it's not competitional,
>the neg really has no defense againt this attack. All the Aff has to do
>is get up and say, "look, our plan's great, their plan's great, there's
>nothing saying that we can't do both of them, so the CP doesn't give you
>a reason to drop us." That's why a CP has to be competitional... if they
>don't compete then there is absolutely no reason not to accept the aff.
Ehhh. Thanks for playing. You're aren't giving any reasons why the plan and
counterplan have to be competitive. Why does the counterplan have to be "a
reason to drop us"? Why can't the aff and neg just choose different
advocacies from the topical set of possible worlds and have a ball
comparing the two?
>3) The judge gets really confused. Many judges have just gotten all of
>the rules down pat. They have figured out certain rules, one of which
>has classically been that if, and only iff, the Neg presents a CP then it
>should be non-T and it should be competitional. By overturning one of
>the classical rules of CP, it may well confuse the judge (and your
>opponents). If he/she/it gets confused, which is
>likly to happen with inexperienced judges or judges who don't have much
>training in debate, then they are going to go on the basis of
>presentation alone. This may be a total toss-up for the two teams, but
>many judges will buy into the team that it thinks is following the rules
>of debate and public speaking the best.
1) Sounds like a good reason to have mutually preferred judging.
2) Look to Mike's post for the response in the "EASY, EASY, EASY" section.
It's a lot simpler to explain that we just stand up and talk about a topic
area, and the judge get's to pick which plan is better. No reason to deal
with "super-perms" or hyper-intrinsicness-testing-counterplans. I don't
think that the judges who would freak if "the rules" changed really
understand the basis behind competitive counterplans. They would, however,
understand choosing between two plans. This equalizes ground in rounds with
less-experienced judges. Currently, negatives find it very difficult to run
counterplans in front of inexperienced judges, and, thus, it's pretty hard
to win a neg round in front of an inexperienced judge.
>Of course, there may be a few other scenarios, but these three are the
>ones that I think are the most likely... and two of them do not bode
>well for the neg. The other scenario is one where the neg would win
>without a CP of any kind, let alone a risky new one.
Try the scenario where the judge listens to the in-round arguments and
concludes that better debate is created with topical non-competitive
counterplans. For example, if you are in front of Mike, and make the good
arguments, he will probably let you run these counterplans.
Maverick
Jeff Woods Every artist is a _______
3104 Cascadilla Hall Every poet is a _________
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853 Watch more television
607-253-5778 U2
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 17:07:40 -0500
From: djw4@cornell.edu (Jeff Woods)
To: ceda-l@cornell.edu
Subject: Responses to Petrey
Let's chat about Petrey's responses.
>uh, perm do both. if it is not-competitive, there is no decision at end of
>>round between plan and counterplan.
Why do you get to perm? You say that there is no decision at the end of the
round, but that is just not true. The judge still must choose aff or neg.
You're not giving any good reasons why there must be a forced choice
between the plan and the counterplan. I think competition exists to check
abuse by preventing negatives from running anything they want as a
counterplan. No feed the world counterplans here (unless the topic
committee screws up and makes that the topic). Also remember that the aff
could have chosen the counterplan world at the beginning of the round. The
comparison is between the advocacy that each team chooses in their first
constructive. You're a big fan of advocacy, Petrey. At the end, the judge
compares the two advocacies and chooses. All perm and competition theory
rests on assumptions that the negative is trying to disprove the plan.
Topical, noncompetitve counterplans make different assumptions like, "the
resolution is just a problem area that we have to deal with." The aff picks
a plan; the neg picks a plan. Compare.
>It has not meant its prima facia burden and goes away.
What?!? I'm sorry, which prima facia burden is it not meeting? Maybe I
missed that chapter in my CEDA How to Debate Rulebook.
>This is the core of competition. IF the cp is not competitive, it is not
>>relevent to discussion.
Yeah, so what. Competition is stupid for topical counterplans. The
counterplans I'm talking about make a different set of assumptions about
what the comparison is to. Topical counterplans are relevant to the
discussion since the discussion is about things in the topic area. (Read
the first block about advocacy, also.) You're not giving a good reason why
they aren't relevant. Korcok's argument is that "plan focus" gets modified
so that aff and neg each get equal choice. Competition depends on the silly
requirement that the plan is the focus of the debate. The focus of debate
ought to a comparison between plan and counterplan.
>If the topical counterplan is comparison based, then it IS competitive. There
>>should be reasons why voting aff is bad if you are going to run a
>counterplan.
Why does there have to be a reason why voting aff is bad? Why can't we let
the two sides just pick a plan from the same set of possible worlds, and
compare the two choices? I think Mike is giving good reasons why we should
do this.
>if there are, then it is competitive. Sometimes, the topic facilitate this.
>The >HS topic on HC was great for topical cps. All of the literature was
>comparitive >based. Articals affirming HC compared thier program to all of the
>others. At >this piont, the topic made all cps mutually exclusive (you can't
>have single >payer and managed competition), and directily comparitive making
>them net >benificial.
Well, then, the literature was interesting on the HS topic. That, however,
doesn't deligitimize topical, noncompetitive counterplans. I think that the
advantages Mike is writing about (I know, Meg, you probably didn't get to
the bottom of Mike's post) just make topical noncompetitive counterplans
very sweet.
Maverick
Jeff Woods Every artist is a _______
3104 Cascadilla Hall Every poet is a _________
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853 Watch more television
607-253-5778 U2
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 17:37:18 -0500
From: wjc4@cornell.edu (William Charron)
To: CEDA-L@cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Competition Sucks Whippets
I should be writing a couple dozens of pages of papers, but alas I
couldn't help myself.
I'm not sure what to make of this wild and zany idea. My first inclination
is to say, well it must be wrong if Maverick came up with it. (How do you
think he got such a cool nickname, it wasn't because he can fly fighter
planes and sing "you've lost that luvin' feeling." I do have some comments
on some of the responses that have been posted so far.
Regarding Brad's IAR time constraints screw the affirmative:
Sounds pretty right on to me. The perm debate is one hell of a lot easier
for the affirmative to deal with in the 1AR then trying to beat a disad,
win a disad and jump through all those pre-case hoops like critiques and
topicality. Absent a really true disad whoever is running it will need
some time to answer the answers if they want to win.
Re: Roscow's If both eat T the aff loses argument
Seems like there's some room for debate here. I'm a little inclined to go
with Korcok's if you run it and you eat it you lose argument. I'd be
interested to hear some reasons as to why the affirmative has to uphold the
resolution in this particular situation. I'm not saying there aren't
reasons, but the most compelling for me, is that they have to being playing
in bounds for ground considerations and the such. As soon as the negative
runs a noncompetitive, topical counterplan it seems an argument could be
made that the paradigm from which the round is to be evaluated is one of
policymaking (with some modifications.) The critic will choose the best
topical possibility. If either team is running a possibility that isn't
topical than it's not really a possibility and it sucks to be them. (I've
already said what I think should happen when neither is topical)
Re: plan plus a dollar
Sounds extra-topical to me. An argument/position that could gain a lot
more respect in these circumstances
Re: plan plus ban homosexual panic defense
Good question, don't know what aff could do here but grab your ankles and
smile real pretty. Maybe make an argument that neg can't do aff. Might be
some ground here. The new advantages gained by being able to run topical
noncompetitive counterplans are offset by the norm/rule that the neg can't
do aff. Don't know, but this might be able to grow into a real argument.
Re: I like competition, it's a nice standard (my own argument)
I agree, however this isn't all that compelling (Seems like a claim without
a warrant. How is Devon anyway?)
Well seems to me that there are some new issues/difficulties attached to
this idea, but I'm not sure theory can't evolve to compensate for those
problems.
Back to the books, (oh, and for the record,Meg never stops talking about
Hopper,)
_____________________________________________________________________________
Bill Charron /We only live once,
Cornell Debate / and usually not even then.
wjc4@cornell.edu / -unknown
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 19:02:59 -0500
From: mk48@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (Michael Miroslav Korcok)
To: ceda-l@cornell.edu
Subject: answering Randi & Matt
Randi, please stop Matt from pulling out his hair. like me, he has too
little left as it is.
in 2 posts, Ms. V and Mr. R make 3 arguments against a PLAN-PLAN function of
the resolution:
1) aff is dust because neg can do aff plan + unbeatable plan as their strategy.
2) no way to prevent plan + a buck negatives without competition.
3) aff loses if they lose T in a PLAN-PLAN debate, but neg doesn't.
i shall answer them in order and then add-on 5 additional advantages for aff:
1) i don't think so. aff and neg are on a nice level playing field for 4
reasons:
a) aff gets to pick their plan FIRST. neg must run a different topical
plan. NOTHING prevents an aff from running the UNBEATABLE plan as part of
their INITIAL mandates. now it is true that the negative CAN, absent
suggestions below, do THIS PLAN plus UNBEATABLE PLAN #2 as their plan.
again, aff COULD run THIS as their INITAL PLAN. eventually, though, the
list of unbeatable plans runs out (some of us think that list has exactly
ZERO entries, but i'll play). what's the Roskosi/Vickers strategy against a
SMART aff plan?
for those who are thinking "well, here come 90 plank aff plans" : think again.
negative counterplan choices also include exclusionary counterplans: do the
aff plan MINUS the LOUSY PARTS. too many affirmative plan planks VERY
QUICKLY screws the affirmative. guess what? aff has to pick the right
mandates.
so, what is a SMART affirmative plan in this way of debating? the MEGAMAV
would probably do this: those mandates which they believe get more
advantages than disadvantages. SHOCKING!!! now, negative exclusion
strategies get the hurt of excluded mandates for breakfast and negative
affplan + unbeatable planks munch on the disads which were the reasons
MEGAMAV didn't include the unbeatable planks in the 1AC.
i am AGHAST, HORRIFIED, STUNNED that "Mr. Big Stick" himself would blanch at
these prospects.
b) a simple fix for the Rokoski/Vickers strategy: argue that the negative
cannot advocate the ENTIRE affirmative plan. the first reason is that Matt
& Randi's argument convinces you that aff could never win if neg got to do
that. look, the development of theory! perhaps other reasons will come to
mind?
c) turn: now negative can run unbeatable aff plans too. currently, the aff
gets to argue PLANS which Randi & Matt claim have no disads. well, in those
rounds negative loses. their only COMPARATIVE hope is that there are
currently NONTOPICAL competitive counterplans which can beat them (any
TOPICAL competitive counterplans are still available to both aff (1ac) and
neg (1nc) under the plan-plan framework). personally, i doubt that there
are ANY unbeatable plans which are ONLY vulnerable to NONTOPICAL competitive
counterplans. if we were all as smart as Randi & Matt, then we would all
CURRENTLY run ONLY those plans in 1ac and negative would be hosed, hosed,
hosed. under plan-plan negative need never resign itself to a crappy
resolution which generates long lists of unbeatable plans.
d) negative T is a disaster for the Roskoski/Vickers strategy: they START
violations which show BOTH plan and counterplan nontopicality - and they
LOSE. now, Matt and Randy saw this one coming - that's why they added the
second post. their strategy PRECLUDES ANY negative T. i answer their T
stuff below.
2) well, i outline 2 possibilities for preventing plan + snippet negative
approaches in my initial post. plan ought to use normal means and intent
AND we COULD argue a "substantial difference" standard rather than a
"difference" standard. no answer to either proposal has yet been given.
also, the hapless affirmative COULD attach a disad to the SNIPPET. spending
say - remember, it's aff plan compared to neg counterplan so that
politically correct military uniform is pregnant with links UNIQUE to the
counterplan. AND there's no chance for neg to say "the counterplan was
conditional" the disad keeps on ticking under plan-plan.
also, remember that the snippet must still be a TOPICAL snippet: no
nontopical extra stuff for negative either.
an ARGUMENT for their plan + snippet claim has yet to be developed by Matt
and Randi.
3) not convincing. presumption as an artifact of PLAN-ACTUAL WORLD debate
is obviously pointless - BOTH aff and neg are responsible for ADVOCATING
TOPICAL ACTION in plan-plan debate. once the round is plan-plan, the aff
GETS SUBSTANTIAL procedural advantages over the way things are done NOW.
i DO think that TOPICAL NONCOMPETITIVE counterplans SHOULD NOT coexist as a
negative tool ALONGSIDE negative defenses of the ACTUAL WORLD or of
NONTOPICAL COMPETITIVE counterplans. negative should have to CHOOSE in 1nc
whether they do one or the other, resolutions should be written AS plan-plan
resolutions, etc. once this happens, then BOTH aff and neg have MIRROR
burdens to be TOPICAL
and the Vickers/Roskoski claim vapes.
yeah, and YOU GUYS ever voted on presumption.
5 other affirmative advantages:
1) T is reciprocal. said it before, but negative would lose MANY of their
cheap-shot timesucks. they must step very carefully now. i think aff
CURRENTLY LOSES very many rounds because of cruddy, cheapshot TOPICALITY.
not so much because they don't BEAT the crummy T positions, but because
these gems suck up so much time, thinking, and clarity that the disads and
counterplans get undercovered or dropped. this is no small affirmative
advantage.
2) resolutional critiques vaporize back into the ether. both aff and neg
are resolutional under plan-plan. punishment patriarchal and
quality-of-life bad die die die.
3) very many cruddy generic disads go away. under plan-plan, the disads
must be unique to plan with respect to counterplan. much of the timesucking
crud isn't available to the negative.
4) negative doesn't get conditional advocacy. the counterplan CANNOT just
"go away" - if it tried to do that somehow, the negative would LOSE.
affirmatives lose many rounds because counterplan competition is granted in
2nr, vaping minutes of the 1ar. under plan-plan a lousy 1nc counterplan
just keeps giving the negative the gift that keeps giving: the turns STICK.
also, hey JOE! 2nc counterplans to take out disad turns would be gone too!
5) NONTOPICAL counterplans are history. goodbye 70s anarchy evidence,
goodbye nonresolutional actor counterplans, so long to do aff plan but not
for democracy. annoying fiat overreach arguments go with them.
i am of the opinion that the above is all GOOD for debate - the ground would
be littered by marginal arguments which we are better off without for the
most part: they are mostly strategic artifacts of "plan focus" debate.
gone with them would be much of the elaborate edifice of questionably
justified theory.
ready for round two,
:) michael korcok :)
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 19:22:01 -0500
From: djw4@cornell.edu (Jeff Woods)
To: ceda-l@cornell.edu
Subject: Luchetti says...
>There was a comment on who would win if both lose T. Well, to my
>knowledge, I believe Neg could run a conditional CP, then have the right
>to sever, defend Status Quo, and take out Solvency, winning the round.
>Hey it may not be pretty, but I believe it is possible.
1) I don't know what the rest of your paragraph has to do with T. The
original argument was that T would now become a double edged sword making
negatives more cautious about running it. Your argument doesn't respond to
Mike's original post.
2) Nonetheless, the reason conditionality exists is to allow the negative
tests to disprove the plan through multiple opportunity cost considerations
(plan v CP1, plan v CP2, plan v SQ). None of that here, I'm just comparing
two topical worlds. The negative doesn't get conditionality in this debate
because they are no longer testing the affirmative plan. If no test, then
negative CP takes on the same and the neg can't just "sever" if they don't
have conditionality.
3) BTW, if you can cleanly "take out [s]olvency" (I'm reading this as turn
solvency) while defending the status quo, why are you running a
counterplan, and going for all this tricky stuff? I take the "pretty" win
whenever I can.
Maverick
Jeff Woods Every artist is a _______
3104 Cascadilla Hall Every poet is a _________
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853 Watch more television
607-253-5778 U2
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 19:27:54 -0500
From: LUCHETTIS@urvax.urich.edu
To: CEDA-L Listserver <ceda-l@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: COMPETITION SUCKS
On Sat, 3 Dec 1994, Jeff Woods wrote:
> Now, let's talk about Benjamin's post.
>
> > Competition is key to having two plans weighed against one
> >another.
>
> No. I say weigh the plan against the counterplan. Whichever is more
> beneficial wins. Remember, I say the focus of the round is on the
> comparison between the plan and the counterplan, not on whether or not the
> plan that the aff chooses supports the resolution.
How does what you just described above differ from competition. When I
am in a round against another team, I, and my partner, are COMPETING
against the other team. The judge must lok at both teams, and WEIGH to
see who wins. How are they different?
Scott Luchetti
Univ. of Richmond
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 20:13:18 -0500
From: mk48@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (Michael Miroslav Korcok)
To: ceda-l@cornell.edu
Subject: answering Brad
howdy! decent argument, but hardly conclusive. 3 responses come to mind:
1) i know, aff is SOOOO difficult that they win 70% of their rounds. the
serious answer is that i do think you are overselling the difficulties of
1ar. if it is so difficult now, i trust that you WILL begin to choose neg
when you win the coin flip in out rounds? the sob story is mostly just
that: well argued, but still a sob story.
2) see "answering Randi and Matt" for advantages the affirmative accrues
under plan-plan. some or all of these will REMOVE time pressure from the
2ac and 1ar. i think the 2 most significant time-effects are:
a) no conditional kicks of the counterplan: disads from 2ac STICK. now Greg
CAN go for the disads to the counterplan because the block/2nr can't make it
vape. do YOUR job and the block is doing more work to answer your
counterplan disads.
b) topicality is much more dangerous for the negative: dumb T can lose them
the round. 2ac argues that the counterplan violates too and negative has
2ac's nightmare in the block - gotta put out enough good answers to make
sure they aren't risking the round on T - and 1ar can ignore the counterplan
violations as a time exchange. also, a good T in 2ac on the counterplan
puts nice time crosspressure on the block - hell, use the neg standards to
save 20 more seconds in 2ac.
3) on balance, i think 1ar is fairly well-off under plan-plan. the density
of substantive positions goes up, the density of procedurals drops, and the
number of cross-pressure possibilities increases. these seem to me to be
opportunities for 1ar to pick and choose links and impacts. THE problem
with 1ar time pressure seems to me to be NOT that there are so many
cards/positions to deal with. it is twofold:
a) there are NONRECIPROCAL procedural arguments which CANNOT be
granted/weighed against other positions - 1ar MUST cover them extensively or
lose.
b) there are CONDITIONAL arguments which mean that 1ar time might become
useless: these are no LESS dangerous than OTHER substantive arguments so
you gotta cover 'em in 1ar, but that effort may be worth nada by 2ar.
plan-plan eliminates nonreciprocal burdens like topicality. also,
affirmative has topicality as a weapon too. plan-plan also eliminates
conditional negative argumentation. the upshot is that Greg now gets to
SELECT the positions which WILL matter and get busy on THEM. more
substantive debate seems to me a generally good thing for 1ar.
4) even if Greg is not stellar in 1ar, remember that YOU still have the last
speech: so you might have to get even better at covering up the ugly 1ar
drops. i'd think that you'd be up to the challenge - you've had enough
practice...
:) michael korcok :)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 20:16:35 -0500
From: djw4@cornell.edu (Jeff Woods)
To: ceda-l@cornell.edu
Subject: Luchetti says more...
>> No. I say weigh the plan against the counterplan. Whichever is more
>> beneficial wins. Remember, I say the focus of the round is on the
>> comparison between the plan and the counterplan, not on whether or not the
>> plan that the aff chooses supports the resolution.
>
>How does what you just described above differ from competition. When I
>am in a round against another team, I, and my partner, are COMPETING
>against the other team. The judge must lok at both teams, and WEIGH to
>see who wins. How are they different?
Semantical problems here. "Competition" argues that, for the judge to look
at the counterplan, there must be a forced choice between the plan and
counterplan. I say that a plan-plan focus disposes of problematic and
obviously confusing "competition" quite nicely. We should let each side
choose their advocacy from the same set of possible worlds in their first
constructive. Then, compare the two choices and figure out which one is
better. Pretty simple, ehhh?
Maverick
Jeff Woods Every artist is a _______
3104 Cascadilla Hall Every poet is a _________
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853 Watch more television
607-253-5778 U2
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 19:56:02 -0500
From: t-bird <NY943030@PACEVM.DAC.PACE.EDU>
To: ceda-l@cornell.edu
Subject: what competition
i have a few more questions/problems with this whole idea
no clash necessary.
in the response to me, it was claimed, "why does there have to be a reason
why the judge shouldn't vote aff?" ignoring the sheer sillyness of this
argument, it seems to me that with this proposal i don't have to run
disads to the aff, nor do i have to discuss what they are saying as long as
i have a bigger impact with my case. the irrelevency of the 1AC becomes huge.
the aff just runs disads to the neg case and the neg defends them. no
discussion necessary of the aff plan.
additionally, there is no requirement that the two teams have to solve for
the same things. the problem area is not binding. we didn't claim to solve
for crime wtih our aff, others did. if we run our case on the neg, then it is
"we solve for deathly TB, they solve crime, our problem is more important.
vote for us." a lot of education goes on there. this debate seems worthless
to me and i will quit if it ever becomes a common practice. if debate is a
place to discuss solving for two issues that are not mutually exclusive, we
learn nothing about weighing two particular problems in the real world. it is
like me deciding whether i should wear a shirt or wear my pants. well, if
there is no competing reason why i shouldn't do both, i should do both. Unless
there is a disadvantage to doing one of them, (like get less popular if wear
a shirt), which would then be COMPETITION, we would presume it would be a
good idea to do both. if the issues at hand are irrelevent to eachother, they
should not be discussed at the same time. in the first debate we should
discuss whether i should wear a shirt or not, and in the second we discuss
whether i should wear pants. i think this is a pretty good explaination of
why there should be competition when discussion two topical ideas. (the rez
is Resolved: Taylor should get dressed.)
a lot of times, the proponents argue that we determine which is more
advantageous. i think that this assumes that the two teams are trying to
solve for the same problem. it also assumes COMPETITION. it assumes there
are reasons why voting affirmative would be bad. that makes it competitive.
unfortunatly, this is thier justification for it, but it does not necescitate
this type of discussion. there need not be reasons to vote against the aff as
i explained above.
anyway...
love,
taylor petrey
pace debate and stuff
(i really should start proof reading my posts. i see them answered then notice
my spelling/grammar errors. well mayb next time)
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 20:45:54 -0500
From: t-bird <NY943030@PACEVM.DAC.PACE.EDU>
To: ceda-l@cornell.edu
Subject: what competition ext.
sorry i did my args in two posts, i just forgot about these before i sent
the last one.
plan-plan also discourages those "good" cases that have no disads. things
like Emory's Homosexual Panic Defense case would not be encouraged, rather
it would be discouraged. cases with big impax would be encouraged rather
that true cases with little impax because they would always lose. in the
face of solving for US int'l credibility to prevent a nuke war (remember,
this is not a competitive claim) the HPD would look like it could wait a
while. cases with no disads would not be encouraged because it doesn't matter
anymore if there are no disads. if the neg has a bigger case impact, they
win. the one thing cases like HPD has going for it is maybe deontology in
this type of debate world. but i haven't had a judge vote for saving a
few rights even though he/she can stop a nuke war yet. i think it is clear
which extreme debate would gravitate: big impax instead of true, no disad
cases.
love
taylor petrey
pace debate and stuff
(there was something else i wanted to say, but i forgot. i'll just post
again when i remember)
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 22:19:30 -0500
From: Tim <MAHONEY@PACEVM.DAC.PACE.EDU>
To: ceda-l@cornell.edu
Subject: cpland (topical and not competitive)
Korcok double turns himself on the CEDA-L.
He argues that the aff wins too many rounds already (70%) and that
topical noncompetitive counterplans would make it easier for 1AR's.
2AC #7 extend the evidence, group the answers...
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 23:15:15 -0500
From: mk48@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (Michael Miroslav Korcok)
To: ceda-l@cornell.edu
Subject: answering Taylor
well, Taylor would quit: obviously it's a bad idea.
blackmail ain't argument.
no clash:
why wouldn't good debaters seek to do several things in the scramble to
outweigh? it seems like a sensible strategy to argue at least that:
1) your plan has good links to good impacts.
2) their plan does NOT have good links to good impacts.
3) your plan does NOT have good links to large disads.
4) their plan does have good links to large disads.
5) show that your advantages outweigh their advantages.
the assertion that debates would JUST focus around the negative plan seems
silly to me: negative would have WHAT motivation to grant 1ac advantages?
especially since they have significantly decreased chances for winning on T
cheapshots, resolutional critiques, etc.
also, remember that the comparison is to current practice: 7 minutes
offcase pumping out T, a critique, a tangentially related counterplan, and 2
generic disads with about 60 seconds on case in 1nc. 2ac spends the last 45
seconds on case after counterstandards, violations answers, critique
answers, turns, and theory, conditionality answers, competition answers,
counterplan advantage answers, and explaining why the generic disads don't
link. at least half of every "decent" debate i've heard has been consumed
by T, resolutional critiques, and conditional counterplans. if substantive
clash is a victim of plan-plan, it is a victim which is already in poor
health. i argue several reasons why clash would be resuscitated.
two different "problems":
when was the last time you heard an aff which claimed only ONE advantage? a
counterplan which only attempted to solve that one advantage better? these
days, there are a number of substantive issues and impacts and problems
evaluated in almost every round. surely Taylor currently encounters debates
in which he must actually argue "solving for TB is more important than
stopping Japanese re-armament." nothing about plan-plan alters that. it is
true that there would be more focus on substantive comparison. good.
yep, forced choice goes away. tears flow. the judge votes for whether they
prefer plan or counterplan based on their comparative merits. aff and neg
"compete" only in the sense that they attempt to convince the judge that
their idea is better.
yep, in the real world, doing both might be better. also, doing NEITHER
might be better. plan-plan says judges can't take either way out. SO DOES
DEBATE NOW: at the end of the debate, the judge does NOT VOTE TO ADOPT THE
PERM. the judge NOW votes for or against the PLAN - under plan-plan the
judge votes for either the PLAN or the COUNTERPLAN.
no, attaching a disad to an action doesn't make it COMPETE with another
action: it ONLY means that the action isn't as good as claimed. now, if the
disads OUTWEIGH the advantages, then there's competition (and there is
competition TRIVIALLY with ALL actions -- don't wanna add the BAD action to
anything, even other BAD actions). BUT, both plan and counterplan might be
good ideas even though both have disads linked to them: plan-plan still
says pick the better one.
goodbye to "true plans":
certainly, Taylor doesn't think that the way to outweigh is to run huge
impacts? that just makes him an easy target. the way to outweigh is to have
the more compelling link-impact combination. the plans (aff or neg) that
would win are those which had solid links to solid impacts while avoiding
solid links to bigger disads. and how nice would it be if negative actually
HAD links instead of attempting tiny generic links to huge impacts every
round? or just giving up and going for crummy T violations or resolutional
critiques?
there IS a turn here: having a "true" plan is nice, but it is hardly the
most important thing. i DO think that plans (aff or neg) which had solid
links to big impacts without disads WOULD do better than merely "true"
plans. that's a good thing: debate would focus more on these because they
are MORE IMPORTANT in the world (that's what bigger net advantages means for
the most part).
and, of course, there's no reason NOT to do "true" plans as part of the plan
mandates. in fact, Randi & Matt argue that aff would have to do so to win.
perhaps instead of knee-jerking, a bit of reflection?
:) michael korcok :)
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 23:33:23 -0500
From: mk48@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (Michael Miroslav Korcok)
To: ceda-l@cornell.edu
Subject: answering Tim
oh puhhleeeeze! not even close to being close to a double-turn. and THIS
comment from the other "Mr. Big Stick" - surely you haven't forgotten
EVERYTHING you knew so well about double-turns!?!
1) i never say "too many:" that's Tim's language. i only point out that
affs win more rounds (70%) than negs. so obviously it's not THAT hard on
1ar currently. EVEN IF plan-plan means more aff wins, i certainly NEVER
claim that's a BAD thing. (so plan-plan raises it to 75%. nice. no
inconsistency)
2) "easier on 1ar" does NOT mean "more aff wins". Brad argues that the neg
block - 1ar dynamic makes it impossible for 1ar to COVER if we do plan-plan.
i argue that lots of features of plan-plan may well make it easier for 1ar
to COVER. that does NOT mean that the advantages negative gets from
plan-plan DON'T OUTWEIGH the 1ar coverage advantages.
3) oh! and Tim "turn the impact, turn the link" Mahoney never double-turns?
:) michael korcok :)
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 00:34:06 -0500
From: Thompson Brad S <bst363s@nic.smsu.edu>
To: Michael Miroslav Korcok <mk48@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu>
Subject: Making the 1AR impossible
Mike, your age is beginning to show - you obviously have forgotten what
GIVING the 1AR is like. your arguments are easily turned back.
You say first that Affs already win a lot of rounds. Big deal.
This is not an argument as to why counterplans ought not have to compete
anymore. If this approach to counterplans becomes accepted, Greg and I will
choose negative everytime. We will not run T - wait for them to do it
and have the 2NC crush it and the disad to the CP and then I will win the
disad to the plan in the 1AR. This is way too easy. Winning on the
negative ought to be harder than winning on the aff - that's why they get
presumption, remember?
Your next argument is that the 2NR can't kick out of the
counterplan, so go for the disads in the 1AR without fear of it
vaporizing in the 2NR. My answer to this is - why
would they want to kick out of the counterplan. They have a counterplan
with a large advantage and the aff (if the block is competent) doesn't
have a disad. Mike, a decent 2NC will put about twelve answers on the
disad to the counterplan, probably 5 of them carded. The 1AR cannot pick
and chhose - they have to beat all of them. All of them!! Which means
they have to answer six or seven no link, not unique arguments and then
read cards to answer the carded link and impact answers. But wait, now
they have MAYBE thirty seconds to answer Topicality and the disads to the
case and win a case advantage.
You also say that they can't/shouldn't run T because it could
hurt them. Fine, it will take a decent team all of a round to figure
that out and not run Topicality anymore. Or, they could do something
else - use the Aff standards on the T argument to screw the Aff on T in
the standards debate - let me explain. The Aff runs a Topicality
argument to the counterplan. The negative bombards it with violation
answers ONLY. They then argue that the standards the Aff. uses screws
the counterstandards that the were arguing on the T that the negative
ran. The extra time in the block means that they can crush the violation
and now they do not have to debate the standards on the Topicality
argument they initiated because the Aff had to conceed some of that
debate to run the T to the counterplan. Did that make any sense? I will
explain further if it did not.
Next you say that the "density of the substantative arguments
goes up." What does that mean? So what? It seems to me that this is a
reson to reject this interpretation. I do not want the substantative
issues to get bigger in the 1AR. The 1AR now has to read more cards -
impossible for some 1ARs. Let's put it this way. I would rather have
Greg answering a Topicality argument in the 1AR that he can pick a few
2AC answers and win those than having to win a disad to the counterplan
where he cannot pick and choose because he has to answer all of the 2NC
answers or we lose the disad to the counterplan. The time that will take
screws the Aff. Every 2AR intro will be "I know we dropped some answers
on the disad to the counterplan, but there is still some risk....please!
The last pathetic argument you put forth is 2AR's will get better
at covering up drops. Obviously you have not heard a good 2NR in a
while. Does this sound familiar - "This argument was dropped - it is
conceeded - do not let the 2AR talk about it at all - it would be unfair
- the 1AR should have answered it - GAME OVER!!" How am I supposed to
cover up a drop when the 2NR says these things? Any suggestions? Also,
a drop on the disad to the counterplan means it goes away and that is all
the 2NR has to say. That would take maybe a minute of the 2NR to say.
Now he/she can spend 3-4 minutes on the disad to case that the 1AR got
thirty seconds to answer - thirty seconds if they are greasy fast.
Personally, I do not want the 2AR to be a whine for leniency because the
1AR didn't have time to cover everything. I do not know what you coach
your debaters to do, but I feel that a defensive 2AR means you go 3-3 or
4-4 at most tournaments.
This ridiculous idea will essentially cause both teams to run
their AFF every round with the negative winning their affirmative every
single time. If noncompetitive counterplans become accepted, then teams
will practice winning the coin toss - "PLEASE let us be negative -oh,
crap, we're affirmative."
Sticking up for 1AR's,
Brad (SMS Debate)
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 02:11:11 -0500
From: Tim <MAHONEY@PACEVM.DAC.PACE.EDU>
To: c <ceda-l@cornell.edu>
Subject: counterplan double turns
Ok I'll concede that it isn't a clean double turn but which is it does it
help the aff or the neg more.?
.
>3) oh! and Tim "turn the impact, turn the link" Mahoney never double-turns?
I just read 'em...
2AC #7 extend the evidence, group the answers...
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 02:46:40 -0500
From: Hovden Jan M <jmh358s@nic.smsu.edu>
To: CEDA-L <CEDA-L@cornell.edu>
Subject: non-competitive topical counterplans
I have a couple of questions regarding this idea. If the standard is
that the affirmative and the negative must both fall within the
parameters of the resolution to be compared who gets to define what the
resolution means? It seems to me that the affirmative strategy would be
to define the terms of the resolution in such a manner that the negative
"topical" counterplan would not fall within that interpretation. If this
were the case, topicality arguments would become infinitely more
important. The 1AC is run. negative says oh, shit. We don't have a
plan that falls within the parameters of the resolution as defined by the
affirmative. Hence the only option available (assuming that the negative
doesn't have a specifically linked disad), is to run T. It isthe only way
the negative has
a piece of ground. In order for their counterplan
to be considered they must win T. So what's the point of the
counterplan. If they win T the rounds over. Independently, since the
negative counterplan is not topical according to the resolution the aff
defines, they don't have to worry about losing to their own T violation.
The second concern that I have is do the plan and the counterplan have to
deal with the same subset of the resolution? For example, if the aff was
to ban the homosexual panic defense would the negative have to run a
topical counterplan that also dealt with hate crimes against
homosexuals? If not it seems that Taylor's argument makes sense. The
debate then comes down to who has the bigger impact. If the aff did run
the homosexual panic defense and solved from some harm to homosexuals and
the negative ran ban the death penalty with the scenarios of South Africa
and NATO both with the potential to end in a nuclear war, the aff doesn't
have a chance in hell of winning. Cross apply brad's argument on winning
disads to counterplans in 1AR. Mike argues that this is checked by
having solid link evidence. However, finding links to the resolution is
the easy part. Just as many people say that some action will cause a
nuclear war as say that some action will cause some sort of smaller
impact. This destroys the strategic ability of the affirmative to run a
small case. As a result, those debaters who are skilled at making link
arguments to disads and winning with a small case advantage are hosed.
Those who are skilled at running big impacts are rewarded.
Jan
SMS
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 12:26:10 -0500
From: kringgenberg@CCTR.UMKC.EDU
To: ceda-l@cornell.edu
Subject: Non-competitive Counterplans Would Make Rounds Suck
I think Korcok is misguided. Brad is absoltely right-on that the time limits
kill any potential for affirmative disads to the counterplan, which I think is
a damning argument against voiding the standard of competition for
counterplans. However, another reasons exists: no one could collapse.
I know Korcok, my coaches, and about every judge I have ever had all
think collapsing is vital to getting a judge to understand your positions and
why you want them to vote for you. In rounds where competition isn't
important, there will exist two plans, each with solvency and one or more large
impact advantage (I think we can all agree that either team would be screwing
themselves strategically to run small impact cases, because the benifit of
doind so has been erased by non-competitive counterplans). In addition, each
team probably has one or more disads each other's counterplan. In the minimum,
a 2nr would have to win: Their solvency, an advantage, and beat any disads to
their plan. Then, they would probably have to put some answers on the aff
advantage, and maybe extend a disad to the affirmative plan. Now, that is the
minimum of three arguments, most likely four or five. Now, my coaches tell me
to go for ONE or TWO arguments. If I got for two disads and some case answers,
Matt would wring my neck! In addition, there is the possibility of the
negative straight turning everything to hurt the 1ar, who would then chug
through it all to make the 2nr a nightmare.
I think Cornell had an interesting idea, but I don't think its
workable.
Kieran, UMKC
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 14:01:18 -0500
From: djw4@cornell.edu (Jeff Woods)
To: ceda-l@cornell.edu
Subject: Re: Making the 1AR impossible
What's this? Is it already "novice day" on the L? All of your scenarios
could just as easily happen in a plan focus round.
> You say first that Affs already win a lot of rounds. Big deal.
>This is not an argument as to why counterplans ought not have to compete
>anymore.
I'm not sure how to interpret your argument(?), so I will try two different
approaches.
1) If affs are winning a disproportionate number of rounds, then equalizing
the two sides would be a good thing.
A) Outround performance wouldn't be dependent on a coin flip
anymore especially with a panel of inexperienced judges. Think about last
time you had an inexperienced outround panel. You prayed (or sacrificed
goats) for that coin toss so you could go aff. Neg just loses too many of
its toys in front of an inexperienced panel under a plan focus.
B) Aff currently gets to speak last; this is offset by the block.
If aff goes for some amazing positions in the 1AR, the block doesn't mean
much. They are forced to go for the 1AR argumnents in the 2NR instead of
just dropping out of them because they were conditional, or non-reciprocal.
2) I think your above argument could also be interpreted as round dynamics
don't impact the theoretical legitimacy of a position like "noncompetitive
topical counterplans are legitimate."
A) You may be right. But, if you are, then I think we can ignore
the rest of your post; everything you say has to do with round dynamics.
B) Mike argues that plan-plan eliminates wanky conditionality and
non-reciprocal positions, so plan-plan equalizes the round and round
dynamics become irrevelant.
C) Waah. Greg might have to work harder. So what; Meg says Hopper's
got a couple of things he needs to work harder at.
> If this approach to counterplans becomes accepted, Greg and I will
>choose negative everytime.
Stop the press. Let me get this right. You two are going to go neg
everytime? Sounds like a reason to reject to me.
> We will not run T - wait for them to do it
>and have the 2NC crush it and the disad to the CP and then I will win the
>disad to the plan in the 1[N]R.
1) Mike's post explains why the aff has won the time tradeoff in this
situation. It took maybe 30-60 seconds for the 2AC to put out the T
position. If the 2NC wants to "crush" the T position, it will take much
longer. It seems that the neg would now be forced into spending a lot of
time here because they (as the aff does today) don't want to risk losing on
T.
2) Sounds exactly like a round with a non-conditional competitive
counterplan in a plan focus round. I don't understand what the difference
is.
3) If your argument is a greater density of substanative positions is what
screws the aff, that's silly. Dense substanative debates can happen just as
easily under plan focus, and the aff still wins 70%. Difficult 1ARs are not
unique to plan-plan focus. Hmmm.
> Your next argument is that the 2NR can't kick out of the
>counterplan, so go for the disads in the 1AR without fear of it
>vaporizing in the 2NR. My answer to this is - why
>would they want to kick out of the counterplan.
Maybe, the aff did their work and found a few good turns to those "huge
impacts" on the counterplan. In the plan focus, there is at least some risk
that the neg can just kick out of the turned CP. No justification for that
anymore, so the 2AC can go for those "big" turns to the "big" CP without
fear of neg saying "ooops, sorry, it was conditional. Remeber CP is just a
test of the plan."
> They have a counterplan
>with a large advantage and the aff (if the block is competent) doesn't
>have a disad. Mike, a decent 2NC will put about twelve answers on the
>disad to the counterplan, probably 5 of them carded. The 1AR cannot pick
>and chhose - they have to beat all of them. All of them!! Which means
>they have to answer six or seven no link, not unique arguments and then
>read cards to answer the carded link and impact answers. But wait, now
>they have MAYBE thirty seconds to answer Topicality and the disads to the
>case and win a case advantage.
Sounds exactly like a plan focus round with a truly competitive CP. Your
analysis here seems to be that the reason affs win so much now is because
negs choose silly, noncompetitive CPs that can be beaten with a perm
answer, and that's all the aff needs to go for. I show that the aff could
be just as screwed in a plan focus round, thus no unique reason to reject
plan-plan focus.
> You also say that they can't/shouldn't run T because it could
>hurt them. Fine, it will take a decent team all of a round to figure
>that out and not run Topicality anymore. Or, they could do something
>else - use the Aff standards on the T argument to screw the Aff on T in
>the standards debate - let me explain. The Aff runs a Topicality
>argument to the counterplan. The negative bombards it with violation
>answers ONLY. They then argue that the standards the Aff. uses screws
>the counterstandards that the were arguing on the T that the negative
>ran. The extra time in the block means that they can crush the violation
>and now they do not have to debate the standards on the Topicality
>argument they initiated because the Aff had to conceed some of that
>debate to run the T to the counterplan. Did that make any sense? I will
>explain further if it did not.
Plan-plan forces smarter debate because each team must choose procedural
standards and violations intelligently. The aff won't be running T becasue
of the argument you're making above. What incentive does the aff have in a
plan-plan round to initiate topicality if it's going to screw them on time?
> Next you say that the "density of the substantative arguments
>goes up." What does that mean? So what? It seems to me that this is a
>reson to reject this interpretation. I do not want the substantative
>issues to get bigger in the 1AR. The 1AR now has to read more cards -
>impossible for some 1ARs. Let's put it this way. I would rather have
>Greg answering a Topicality argument in the 1AR that he can pick a few
>2AC answers and win those than having to win a disad to the counterplan
>where he cannot pick and choose because he has to answer all of the 2NC
>answers or we lose the disad to the counterplan. The time that will take
>screws the Aff.
Answered above. Brad, if the real way to screw the aff and win is by
running all substanative arguments, why aren't you winning every neg round
now? Sounds to me like you've got the golden answer to all the neg's
problems whether we are in a plan focus or plan-plan focus. Guess everyone
should just give up whenever they hit you going neg.
***Add-on scenario*** (Sorry it's at the bottom, Meg.)
Another scenario where the 1AR is screwed in a plan focus debate is if the
neg stands up and just dumps non-reciprocal T violations on case in 1NC.
The 2AC answers all of them. Neg "sees the light," decides that aff is
topical, then proceeds to run thirteen minutes of substanative arguments in
the block just like your above example. Only problem here is that the 1AR
doesn't have 2AC arguments to work from. Seems harder for the 1AR in a plan
focus round than in a plan-plan focus round where the advocacies are well
defined. Hey, it's another scenario where the aff is not uniquely screwed
in a plan-plan focus round.
Maverick
Jeff Woods Every artist is a _______
3104 Cascadilla Hall Every poet is a _________
Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853 Watch more television
607-253-5778 U2
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 15:59:08 -0500
From: kringgenberg@CCTR.UMKC.EDU
To: ceda-L@cornell.edu
Subject: 1AR w/o competetition
Because I can't stand to think any more about my philosophy paper and because I
flat disagree, I will try to answer Jeff Woods:
The first set of arguments deals with affirmative negative bias.
>1) If affs are winning a disproportionate number of rounds, then equalizing
>the two sides would be a good thing.
> A) Outround performance wouldn't be dependent on a coin flip
>anymore especially with a panel of inexperienced judges. Think about last
>time you had an inexperienced outround panel. You prayed (or sacrificed
>goats) for that coin toss so you could go aff. Neg just loses too many of
>its toys in front of an inexperienced panel under a plan focus.
I doubt this theory (non-competative topical counterplans) could ever
gain acceptance among less-experienced judges, because the starting point for
most theory is that the aff defends the topic. While these rounds may limit
your use of the tool you are arguing for. This is not that say that this is an
argument against your theory, but rather the workability of it in the
conditions that you claim it is most helpful.
> B) Aff currently gets to speak last; this is offset by the block.
>If aff goes for some amazing positions in the 1AR, the block doesn't mean
>much. They are forced to go for the 1AR argumnents in the 2NR instead of
>just dropping out of them because they were conditional, or non-reciprocal.
Under competative counterplans, to win a counterplan, the negative must
usually win one of three things: a disad net-benifit, a case-TURN net-benifit,
or mutual exclusivity. The affirmative is a a position of superiority here
because they should have superior background and research on their case, which
includes disad links, solvency, and counterplan mutual exclusivity. The
negative is fighting uphill to win this battle. Is there anyone that disagrees
that disads are usually less logically and argumentatively less than
affirmatives? With competition, that is offset by the block. The negative has
thirteen minutes to massage their disad from the questionable argument it is to
a roundwinning argument. The mechanism is time trade-off: Make several smart
arguments to everything the 2ac said and the 1AR can't answer them all. In my
opinion, the status quo of competetion based counterplans maintains a fragile
balance of affirmative and negaitve ground, even thought the affirmative may
have a large edge in the win-loss record, non-competative counterplans would
tip the scales so much that the coin-toss in outrounds will have TOO MUCH
importance. Now, the 1ar can find the few, critical arguments, like smart
permutations, or going for only turns on one disad, to make the round close or
winnable. The negative non-competative counterplan takes away the crux of the
affirmative attack and forces them to answer everything. This more than
offsets that affirmative gain of conditional and non-reciprocal arguments, that
can be answered now, with conditionality bad arguments and turns!
>2) I think your above argument could also be interpreted as round dynamics
>don't impact the theoretical legitimacy of a position like "noncompetitive
>topical counterplans are legitimate."
> A) You may be right. But, if you are, then I think we can ignore
>the rest of your post; everything you say has to do with round dynamics.
> B) Mike argues that plan-plan eliminates wanky conditionality and
>non-reciprocal positions, so plan-plan equalizes the round and round
>dynamics become irrevelant.
> C) Waah. Greg might have to work harder. So what; Meg says Hopper's
>got a couple of things he needs to work harder at.
In round dynamics are crucial. Much of the original basis for this position
was to equalize ground and clear-up debates. Aren't those in round dynamics?
I won't discuss Brad's topicality argument. Maybe he will.
>In the plan focus, there is at least some risk
>that the neg can just kick out of the turned CP. No justification for that
>anymore, so the 2AC can go for those "big" turns to the "big" CP without
>fear of neg saying "ooops, sorry, it was conditional. Remeber CP is just a
>test of the plan."
If you are afraid of that, then make some conditionality arguments! Why are
those any "wankier" than debates about the legitimacy of the non-comppetative
counterplan (which, will occur, guaranteed, if they are run)? With
competetion, the affirmative gets to choose whether or not the neg can kick out
of counterplans. Hey, if you've got some kickin' disads to the counterplan,
striaght turn that puppy and make conditionality bad arugments, and don't perm
it!
>Sounds exactly like a plan focus round with a truly competitive CP. Your
>analysis here seems to be that the reason affs win so much now is because
>negs choose silly, noncompetitive CPs that can be beaten with a perm
>answer, and that's all the aff needs to go for. I show that the aff could
>be just as screwed in a plan focus round, thus no unique reason to reject
>plan-plan focus.
Smart affirmatives choose their case and write their plan so that counterplans
don't compete well. They have to because 1ar is hard. Right now, because of
the biases of the last speech and case selection, aff's win 70% of the rounds.
But, a well research, strategic negative can beat any team. Without the burden
of competion, the scales would tip, MUCH WORSE, in the other direction.
Next is some more Topicality discussion. I'll skip that.
>Answered above. Brad, if the real way to screw the aff and win is by
>running all substanative arguments, why aren't you winning every neg round
>now? Sounds to me like you've got the golden answer to all the neg's
>problems whether we are in a plan focus or plan-plan focus. Guess everyone
>should just give up whenever they hit you going neg.
Well, they do win almost all of their negative rounds. Really, though, the
nature of the time trade-offs is crucial. The 1ar is a place to answer and
extend, not create and explain. The latter you do when running a disad (like
to the counterplan) the former is what you do beating a disad (to your case).
>***Add-on scenario*** (Sorry it's at the bottom, Meg.)
>Another scenario where the 1AR is screwed in a plan focus debate is if the
>neg stands up and just dumps non-reciprocal T violations on case in 1NC.
>The 2AC answers all of them. Neg "sees the light," decides that aff is
>topical, then proceeds to run thirteen minutes of substanative arguments in
>the block just like your above example. Only problem here is that the 1AR
>doesn't have 2AC arguments to work from. Seems harder for the 1AR in a plan
>focus round than in a plan-plan focus round where the advocacies are well
>defined. Hey, it's another scenario where the aff is not uniquely screwed
>in a plan-plan focus round.
This doesn't happen much, because all the 1ar has to do is turn everything.
Even if they screw up or make bad arguments, then negative will screw something
up in the 2nr from hell, and the 2ar is the only speech that has time to slow
down, pick one issue, and explain why they win it and why it wins them the
rounds. How many times has anyone seen this strategy executed? Besides, it
could happen without competition: the 1nc runs their plan and fills their time
with solvency and advantages, and th 2nc reads 8 minutes of solvency turns and
disads to the plan while the 1nr picks up everything else.
Don't forget, you still haven't answered my collapsing argument.
Kieran, UMKC
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 17:05:51 -0500
From: mk48@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (Michael Miroslav Korcok)
To: ceda-l@cornell.edu
Subject: ans Jan
hi Jan! how's Springfield? enjoying the Ozarks?
interesting arguments: a few answers.
1) T becomes much more important.
a) well, if you're right, tell Brad & Greg that it might be a mistake to
automatically choose neg every out-round. if aff defines the rez in a way
that the counterplan is NOT topical - they're gonna have to win a T
interpretation before they even get to play. what a pain that's gonna be in
the negative block - might suck a LOT of time away from the disads, etc.
making 1ar too easy, eh?
you ask "what's the point of the counterplan? neg's gonna have to win T
anyway?"
REMEMBER, under plan-plan neg has no choice but to run a topical
counterplan: if they don't, they have NO advocacy and it seems to me they
LOSE OUTRIGHT. well, some rounds could well become centered on the relative
topicality of plan and counterplan. so what? lots of rounds these days spend
tons of time on PLAN TOPICALITY. MY argument is that CRUDDY NO THOUGHT
NONRECIPROCAL T goes away. neg must be much more careful picking their T
positions. aff also needs to step softly on T.
b) it seems that you assume that aff and neg CANNOT find ways to agree on
definitions of terms which allow both the plan and the counterplan. i think
that folks would do that.
aff probably DOES want to keep T pressure on neg into the neg block, but 1ar
is gonna have to go through a bunch of SUBSTANTIVE stuff - and weeding their
way through a morass of violations answers seems fairly unattractive in that
situation.
neg will have some motivation to bail on their T positions in the block -
they have a lot to cover in only 13 minutes (including T to their
counterplan) - if they keep it into the 1ar, then Greg gets to pick and
choose his favorite 2ac answers.
c) neg T which makes the plan nontopical but keeps counterplan topical is a
VERY different animal than TIMESUCK NONRECIPROCAL T. in plan focus neg has
every motivation to pick bizarre definitions and largely unmeetable
violations: only aff has to be topical - their counterplans don't have that
problem. under plan-plan they at least have to be careful to prepare
interpretations and violations unique to the aff. their T standards can be
used against THEIR counterplan. their reasons to prefer can also be used by
AFF.
d) true, affs will benefit with definitions which make the plan topical but
exclude neg plans. negs have NO MORE motivation than they do NOW to pick
interpretations which aff plan can't meet. BUT, neg has to be MUCH MORE
CAREFUL in choosing their interpretation under plan-plan: the counterplan
must be topical too now.
e) i think you're right that stellar T counterstandards like "aff right to
define" would no longer make sense. what a loss that would be! one of the
cruddiest and most common (i bet it has been argued in MORE rounds the last
5 years than ANYTHING else) claims in history would finally be retired. aff
and neg would need to THINK about what the resolution MEANS to both sides.
also, 100% topical is too dangerous, 100% nontopical eliminates YOUR T
violations, BEST definition means YOUR plan can be hosed, MOST LIMITING
screws the negative counterplan hard, hard, hard too. see? T MUTATES
ELEGANTLY. a caterpillar coming out of its coccoon ...
2) not same subset means small impact plans go away
no reason that plan and counterplan need to have the same impacts. as i
argue in answering Taylor, they don't NOW, we are big enough people to do
comparisons like TB vs. racism, and we could tailor (not a pun) resolutions
to FOCUS topical actions and actors appropriately.
small impact plans don't go away, but i do think they'll be at a
disadvantage to SOLID-LINK SOLID-IMPACT PLANS WHICH DON'T LINK TO BIG
DISADS. the latter is GOOD: the latter sort of plan IS MORE
SALIENT/IMPORTANT/SIGNIFICANT in the real world - in short, they are BETTER
IDEAS. they SHOULD have an advantage over true but small-impact actions.
once again, NO reason the true-but-small plans wouldn't be a PART of aff
mandates.
the bigger you or your impacts are, the better the chances are that YOU link
to BIGGER DISADS. perhaps affs with small plans WILL spend more time on the
counterplan debate, but so what? they CURRENTLY spend their time on T and
generic disad links.
in debates NOW, neg works like hell trying to convince a judge that there is
some tiny generic link to HUGE IMPACTS from the tiny plan. no one cares
about case impacts much unless there's a cool criterial position on it.
plan-plan MIGHT mean that the debate shifts AWAY from "there's a TINY link
to plan" vs. "no, there's NO link to plan" to a discussion of the links from
the counterplan. different, yes, but WORSE, i don't think so.
i have NO idea why aff would have no chance of winning in the "ban
homosexual defense" vs. "ban death penalty" debate. THE SMALL-PLAN SCENARIO
TURNS ALL OF BRAD'S ARGUMENTS. remember that 2ac has the following
SUBSTANTIVE options:
takeout BOTH counterplan advantage links
takeout BOTH counterplan advantage impacts
turn EITHER or BOTH counterplan links
turn EITHER or BOTH counterplan scenarios
extend affirmnative criteria to make the counterplan impacts irrelevant
argue that plan advantages outweigh
the reason that 1ar is in good shape after the negative block is that THEY
get to pick and choose which of these to GO FOR. a good 2ac will make
several of these arguments. they'll ALL have to be answered in the block.
now, 1ar can pick 2 or 3 of them and sit on them for, say 1 minute a piece.
remember, under your scenario, neg has ignored the aff case and not bothered
with disads to the aff plan - Greg's cruising because he can pick a small
subset of Brad's 2ac answers to extend in the 1ar. also, if you're correct
about small plans NOT mattering, then Greg can GRANT the takeouts to aff
case, perhaps all the turns to aff case, etc. etc. and STILL OUTWEIGH with
turns to the counterplan.
finally, on which "skills" are hosed: i don't think this is true, but so
what? every debater should be "skilled" at link takeouts and impact
takeouts and turns whether they are good, bad, large, small, etc.
how're the "new" offices? does Klemz still suck at football?
:) michael korcok :)
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 17:14:45 -0500
From: mk48@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (Michael Miroslav Korcok)
To: ceda-l@cornell.edu
Subject: hi Tim!
i have no idea whether plan-plan would help aff or neg more. neither does
anyone else, but a bunch of folks seem absolutely convinced that aff would
have no chance for several contradictory and ad hoc reasons. none seem
especially persuasive to me, but i guess that's the discussion, so ...
anyway, the only GOOD response so far, in my opinion, has been Randi &
Matt's original AFF PLAN + UNBEATABLE PLAN negative strategy. i think i
have answers, but that one's tough and solid. worried about where that can
go, but ...
and no, you did more than just read 'em, at least in the Spring ...
:) michael korcok :)
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 17:05:36 -0500
From: KGSIII@aol.com
To: CEDA-L@cornell.edu
Subject: Non-competitive cp's = HS LD
I must agree with Kieran that allowing this notion of non-cometitive
counterplans would be a nightmare for most debate rounds. If competition is
not a requirement for counterplans I forsee what many of us have lamented in
high school LD; the "two ships passing in the night" approach to debate. If
negative teams are allowed to run counterplans that do not require
competition what incentive will exist for the negative to do anything other
than offer a non-competitive counterplan every round. It would be the same
horrible experience as most high school LD rounds in which the affirmative
and negative each offer their own case and the judge is forced to intervene
because there is no notion of clash taking place in the round.
Usually I do not consider practicality to be a legitimate motivation or
justification for strategies and approaches to debate rounds. But in this
case I could make an exception because of the glaring danger that such an
approach would likely cause. Of course, I also think that there are many
logical and purely argumentative reasons that I think such an approach would
be unjustified. But I will save those for a later post.
Ken Sherwood
CSULA
"If I get home before daylight, I just might get some sleep tonight."
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 18:22:01 -0500
From: mk48@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (Michael Miroslav Korcok)
To: ceda-l@cornell.edu
Subject: ans Sherwood
hi again! recovered yet?
Ken makes 3 claims. i will answer them in order. they are:
1) plan-plan means no clash HS LD debate
2) practicality means reject the approach
3) there are logical problems with plan-plan
now,
1) CLASH is answered in several posts, but some ADDITIONAL observations:
a) sorry if your HS LD experiences have been so negative. go see some GOOD
rounds. it makes NO sense for us to take attitudes about the quality of HS
debate. there are good and lousy debaters in CEDA, HS policy, NDT, HS LD,
parli, and NEDA. all of us live in glass houses.
b) IF Kieran is correct, he TURNS Ken's claim: his basic argument is that
there is TOO MUCH substantive clash. in fact, he worries that there is SO
MUCH substantive clash that 1ar won't have a chance to cover it all. HOW
Ken reads Kieran as arguing that there won't be any clash is beyond me and
NOT presented by Ken.
c) keep up, Ken. the SMS argument is ALSO that there would be SO MUCH CLASH
that can't be disposed of easily, that 1ar would be in deep excrement.
HARDLY, the picture of HS LD that you see in their arguments.
d) Ken does NOT present any REASONS that plan-plan would be clashless and
the "literature" on this argument is now fairly extensive.
2) well, there's an uncharitable reading of your claim that i'm sure you
don't mean. one COULD read your comment as "i'll vote against plan-plan
because it isn't practical." i expect that you don't mean some sort of
INTERVENTION?
this approach is EXACTLY 34 hours old. if you've decided how it will impact
rounds already, then you are some sort of supergenius: NONE of us KNOWS
what the implications, practical or otherwise, would be. we ALMOST
CERTAINLY will not know until it is DONE for at least a FEW rounds. the
arguments presented thus far are HARDLY CONCLUSIVE: mine or anyone else's.
we are all "running scenarios" and "advancing considerations" but ANYONE who
says they KNOW what will happen is whistling in the dark, pretending and posing.
IF someone does plan-plan, how about judging the way you SHOULD judge:
listen to the arguments in the round and evaluate them fairly. KNOWING the
decision beforehand is NOT judging.
i promise to do the same: maybe plan-plan would be practical, maybe it
wouldn't - my advocacy here OUGHT NOT become a "predisposition" or a
"leaning" or a "perspective" through which i filter for the purpose of
INTERVENING in what could be a lively debate.
3) well, perhaps there are reasons, logical and argumentative, why plan-plan
wouldn't make sense. that is CERTAINLY possible. public discussion of them
might be really neat. it COULD also shed some light on current practice.
the L awaits.
with caution and a smile,
:) michael korcok :)
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 18:45:58 -0500
From: BATESBENJ@urvax.urich.edu
To: KGSIII@aol.com
Subject: Re: Non-competitive cp's = HS LD
Non-competitive CP's are not equal to HS LD. Even though I only
went to two LD tournaments as a competitor, I think it is pretty safe to
say that there aren't too many people out there running plans in LD.
LD is pure value debate, not policy. One of the resolutions from
a while back was "Resolved that the use of nuclear weapons is morally
wrong." There might be a policy thread in there, but the way it is
argued is not on adv vs DA. Instead, it's nukes are morally wrong because
of X vs. nukes are morally justified because of Y.
Then each individual has to do two things. Prove that their
chosen value (ie life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness) is clearly
linked to their side of the resolution AND that their value is more
important than the other side's.
A sample set of args in LD : Aff says The only use of nukes is to
kill people, that means a loss of life, life must be protected at all
costs, therefore nukes are bad. Now, neg can't get up and say life is
most important, because that's aff's arg. So neg gets up and says, nukes
are the ultimate power of the US weapons arsenal, the US will only use
them to protect freedom in other countries, freedom is more important
than life because an unfree life isn't worth living. Then the two battle
it out in the round.
It's value-value, not policy-policy argumentation.
Besides, even if it did make CEDA just like HS LD, what's wrong
with that. No impact to argument. There's other reasons to not like
non-competitive, many of which have been posted on the L lately.
BENJAMIN R. BATES I (The I exists even though I don't have kids)
UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND (where I go to school)
BATESBENJ@URVAX.URICH.EDU (my adress)
47 (how much wood a woodchuck could chuck if
a woodchuck could chuck wood)
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 20:32:44 -0500
From: mk48@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (Michael Miroslav Korcok)
To: ceda-l@cornell.edu
Subject: ans Kieran
hey dude! interesting, but hardly decisive claims. i think i've gotten the
ones that matter to you. i answer 3 of them below:
1) small impact plans die
Kieran and Jan agree when he says:
"(I think we can all agree that either team would be screwing themselves
strategically to run small impact cases, because the benifit of doind so has
been erased by non-competitive counterplans)."
i think that my answers to Jan and Taylor answer your argument here as well.
surely you agree that it isn't the IMPACT which matters by itself. nothing
changes from the way things are done NOW to change what makes a GOOD plan:
solid links to solid impacts without solid links to bigger disads.
some small impact plans disappear, some do not. all can be part of plan
mandates.
an additional observation. i'm not JUST trying to be cute when reminding
Matt and Tim about the "Big Stick." i THINK that plan-plan does pressure
for plans which are more like THAT than ones which are single-mandates.
Matt and Tim kicked butt BECAUSE their plan was a MIX of: certain link to
immediate small impact, weak link to long-timeframe huge impact, solid link
to fast medium impact, etc. VERY TALENTED negatives couldn't beat them in
large part because Matt & Tim were glorious at PICKING and CHOOSING the
link-impact combinations to go for throughout the debate. sometimes they
granted huge advantages going for link takeouts of the disads, sometimes
they granted out of their smaller advantages so they could win huge impacts
to compare to the tough disads, etc. Tim was never what we would call a
"fast" 1ar but he was a "smart" one. i'll talk about this more below
without the Matt & Tim nostalgia.
2) can't collapse
well, you aren't making a case for this, i don't think. you're right, PICK
and CHOOSE in rebuttals is wise advice. i don't see why plan-plan prevents
this: in fact, it makes it OBVIOUS. i think that it might move picking and
choosing earlier into rounds, but not much more.
a) your list of arguments that 2nr must win is too long. if counterplan
solvency is lost, neg advantage goes away. if neg loses a disad or two to
the counterplan, they are hurting. they can still win if they outweigh by
winning A disad to the plan. similarly, neg doesn't LOSE by granting aff
plan solvency and dumping out of their disads to the plan - 2nr can STILL
win by going for the counterplan advantages and beating the disads which
link to it. i will grant that 2nr CHOICES will be more important and
difficult - but i think that's an important part of being a GOOD 2nr. but
YOU ALREADY KNOW THAT. and DO THAT. and plan-plan perhaps demands and
rewards THOSE skills.
b) i think your argument here is PREMISED on a view which takes PICK &
CHOOSE only part of the way there. your claim seems willing to pick and
choose as long as picking and choosing DOES NOT have to grant any IMPACTS
that count against you. well, i think that under plan-plan you MIGHT have
to take a deep breath and grant some link-impact combinations which DO count
against you. THAT, it seems to me, is the last lesson even VERY good
debaters learn: sometimes we gotta take the hits - just make sure that the
other team takes more hits than we do. in roughly 12 years of on-off
debating, i didn't get this one until my LAST semester: once i did, my 2nr
became UGLY. some folks learn this lesson a lot quicker than i did -
understanding it makes their thinking lucid and their decision-making skills
fine art. your coach learned this lesson fast and well, i think: there may
have been a causal relationship with the sort of affirmative he argued.
3) aff can't pick and choose in 1ar
Kieran argues that:
"The negative non-competative counterplan takes away the crux of the
affirmative attack and forces them to answer everything. This more than
offsets that affirmative gain of conditional and non-reciprocal arguments,
that can be answered now, with conditionality bad arguments and turns!"
a) well, i'm not sure how you weigh "affirmative gain" versus "negative
gain." seems to me like posing and assertion. if there is something to the
claim, i am interested in the calculus you use. remember topicality too,
though: a not inconsiderable affirmative advantage, it seems to me.
b) just not true that 1ar is forced to answer everything.
i) pick and choose. be willing to eat some impacts. give up others. grant
plan solvency if you have to. grant a disad if you can't cover. forget
about some possible turns. life is about CHOICES: 1ar is about HARD choices.
ii) if 2ac has done THEIR job, there is presumably a list of counterplan
takeouts, turns, and disads which 1ar can select from. pick a favorite and
answer the block on THAT ONE ONLY - 5 minutes versus 13 is hard, but the
negative block didn't get time exchanges from counterplan kicks and t kicks
and maybe they had to answer the 2ac counterplan T, etc. the 2ac answers to
the counterplan are all optional for 1ar as is counterplan T. also,
remember that 1ar ONLY needs to win a couple of the 2ac answers to the plan
disads to take THEM out.
iii) i think you're constructing the negative block as some sort of
super-machine that can cover everything well. it isn't and doesn't. if 1ar
is done well, 2nr is a nightmare. 2ar gets to weigh and if you're right
about what 2nr needs to do, 2ar is cake.
well, if i dropped something, let me know
:) michael korcok :)
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 22:01:15 -0500
From: Joanne Castella <castella@lclark.edu>
To: CEDA-L@cornell.edu
Subject: counterplan confusion
I must admit from the start that I don't know much about counterplan
theory and because of that this particular thread has been really
informative/ educational for me. At the same time, it has also been
fairly confusing- especially the argument for getting rid of
competition. I just have one question- it seems to me that running a
counterplan puts the critic into a policy maker framework. their
decision at the end of the round is based on which policy would produce
the most advantages with the smallest amount of disadvantages. If the
negative team runs a topical counterplan without any form of competition
{which to me means there isn't any good reason as to why you couldn't do
both the plan and the counterplan) then why can't the aff advocate a perm
and say that their policy is
now both the aff plan and the negative counterplan. as a policy maker,
this would be the most advantageous option so it would seem to me that
the judge would vote aff. or, it an even more confusing scenario- why
couldn't both teams advocate both the plan and the counterplan thus
leaving the critic with no way to make a decision except to flip a coin?
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 23:17:48 -0500
From: "\"\"Isaac D. Castillo\"\"" <idcastil@mailbox.syr.edu>
To: mk48@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (Michael Korcok)
Subject: Re: answering Randi & Matt
Here comes my question with the whole subject. What would keep me from
replanning or modifying the original plan in the 2AC. If Maverick's true intent
is just to obtain the best policy option, well then a slight modificaiton to
the 1AC plan which makes it better than the CP is still legitimate.
Just one of my twisted answers. Want to see people think of it.
Consider Me Gone,
Isaac Castillo
Syracuse Debate
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 00:27:59 -0500
From: mk48@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (Michael Miroslav Korcok)
To: ceda-l@cornell.edu
Subject: ans Joanne
Joanne:
the idea is that the judge votes either for the aff plan or the neg plan.
gotta choose one or the other.
they may hate themselves in the morning, because during the round they were
thinking "damn! i sure wish i could have voted for BOTH of those teams'
plans, but that stupid ballot didn't let me."
or, they may think "both of those plans ate so many disads that neither was
worth a damn and being forced to vote for one of them was WRONG! WRONG, i say!"
"perms," just like NOW, DO NOT GET VOTED FOR under plan-plan. either plan
or counterplan: pick the better one.
a cautionary note:
please understand that NO ONE in this discussion is under the illusion that
a NONCOMPETITIVE COUNTERPLAN is a REASON to reject the plan. IF the debate
ballot is decided based on whether or not the AFFIRMATIVE PLAN is
DESIREABLE, then NONCOMPETITIVE COUNTERPLANS are IRRELEVANT.
for TOPICAL but NONCOMPETITIVE counterplans to work, the judge would need to
decide WHETHER the AFFIRMATIVE PLAN or the NEGATIVE COUNTERPLAN was more
desireable. this is a subtle distinction, but it makes a LOT of difference.
THIS difference, what the FOCUS of a DEBATE is, has tremendous implications
for how we debate.
:) michael korcok :)
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 00:58:33 -0500
From: Thompson Brad S <bst363s@nic.smsu.edu>
To: Michael Miroslav Korcok <mk48@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: ans Jan
Mike - I have something else for you to chew on. What happens if
the 2NR collapses to their Topicality violation and wins it. Then the
2AR collapses to their Topicality violation to the counterplan and wins it.
What
happens? Under your new, twisted notion of counterplan theory : ), the 2NR
can't kick the counterplan and just going for T doesn't make the
counterplan go away... I guess the judges truly begin to earn their money.
Oh yea...by the way - I can't wait til "MAV" comes to debate this
"novice" - I think he will be surprised at the quality of the "novice" division
in the Midwest.
Brad
SMS
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 02:53:45 -0500
From: mk48@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (Michael Miroslav Korcok)
To: ceda-l@cornell.edu
Subject: hi Brad!
calm down, dude. i already warned Jeff this evening that getting you
"motivated" for a round against him was not the smartest move he could make.
he told me "bring him on." what can i do? he's young and feisty ... Meg
promises that she'll have a long talk with the boy before we head west.
the T problem needs to be addressed. i suggested in the initial
"competition sucks" post two potential solutions:
1) if affplan and negplan die to the same T violation, then the team that
initiated the violation loses. sort of poetic justice for being dense
enough to run a violation that they don't meet.
2) if affplan and negplan die to different T positions, then perhaps a
comparison of the strengths of the 2 (or more) T positions could be done.
there's no obvious reason one couldn't compare the quality of topicality
positions against each other.
anyway, i'm not under any illusions that these are great answers, but they
ARE at least a start at solving a problem that plan-plan would face.
would love to hear either further suggestions about how to solve the problem
(yeah, right) or any thoughts about how it would be impossible to solve the
problem elegantly.
talk soon,
:) mike korcok :)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 02:51:19 -0500
From: Joanne Castella <castella@lclark.edu>
To: CEDA-L@cornell.edu
Subject: clearing up counterplan confusion
o.k, this damn computer won't get it right but it's Leah, not
Joanne. Anyway, I understand the answer to my question to some degree
but not completely.
1. Why does the critic have to choose one or the other if there is no
competition?
2. i was/am under the impression that the reason that perms don't get voted
on is because they test competition so if they are true than the counterplan goes
away. If competition is no longer a
relevant standard, then why couldn't you advocate a perm and if you could
where does it leave the critic. If there is no constraint to doing both
the plan and the counterplan together and there are more advantages to
plan plus counterplan then either the counterplan by itself or the plan
by itself (i kinda figured that no one was arguing that a non
competitive counterplan was enough to reject the plan) then why wouldn't the
critic vote for the team that
advocates both of them (which would be the team that advocates the
perm-or whatever it would be called in a debate without a competition standard
for counterplans) win the round?
Leah Castella
Lewis and Clark College
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 04:01:58 -0500
From: mk48@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu (Michael Miroslav Korcok)
To: ceda-l@cornell.edu
Subject: answering Leah
damn, i knew you were Leah -- it has been a long day.
first, on competition:
the idea has been that instead of a "plan focus", there could be a
"comparison focus" -- affplan and negplan wouldn't NEED to compete because
the negplan wouldn't need to be a REASON to reject the affplan.
the ONLY reason there would be to CHOOSE between them under plan-plan debate
is that the judge NEEDS to vote either aff or neg. if we make an affplan
the aff advocacy and a negplan the neg advocacy, then a choice needs to be
made (aff or neg).
the rest of this long weekend has been talking about whether and how this
simple idea would be workable/desireable.
perms wouldn't get voted for in plan-plan because of 2 reasons:
1) they are NOT either the affplan OR the negplan. the idea is that aff
chooses its advocacy in the form of an affplan in 1ac and neg chooses its
advocacy in the form of a negplan in 1nc. the debate is about which one of
these is better. a perm is some combination of advocacies which neither team
can claim as their own.
2) perms don't have any job in plan-plan debate. as you point out, perms
test the competition of parts of the counterplan - since negplans don't need
to compete with the affplan, perms don't do anything in plan-plan. another
way to understand this is that combinations of affplan and negplan don't
help us decide which one is better so they become irrelevant in plan-plan
debate.
second, on advocacy
well, neither team gets to advocate the perm, they only get to advocate
their initial advocacy (affplan or negplan).
i think that getting to switch advocacy is problematic for many of the
reasons Matt mentions. even though plan-plan would NOT (in fact, could not)
operate under "plan focus" assumptions, many of his reasons against advocacy
shifts transfer to "comparison focus" assumptions. only negative doesn't
get to shift either under plan-plan.
i think that answers the concerns you raise? it is THAT straightforward.
:) michael korcok :)
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 05:10:23 -0500
From: "Matthew K. Roskoski" <mroskoski@CCTR.UMKC.EDU>
To: ceda-l@cornell.edu
Subject: Omnibus response to Korcok
We'd like to begin by congradulating Mike & Jeff on starting everybody thinking
about the assumptions we make regarding counterplans. This is certainly not
dull. We now offer our Omnibus response.
Also, we write this assuming, like we always do, that the listserv is neither
the CEDA rulebook nor theory evidence. People should always debate these
things out in rounds, not default to the squabblings of soon-to-be oldheads.
For the sake of clarity, we will present the Omnibus response in outline form.
Korcok's arguments are the Roman numerals. Our answers are the letters and
arabic numbers.
We should also clarify one other point. In private mail, we hashed out with
Mike this clarification - he defends a regime under which "plan-plan" is
optional in the 1NC. Hence, what we have to negate is the desirability of a
situation in which in the 1NC, a negative gets to choose EITHER 1. a topical
noncompetitive counterplan or 2. the debate status quo (an option/mix of status
quo defense and competitive counterplans.) Cake. Easy.
I. "Resolution divides ground fairly."
Korcok's argument is that resolutions that might be affirmatively or negatively
tilted aren't anymore since both sides are constrained by the same ground. We
group this with "critiques and generic disads" go away, because the implication
(fairness) is the same and the answers are the same also.
A. The negative isn't genuinely limited by the resolution
We think it should be nigh unto impossible to get a topicality violation past
the block when you're affirmative. Topicality requires a constructive's worth
of development.
1. Status quo provides empirical proof
You rarely if ever vote for T started in the 2NC and if debaters want to win T,
they start it in the 1NC. Initially, one might think 2NC T makes more sense.
After all, the affirmative has less time to answer it. However, the need for
development to win a jurisdictional issue has caused evolution away from 2NC T
and towards 1NC T. This demonstrates that it really is hard to win T without a
constructive to develop your arguments.
2. Uniquely true for affirmatives
Judges scour the 2AR for new arguments. They don't scour the 2NR because
there's a check - the 2AR should point out new 2NR arguments. The test most
judges apply to see if a 2AR argument is new is how clearly they can trace it
back to the 1AR and 2AC. Hence, when the 2AR is going for a T violation to a
counterplan, their burden-to-prove-prior-development is higher than the 2NR's.
B. Generic negative ground is easy to find
We refer back to our stock counterplan, which is plan plus some unbeatable
action. To supply refinement, we will make the unbeatable action one of the
smallest things we can find.
Korcok makes a few answers. Before we answer them, let's point out one thing.
Even if Mike's right, none is an absolute takeout - negatives are still
strongly encouraged to use our strategy. That takes us back to the days of
counterwarrants. We think a situation that gives advantages to generic
negative strategies is harmful to the research benefits of debate. Now, Mike's
answers.
1. "Aff can add the unbeatable mandate to the plan"
Doesn't work for several reasons. First, to do that requires affs to have the
cards to defend the mandate. While that encourages aff research some (not
enough, in our opinion, to offset the research loss on the negative), it's not
going to be easy to do at tournaments. If we change the counterplan each
tournament, aff gets fisted.
Second, "plan-plan" is optional. If 1AC does that, and includes my add-on plan
in the plan, then we get to negate using the normal method. That means lots of
T, lots of critiques, and lots of generic disads. You've at least doubled my
ground by adding one extra link. Also, the "unbeatable-ness" of the mandate
assumes it occurs in a vacuum, without the original plan to add extra links.
They're usually "unbeatable" because they give out no links but have a small
advantage.
2. "Argue you can't include plan in the counterplan"
Nope. First, this is Arbitrary Rule #1. There's no principled reason why it
ought to be so - under the LOGIC of the "plan-plan" theory, it makes perfect
sense. Both teams get to advocate whatever they want, and the judge chooses
between the two.
Second, it's not a workable standard. You know it - admit it. We try to work
it now and fail. How do you distinguish "the aff's mandates" from "remarkably
similar mandates that just happen to solve 100%?"
Third, it's a standard you won't win the justification for. Mikey said it
himself - the aff could have included the counterplan. Too bad for them they
didn't (which translates to "too bad they don't have that wierd Committee 300
book" or "too bad they didn't have time after we ran it round 1 to go get it"
etc.)
3. "Fair's fair - right now aff gets unbeatable plans"
Still no dice, jack. When we say "unbeatable plan" we mean (as made clear in
the original post) a plan that case refutation and disads won't beat. In other
words, the kind of plan we invented counterplans to cope with. Give us
counterplan ground (and T and critiques and generic disads) and we've got a
damn good shot at taking any of the "unbeatable" cases down. If you get to say
"that's not the best plan, here's a better one" you can usually beat such
cases, if you have to say "no it's not a problem" or "no you link to disads"
you can't. Just ask Owen - India really doesn't link to Win-Hold-Win.
C. Case clash is discouraged
This might be the root of our instinctual backlash. When we say "case clash,"
we mean arguments specific to the case. That could mean case cards, case
specific DA links, case specific counterplans etc. "Plan-plan" discourages it
by encouraging generic neg strategies - either "plan plus" or "big stick"
counterplans.
1. Affirmatives have a right to expect case clash.
They just do. That's why they "affirm" and the other side "negates." It's the
social contract - half the time you get to present your idea and they have to
answer it, half the time you have to answer their idea.
2. Case clash is educationally beneficent.
Case clash is good. It provides depth of analysis over many tournaments. You
find takeouts and disads to our case, we go find answers, you find answers to
our answers, etc. etc. ad infinitum. That teaches good thinking.
II. "Topicality becomes an elegent RVI"
Arbitrary rule #2.
A. "Waah, they started it" is a highly suspect RFD
Even if we can't come up with any reason why aff loses, we're inherently
suspicious of "neg loses 'cuz they started it." That just makes little or no
sense to us.
B. Even under plan-plan, affs have a higher burden then negs
"Plan-plan" is optional, remember. Negs can choose not to advocate at all. In
order for the option to exist at all, we must think affs have a burden to
affirm that negs don't. Now, Mike may be right that negs take on a burden when
they choose "plan-plan." However, it seems reasonable to us to break the
"topicality tie" with reversion to who had the original burden. That makes
much more sense than "they started it."
C. Reasons to prefer evaporate in the absence of ground questions
Mike says the ground justification for T as a voter goes away. With it go most
reasons to prefer, which makes topicality adjudication hard. If ground isn't
an issue, then how else does one choose between two grammatically correct
interpretations?
D. In the absence of ground questions, it's an NVI not an RVI
If Mike's right that the original reason why T is a voter (ground division)
evaporates, then a "topicality tie" is an not a voter at all. You can't both
think "T isn't a procedural because ground division isn't a concern" and think
"if neg violates their own procedural they lose."
E. Presumption still makes sense
Aff advocated change first. If "they started it" is acceptable analysis, then
aff started that risky old change, so you presume negative. Also, neg gets
presumption in order to force affirmatives to present prima facie cases. That
rationale for presumption survives in "plan-plan." If presumption still
exists, then neg wins "topicality ties" since nobody is left with anything to
advocate and you default.
F. Not all T is an RVI
All negs need are reasons the T doesn't apply to them. They do, remember, have
a 13/5 time tradeoff to win one.
III. "Easy to understand/eliminates complex competition theory"
A. Competition theory isn't excessively complex
It really isn't. Matt's 44 word summary: "The counterplan must force a choice
between itself and the plan in order to be a relevant reason to reject the
plan. Permutations are tests designed to demonstrate that the parts of the
counterplan that compete are distinct from the parts that are advantageous."
It just ain't that hard. T is easy but perms are hard? No.
The reason it seems confusing is that it's kind of new to CEDA. When I debated
(a mere 4 years ago) counterplans were pretty damn rare. You can't throw a
theory into an activity as large and diverse as CEDA is and expect everybody to
understand it 100% right away. (By the way, this is also a reason to thank
Mike & Jeff for providing a vehicle for exploring an issue some are confuzzled
about.)
B. Learning to debate competition is educational
Simplicity isn't a virtue. Debate exists to stretch your brain. If
politicians understood competition, we wouldn't hear crap like "you shouldn't
go to space, you should solve earth's problems first" or "how can Bill Clinton
justify intervening in Haiti when there are people suffering in America?"
People need to learn which policies really do compete and which ones don't.
Opportunity cost is an important thing to understand.
C. Competition is elegant
It captures "relevance" well and gets the intellectual advantages of
intrinsicness without the disads. The intellectual advantage to intrinsicness
arguments is that they teach students to see necessary relationships in the
actual world. The disad is that no affirmative can ever meet them because
nothing is 100% intrinsic. Competition solves - perms do the same thing by
making affs ask "is the competitive stuff necessary for the advantage."
D. It hurts the propensity to collapse, which makes judging harder
on-balance.
Specific line-by-line aside, much of Korcok's argument is that "plan-plan"
creates a more monolithic negative strategy - T becomes risky, critiques become
risky, the disads stick etc. Monolithic strategies make for bigger 2NRs.
Those are hard and complex to judge.
IV. "Conditional arguments vaporize"
A. Justification highly suspect
Why can't my topical noncompetitive negplan be conditional? Arbitrary rule
#3. Mike's claim is that negs are "responsible" for their advocacy. Why?
There's nothing inherent in the LOGIC of "plan-plan" that requires that.
"Plan-plan" is defended on the grounds that each side gets to pick stuff,
advocate it, and the judge chooses. Why couldn't the neg advocate 2 things -
the counterplan and the status quo? The judge just makes a 3 way choice.
B. T replaces the competition kickout
Right now negs use competition to kick out of counterplans. Under "plan-plan"
they use T. The only way to stop that is to apply arbitrary rule #2 - if neg
is non-topical they lose.
C. Conditional arguments good
Conditional arguments promote focus in the 2NR by letting the negative discard
some of the debate. They also increase the rigor of the scrutiny plan
receives. If plan is truly a good idea it should be able to withstand multiple
attacks from multiple directions.
D. Status quo solves
If you don't like conditional counterplans, run "conditionality bad" arguments.
We bet you can win them...
V. "No nontopical fiat=no abuse"
A. Status quo solves
Fiat abuse isn't "angst." It's an argument like any other. If you think a
counterplan is abusive, explain a fair standard and a fair violation. It's
quite possible - Kieran & Paul (the UMKC fiat cops) make something of a living
on it.
B. Non-topical fiat is educational
Much quality learning occurs from the comparison of resolutional actions to
nonresolutional ones. The framers are OK folks, but they can't possibly
include all the educational stuff in the topic. If they did, we'd all bitch
that it's too big. "Punishment" vs. "rehab" was arguably the educational core
of last semester's topic. It's certainly at the core of the real-world debate.
Mike's proposal excludes it.
C. The topic is too constraining
There are three reasons we don't want debates constrained to just the issues in
the topic.
1. Students don't get votes
The participants/customers don't get to pick the topic. Right now that's
bearable since they get nontopical ground 1/2 the time. Under Mike's system,
they don't.
2. The system constrains topic quality
CEDA has no mechanism for pre-drafting topic research. We expect the committee
to produce resolutions with very little support or time. Hence the resolutions
are never perfect, and often fairly far from it. Ergo we should try to allow
nontopical arguments into the debate through negative fiat.
3. It's always kind of narrow
It has to be to allow people to prepare. Conversely, though, it could quickly
get boring if NO non-topical options appeared.
(This section pre-empts any 2AC disco on Mike's part out of "plan-plan is
optional" and into "plan-plan is a rule/norm.")
Matt & Randi
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Matthew K. Roskoski | "Extremely pompous quote to make you think I read |
| UMKC Debate Forum | fine literature in the bathroom on a daily basis." |
| Kansas City, MO | Random Pompous Person |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 1994 09:36:10 -0500
From: Thompson Brad S <bst363s@nic.smsu.edu>
To: Michael Miroslav Korcok <mk48@postoffice.mail.cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: hi Brad!
My concern is what happens when both plan and counterplan die to
different Topicality arguments. I don't think a comparison of the
strength of the Topicality arguments is a solution. Three reasons.
1) The 2NR doesn't know the 2AR is going to go for Topicality. That
means he/she has to guess that the 2AR is going for Topicality and spend
half the 2NR talking about not only why they do not violate the
Affirmative Topicality argument but then why their Topicality argument is
somehow better than the affirmative's. Then they still have to beat the
disads to the counterplan so that the 2AR can't win the disad to the
counterplan and then focus half the 2AR on beating the T violation to the
case. That sounds like a very difficult 2NR to give.
2) How do you decide whose violation is better. The only way is through
some arbitrary criteria that neither team will agree on. Would it be
something like "most developed violation in the shell" or "the one that
makes the most sense" or "the one that made you salivate when you heard
it." I think this is an impossible issue for the last two speeches in
the debate to adequatelty address. Judging these debates would be a
nightmare. "Both teams aren't topical, but I liked their violation
better..."
3)To accept your view we now have to change the notion of what is
Topicality. Traditional notions of Topicality means that the plan is
outright rejected if the Aff loses the T debate. The judge doesn't say
"You lose th |
