The Plan/Plan Blocks
The Plan/Plan Blocks
Ok, here are the blox. Some caveats--
1. These are basically the original, pre-TOC 3AM blox. I did some light
editing just now, but I lost the good, heavily edited version at some
point.
2. Every answer is woefully inefficiently worded. These blox badly need
to be worked. I plan to do it myself when I have the time, maybe.
3. P/p may be excessively unwise in front of NDT judges. I've been told
that anyone who voted for it would be ostracized, and the judges will
therefore automatically intervene against it. I also heard that Alderete
was taunted unmercifully at Classic because he picked us up in semis.
Here they are:
Kerpen
P/P
AT: Small Topical Add-On
1. P/P DIVISION OF GROUND CHECKS ABUSE.
The aff gets to choose their ground first, that is, the aff plan.
The neg then chooses from the world of remaining topical alternatives.
This sovereignty of the aff ground prevents abuse and creates a fair
division of ground, since it's counterbalanced by the neg option of
defending SQ.
2. AFF GETS TO CHOOSE FIRST.
They could run the plan originally with the topical add-on in 1AC.
By choosing not to do this, they forfeit this ground.
3. SUBSTANTIALLY CHECKS ABUSE.
The small add-on, if abusive, wouldn't be substantial. Severing
the extratopical part, negplan becomes affplan, justifying an aff ballot.
4. NONTOPICAL PLAN-INCLUSIVE COUNTERPLANS HAVE WORSE ABUSE.
If nontopical counterplans are legit then the neg could
counterplan to do anything before doing the plan, such as consulting with
any country, the aff would have no ground and could never be prepared.
5. NO POTENTIAL ABUSE.
If the add-on is topical then the aff should be prepared to debate
it. The neg wouldn't be able to disad the affplan, so disads to the
negplan should be enough to win.
6. WE DIDN'T DO IT.
In this particular round there's plenty of ground for both teams;
one bad example isn't a reason to reject a theory.
7. IN ROUND ABUSE ARGUMENTS WOULD CHECK.
Plan focus debate is entirely based on constitutive standards;
there's no reson that we can't fix the theory by banning this abusive
situation by convention. Even if we do this, p/p is still much simpler
and more consistent than plan focus.
Kerpen
P/P
AT: ``No way to resolve the round if both plans are
nontopical.''
1. COMPARE THE T ARGS.
If the abuse justified by one team is more than the other, they
should lose.
2. T CAN MOOT OUT.
If both teams violate the same T arg, then the abuse is equal and
it moots out of the round. This is fair to both teams and maintains equal
ground since the abuse is equal.
3. DON'T REJECT THE THEORY.
If it actually happens then we can debate the disposition of the
arguments. There's no reason to reject the theory of p/p when this issue
can easily be debated within a p/p framework.
Kerpen
P/P
AT: ``Neg still has counterplans, so this is too much
ground''
1. IF THE NEG CHOOSES LESS GROUND IN A PARTICULAR ROUND, AFF
SHOULDN'T COMPLAIN.
P/p offers the maximum ground to the negative. If they want a round
to be in affplan focus, aff should be happy.
2. THEORY DOESN'T JUSTIFY IT.
Our theory only allows topical advocacies. If we accept this
theory then the potential for abuse is solved.
3. ARGUE IT ON THE AFF.
If someone runs a nontopical counterplan, argue why it's
illegitimate, this will check any explosion of negative ground.
4. CAN'T HURT GROUND.
The aff has to be prepared for any topical negplan because it
could be run against them as an affirmative. The only potential for abuse
is from nontopical counterplans. At worst, this abuse would be unchanged,
at best, once p/p is common, it would be eliminated.
5. DON'T REJECT A GOOD ARGUMENT TO SAVE A BAD ONE.
Competitive and noncompetitive counterplans may be too much
ground. All the theory args, however, show that nontopical competitive
counterplans are the source of abuse. If both are too much then you
should reject the bad one in favor of the good one, that is, the theory
that provides equal ground.
6. SOME CHAOTIC TRANSITION PERIOD IS NECESSARY FOR CHANGE.
For a time nontopical counterplans may still be run, and in this
respect theory may seem further complicated. Ultimately, however, p/p
will be 'The Theory' and its simplicity will remain. The aff arg would
justify never creating social change out of a fear of upheaval.
Kerpen
P/P
AT: ``Kills Clash''
1. AFF PLAN FOCUS DISCOURAGES CLASH.
Aff plan focus creates an incentive to find a clashless plan. The
goal is to change as little as possible, claim small advantages, and rely
on ``no link'' and ``doesn't compete'' arguments. It's is completely
illogical to think good clash will result from one team having a vested
interest in there being no clash.
2. COMPARISON FOCUS MANDATES CLASH.
The decision centers around the comparison between affplan and
negplan. The need for large advantages discourages running squirrelly
cases and increases clash.
3. IF WE DON'T CLASH, WE LOSE.
If we drop aff advantages that aren't taken out then the aff will
have disads to negplan and affplan advantages to weigh against negplan
advantages. That doesn't sound like a position that the neg can easily
win from.
4. TOPICALITY ENSURES CLASH.
If the neg could run nontopical counterplans, they could run
counterplans that the aff could never be prepared for and wouldn't clash.
Topicality ensures that the negative is actually germaine and also checks
unnecessary research burdens.
Kerpen
P/P
AT: ``No reason to reject the plan.''
1. ASSUMES PLAN FOCUS, WHICH IS BAD.
This response assume that the focus of the debate should be the
affplan. This focus is unfair and skews ground toward the affirmative.
The aff gets to choose what every round is about, and the neg must debate
it. This creates an obvious inequity in which the aff wins 70% of rounds
and nearly everybody flips aff.
2. BALLOT FORCES CHOICE.
There's no 'both' option on the ballot. The judge is presented
with a choice between two teams, with one advocacy each. In order to
adopt the negplan, you must forego the affplan.
3. REQUIRING DIRECT REJECTION OF THE AFFPLAN IS UNFAIR.
We could be forced to advocate repulsive positions, like `rape
good', against a team that claimed to stop a hundred rapes but didn't have
any disad links. This is unethical and also destroys all viable neg
ground. P/p solves this.
Kerpen
P/P
AT: ``Permute''
1. T IS THE BEST CHECK.
Topicality is the best check on abusive counterplans. If it's
topical then they should be prepared for it. Also, as long as there's
some check competition is no longer necessary because there is no abuse.
2. THE PERMUTATION IS AN ADVOCACY.
The permutation must be an advocacy because it can't be the only
other possibility, a test of competition. Since the negplan has no
competition and is actually advocated, not a test of opportunity costs, to
do two advocacies is itself an advocacy.
3. THIS ADVOCACY IS AN ILLEGITIMATE SHIFT.
a) The 1AC established the affirmative advocacy in the round.
This is what we were debating and this is what an affirmative ballot
represented endorsement of.
b) The perm shifted it. The permutation created a new advocacy in
order to destroy the negative ground and advocacy in the round.
c) This is abusive. This advocacy shift is in no way different
from running a 2AC plan add-on on each disad to spike it out. This sort
of 2AC advocacy shifting destroys negative ground, since any args can be
easily add-on'ed out.
d) The abuse snowballs. The negative could respond to 2AC with
multiple 2NC advocacy shifts which would moot all of the previous
constructives and trivialize advocacy.
4. THESE ADVOCACIES ARE CONDITIONAL, AGAIN, ABUSIVE.
a) The aff becomes a moving target. Depending on neg argments, the
aff can switch to any one of their advocacies ultimately in the debate.
This prevents us from being able to refute the aff advocacy.
b) Skews time allocation. We could spend five minutes in the
block straight turning one of their advocacies, only to have them shift to
a different one. That's five minutes lost forever...
c) Encourages irresponsibility. If advocacies can be jettisoned at
any time, teams will think less about positions and the quality of
argumentation in rounds will deteriorate.
d) The abuse already happened. We couldn't use the neg block
fully in this round because of the uncertainty that was created by the
multiple, conditional advocacies. Regardless of the potentialities, that
is irreversible.
e) P/p solves these problems. Each team gets one advocacy which
cannot change. This ensures responsibility and substantive clash by both
teams since the targets are clear.
f) Voting issue. If they cannot justify irresponsible and
illegitimate argumentation, they should lose because of both the actual
and potential abuse.
5. THE NEGPLAN DOESN'T JUSTIFY THE ADVOCACY SHIFT.
a) The aff chose first. They had the opportunity to run any of
their 2AC advocacies in the 1AC. They chose not to, so it's only fair
that it become negative ground to ensure equal ground.
b) They have fair ground without it. They can make solvency
comparisons and disad the negplan and run impact turns and takeouts.
Without any shift, ground in t he round is absolutely equal and fair.
6. THE PERMUTATION JUSTIFIES A NEGATIVE BALLOT.
a) The only fair way to vote is on original advocacies. The only
way to resolve the round that provides fair ground is to vote on the
original 1AC and 1NC advocacies. Allowing evaluation of anything else
would be bad for all the reasons above.
b) The permutation grants the truth of the negplan. The perm is
an endorsement of the negative advocacy, which represents a negative
ballot. It is a concession which makes the desirability of the negplan
absolute in this round.
|
