Kerpdog
2NC Counterplans Good
1. IT'S A CONSTRUCTIVE
We can offer new arguments. They could have re-planned in the 2AC but
they chose not to-1AR would be too late, but that doesn't mean there
wasn't reciprocity in the debate.
2. ANY ABUSE IS NONUNIQUE
We can run other major new arguments in the 2NC also-like new disads.
Also, there's no unique pressure put on 1AR, since the 1AR always has to
answer 15 minutes of arguments.
3. NOT AN ADVOCACY SHIFT
A. As the negative, our only advocacy is that the plan shouldn't be
passed. We can win any argument consistent with that to win the
debate-whether a disad or a counterplan.
B. The counterplan is consistent with our other arguments in the
debate. We haven't shifted from our 1NC arguments; we've extended them
and developed them further, including the CP.
4. NECESSARY FOR NEG GROUND
With no 2NC counterplans, the aff would always save their best
advantages for 2AC, and then the neg could never CP them out and would
always lose.
Kerpdog
Clinton Disad is Bad
A. OVERLY GENERIC
Every round, every topic. There is zero educational benefit to debating
Clinton by now.
B. THEY MISCONCEIVE FIAT
The disad makes zero sense if we bracket the way the plan was passed,
since we ignore the process through which the legislation was enacted.
It's impossible to assess blame, capital, or backlash without knowing
how plan passed. It's best to bracket passage with fiat so that we can
focus on whether plan should be done instead of if it would be
politically feasible.
C. EDUCATIONALLY BANKRUPT
Their view of debate teaches us the worst form of policy making-passing
laws based on political considerations rather than the costs and
benefits of the laws as instruments of policy. This logically supports
bribery and barrel rolling and every form of corrupt government.
D. VOTING ISSUE
If they can't justify their conception of debate then they should lose.
Letting them kick the disad because it's wrong would only reward them.
Kerpdog
Conditionality Bad
A. KILLS GROUND
The counterplan forces us to defend our plan against multiple frames of
reference. Since they have no stable advocacy, there is nothing for us
to center our defense of the plan on, and thus our arguments are
rendered incoherent.
B. KILLS EDUCATION
We hardly have enough time to thoroughly compare plan to status quo or
plan to counterplan in an hour and a half. Trying to compare plan to
both in one round makes debate trivially superficial.
C. TIME SKEW
We have to make double the arguments to address everything in the debate
from the perspective of both the SQ and the CP. This is the same thing
as the neg having double the speaking time as the aff-it's fundamentally
unfair.
D. NONRECIPROCAL
We can offer permutations, but since they have to include the plan, we
still have a stable advocacy that they can link arguments to and we
can't get out of. The ability to kick the CP however gives them no
stable advocacy.
E. VOTING ISSUE
There's no other possible impact-whether they kick the CP or not it has
irrevocably altered the debate and destroyed aff ground.
Kerpdog
Conditionality Good
1. WE NEGATE.
The counterplan is one argument that proves that the plan is a bad
idea. If we lose that argument, but win that the plan is a bad idea for
another reason, then we've still proven you should vote negative.
2. THERE'S NO ADVOCACY SHIFT
Our only advocacy is that the plan shouldn't be done, and we offer
various warrants for it. That advocacy that the plan shouldn't be done
won't shift.
3. BEST FOR DEBATE
Condtional arguments are necessary to fully explore the possible
repercussions of the plan. If we're locked into a single perspective
than we can't pursue the various reasons that the plan might be a good
idea. And no conditionally handcuffs the negative, limiting what we can
say in 1NC and crushing our ground.
4. NONUNIQUE
A counterplan is no different from any other argument-we can also kick
disads. Competition is the link to the counterplan, and if it doesn't
compete then there's no link and it's irrelevant. Counterplans are just
op cost disads anyway.
5. NO VOTING ISSUE
If they don't cover it's not because of abuse, it's because they messed
up. Don't reward them for that; the speech times always limit the args
in the debate.
6. NO IMPACT TO POTENTIAL ABUSE
When the actual abuse happens in the future, specific arguments would
always check.
Kerpdog
Conditionality Justifies Intrinsicness
A. ADVOCACY SHIFTING JUSTIFIES
If they can shift their advocacy, then we should have the same
opportunity.
B. TESTING JUSTIFIES
If they claim the CP is a test of the plan, then we should be able to
test their disads the same way, by conditionally advocated new plan
provisions.
C. THEORY ASSUMPTIONS JUSTIFY
Condtitional arguments presuppose a model of debate based on searching
for the probable truth of the resolution. If disadvantages are not
intrinsic to the plan because some action could be taken to prevent
them, then they are not relevant in that model.
D. THEY NEED TO BEAT THE LINKS
If they win that intrinsicness responses are bad, but we win that they
justify them, they they'll lose for justifying something that's bad.
Kerptomic Dog
Contradictions Bad
Their arguments contradict-
A. DESTROYS OUR GROUND
We're forced to answer contradictory positions that don't double turn,
which means we have nothing to grant and no ground to coherently argue
from.
B. DESTROYS ADVOCACY
Allowing contradictory arguments is bad for debate because it prevents
us from developing advocacy skills, and the ability to argue and defend
a consistent position is the critical thinking that the educational
benefit of debate comes from.
C. THROW BOTH ARGUMENTS OUT OF THE ROUND
Allowing them to choose would reward them for running contradictory
positions and destroying advocacy. The only fair option is to toss both
args. If they try to go for one of the arguments, then they should lose
for reasons of abuse and
Kerpdog
Double Fiat Bad
A. NO DECISION MAKING MODEL
Counterplans are based on the theory of opportunity cost-that you should
choose not to do the plan because the CP is a better idea and precludes
doing the plan; but, there is no decision maker who can choose to have
multiple agents act. Without an op costs justification, the CP is not a
reason to reject the plan.
B. UNREALISTIC, KILLS GROUND
The counterplan is a chain of events that there's no reason to think
could occur together. It's abusive because when a single agent acts
there are always potential conflicts that are turn ground, but they fiat
multiple actors, spiking conflict arguments and fiating solvency.
C. VOTING ISSUE
It's the only possible impact. Letting them kick the CP would reward
them for running something theoretically unsound and wasting our time.
Kerpdog
Inclusivity Justifies Intrinsicness
A. FOCUSING RATIONALE JUSTIFIES
PICs focus debate on certain portions of the plan. Intrinsicness
responses also focus debate on the plan by eliminating disads that
aren't intrinsic to the plan, because some intervening action could
prevent them.
B. RECIPROCITY JUSTIFIES
They are able to effectively remove plan planks by counterplanning them
out, so, reciprocally, we should be able to add new plan planks to
restore affirmative ground.
C. THEY NEED TO BEAT THE LINKS
If they win that intrinsicness responses are bad, but we win that they
justify them, they they'll lose for justifying something that's bad.
Kerptomic Dog
Intrinsicness Permutations Bad
A. IT'S AN ADVOCACY SHIFT
The perm must be advocated since it doesn't test whether the CP competes
with the plan, but whether the CP competes with the plan plus something
else. This advocacy shift is abusive, since it justifies severing any
part of the plan to avoid disad links, or adding to the plan to spike
disad impacts. Since allowing shifting effectively destroys all neg
ground, it's a voting issue.
B. DESTROYS EDUCATION
The plan is the focus of the debate; we need a stable focus in order to
have a grounded discussion about social policy. If permutations can add
to the plan, then plan focus is no longer a coherent model of argument.
C. IT'S NOT TOPICAL
Intrinsicness portions of the permutation are tests of whether the CP
intrinsically competes with the resolution. But since theirs isn't
topical, it proves the CP is intrinsic, and their attempt to advocate
something nontopical destroys ground and predictability and is a voting
issue.
Kerptomic Dog
Intrinsicness Permutations Good
1. PROVES THE PLAN IS A GOOD IDEA
The whole plan is still included in the permutation, which proves that
the plan is justified. Adding something else is an enabling mechanism
which proves that the CP doesn't really compete.
2. NO ADVOCACY SHIFT
We still advocate the same thing we did in 1AC. The intrinsicness part
of the permutation is simply an extension and clarification of our
original plan.
3. NO ABUSE
We made the argument in a constructive, 2AC, so they had time to respond
in the debate. It's not our fault they wasted time making theory args
instead of substantive responses.
4. RECIPROCAL
Counterplans are effectively add-on's to the neg advocacy of SQ. We
should be able to amend the plan, the aff advocacy, the same way.
5. TOPICALITY CHECKS ALL ABUSE
Aff should be allowed to alter the plan as much as they want in 2AC as
long as it's still topical. If it's topical, then neg should be
prepared to debate it, and they have the block to answer it.
6. NO VOTING ISSUE
If they win the theory then the perm goes away, but the plan may still
be justified. There's no specific abuse and you shouldn't vote on
potential abuse because if the abuse happened in the future, specific
args would always check.
Kerptomic Dog
Severance Permutations Bad
A. IT'S AN ADVOCACY SHIFT
The perm must be advocated since it doesn't test whether the CP competes
with the plan. This advocacy shift is abusive, since it justifies
severing any part of the plan to avoid disad links, or adding to the
plan to spike disad impacts. Since allowing shifting effectively
destroys all neg ground, it's a voting issue.
B. DESTROYS ALL CP GROUND
If the aff can sever then they can always permute to sever the whole
plan and do the CP. No CP competes with that permutation.
C. DESTROYS EDUCATION
The plan is the focus of the debate; we need a stable focus in order to
have a grounded discussion about social policy. If permutations can
sever part of the plan, then plan focus is no longer a coherent model of
argument.
Kerptomic Dog
Severance Permutations Good
1. PROVES THE PLAN IS A GOOD IDEA.
The portion of the plan in the permutation is justified, which means
that there is a warrant to vote affirmative.
2. RECIPROCAL
Counterplans serve to alter the baseline neg advocacy. We should be
able to amend the plan, the aff advocacy, the same way.
3. NO ABUSE
We made the argument in a constructive, 2AC, so they had time to respond
in the debate. It's not our fault they wasted time making theory args
instead of substantive responses.
4. TOPICALITY CHECKS ALL ABUSE
Aff should be allowed to alter the plan as much as they want in 2AC as
long as it's still topical. If it's topical, then neg should be
prepared to debate it, and they have the block to answer it.
5. NO VOTING ISSUE
If they win the theory then the perm goes away, but the plan may still
be justified. There's no specific abuse and you shouldn't vote on
potential abuse because if the abuse happened in the future, specific
args would always check.
Kerptomic Dog
Topical CP Legitimate
1. IT'S NOT TOPICAL
The aff operationally defined the topic in the 1AC by offering their
plan. After 1AC everything other than the plan became nontopical. This
is the best view of topicality since it ensures it's an initial check on
the topic, but allows the debate to focus on the plan after. Their view
would force resolutional focus instead, with counterwarrants, alternate
justification, and no clash.
2. IT'S NOT A JUSTIFICATION
The CP is just a reason to reject the plan, because it proves that the
plan foregoes a better option, but that doesn't mean that CP should be
done: there might be a counterplan to the counterplan that's even
better.
3. COMPETITION CHECKS ABUSE
Competition ensures that the aff has ground, and that the aff should
reasonably be prepared to debate the counterplan.
4. GOOD FOR DEBATE
The best alternatives are often topical. Barring these would deprive us
of rich debate with substantive clash based on arguments in the
literature
5. NOT A VOTING ISSUE
There's no specific abuse in this debate and you should never vote on
potential abuse because if the future abuse ever happens specific
arguments will always check.
Kerpdog
Yes Neg Fiat
1. OP COST THEORY JUSTIFIES IT
The counterplan should be done, and having done the CP, the plan
shouldn't be done. Fiat derives from that ``should'' claim: the
benefits of an action are weighed against the best available
alternative-that's just sound decision making.
2. CRUSHES GROUND
Counterplans are the critical negative ground in debate. Without CPs,
affs would always win-we can't win on rape good or racism good.
3. BAD FOR DEBATE
Considering alternatives is a basic part of rationally dealing with any
problem-no neg fiat would destroy the educational value of debate.
|
