Content-Manager, Administrators
18
edits
Difference between revisions of "Counterplans"
→CPs
Amanaker17 (talk | contribs) |
Amanaker17 (talk | contribs) (→CPs) |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
T - theory | T - theory | ||
====Permutations==== | ====Permutations==== | ||
One of the integral parts of a counterplan is “competition.” There is no offense from a counterplan if it can be combined with the affirmative, because the two strategies are mutually compatible. A permutation tests this by making an argument that the plan can be combined with the counterplan. Importantly, the affirmative must make an argument that the permutation shields the link to the net benefit, meaning that the combination of the plan and the counterplan is able to resolve the disadvantage or net benefit from the counterplan. For example, if the affirmative reads a plan about the US federal government legalizing marijuana, and the negative reads a CP that state governments should legalize marijuana with a disadvantage about how federal marijuana legalization now will hurt Democratic chances in the midterm elections, and Democratic control is key to passing climate policy, the affirmative must then make an argument for how a permutation avoids the DA. This could be done by saying “permutation do both --- shields the link because state governments passing the plan means blowback isn’t attributed to Congress because they look like they’re just following on to what their constituents want.” | One of the integral parts of a counterplan is “competition.” There is no offense from a counterplan if it can be combined with the affirmative, because the two strategies are mutually compatible. A permutation tests this by making an argument that the plan can be combined with the counterplan. Importantly, the affirmative must make an argument that the permutation shields the link to the net benefit, meaning that the combination of the plan and the counterplan is able to resolve the disadvantage or net benefit from the counterplan. For example, if the affirmative reads a plan about the US federal government legalizing marijuana, and the negative reads a CP that state governments should legalize marijuana with a disadvantage about how federal marijuana legalization now will hurt Democratic chances in the midterm elections, and Democratic control is key to passing climate policy, the affirmative must then make an argument for how a permutation avoids the DA. This could be done by saying “permutation do both --- shields the link because state governments passing the plan means blowback isn’t attributed to Congress because they look like they’re just following on to what their constituents want.” | ||
| Line 34: | Line 35: | ||
Perm - do both: this permutation is very simple, saying that the best course of action is to enact both the plan and the permutation together. | Perm - do both: this permutation is very simple, saying that the best course of action is to enact both the plan and the permutation together. | ||
Perm - do the counterplan: | Perm - do the counterplan: this permutation is often leveraged against process or agent CPs to say that the counterplan can be done as the affirmative. | ||
There can be many other types of permutations, for example, permuting the plan and part of the CP, it just depends on how creative you get. However, there are a few types of permutations that are theoretically illegitimate: | |||
Intrinsic --- intrinsic permutations add on something that was in neither the plan nor the CP. For example, the plan is that the United States federal government should implement a federal jobs guarantee. The negative reads a DA about how a federal jobs guarantee would hurt military recruitment, hurting US hegemony, causing war, and a CP to raise the living wage instead. An example of an intrinsic permutation could be: permutation - do both and have the US increase financial incentives to join the military. Since “financial incentives to join the military” was included in neither the plan nor the CP, this is intrinsic. This is bad because it allows the affirmative to fiat anything to get out of NEG disadvantages. To illustrate why intrinsic perms set a bad precedent, the AFF could say perm- do both and have all countries agree to never go to war. This is patently ridiculous (and cheating for multiple reasons), but shows why the affirmative should be limited to just parts of the plan and CP. | |||
====Offense==== | ====Offense==== | ||
====Solvency Deficits==== | ====Solvency Deficits==== | ||
====Theory==== | ====Theory==== | ||
=====Status===== | =====Status===== | ||