Content-Manager
13
edits
Difference between revisions of "Counterplans"
added AT case page for cp 2nr
CheeseMeese (talk | contribs) |
(added AT case page for cp 2nr) |
||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
The bottom of the overview should contain important judge instruction to show how you want the counterplan debate to be resolved. One important tool is <u>sufficiency framing</u>, which is the idea that as soon as the counterplan prevents the aff's impact, there is no additional benefit to solving the aff 'better.' Using the example above, as long as the temporary migration counterplan benefits the economy enough to stop the current economic downturn, there is no reason to prefer the plan if it yields a higher GDP boost or allows for more remittances to be sent. It is also important to note that sufficiency framing is most effective when the aff defends a brink impact (such as war, recession) as opposed to a linear one (structural violence, warming) because it is possible for the affirmative to garner offense by preventing these impacts better (slowing climate change would save more lives). | The bottom of the overview should contain important judge instruction to show how you want the counterplan debate to be resolved. One important tool is <u>sufficiency framing</u>, which is the idea that as soon as the counterplan prevents the aff's impact, there is no additional benefit to solving the aff 'better.' Using the example above, as long as the temporary migration counterplan benefits the economy enough to stop the current economic downturn, there is no reason to prefer the plan if it yields a higher GDP boost or allows for more remittances to be sent. It is also important to note that sufficiency framing is most effective when the aff defends a brink impact (such as war, recession) as opposed to a linear one (structural violence, warming) because it is possible for the affirmative to garner offense by preventing these impacts better (slowing climate change would save more lives). | ||
Another tool for the 2NR to use is judge kick. This may be an | Another tool for the 2NR to use is judge kick. This may be an unfavorable move for some judges, which is usually noted in their paradigm. Most of the time, however, judge kick is a helpful safeguard against a 2AR that does a better job answering the counterplan than the disadvantage. When a judge 'judge kicks' the counterplan, they will disregard the CP from their deliberation when deciding the winner of the debate and instead compare the affirmative to the status quo (which results in weighing the advantages of the plan versus the disadvantages). The most common justification for judge kick is that the judge, as a logical policymaker, would always endorse the best possible option. If the aff is bad (because there is a large disadvantage) and the counterplan is bad (because it either does not compete with the plan or does not solve the affirmative), the judge should have the option of voting for the status quo (which avoids the disad). When giving a 2NR, you can tell the judge to judge kick the counterplan, provide some scenarios in which they can judge kick it, and justify that decision. You may, for instance, tell them to "judge kick the counterplan if the aff wins a permutation or solvency deficit; a logical policymaker should always be able to choose the best available option which includes the status quo." It may also be said that if a counterplan is conditional, it can be kicked at any point in the debate or before the decision is made. | ||
After the overview, debaters should line-by-line all the answers the aff made, making sure to allocate more time to the most threatening arguments. Process counterplan 2NRs, for example, may want to spend more time dealing with the permutation debate, because process counterplans compete in fairly unintuitive ways for most judges. | After the overview, debaters should line-by-line all the answers the aff made, making sure to allocate more time to the most threatening arguments. Process counterplan 2NRs, for example, may want to spend more time dealing with the permutation debate, because process counterplans compete in fairly unintuitive ways for most judges. | ||
You should also save time to answer any counterplan theory! Regardless of what sheet it was on in the 1AR, counterplan theory is usually answered on a separate sheet in the 2NR -- as long as you allocate enough time to answer it, it should not matter whether you answer theory before or after extending your DA/CP. Some may argue that it is perceptually advantageous to start your 2NR with your offense (DA) and end with defense (counterinterpretations to 1AR theory). Policy debaters should aim to have pre-written blocks to common counterplan theory arguments, because they will appear in many rounds. | You should also save time to answer any counterplan theory! Regardless of what sheet it was on in the 1AR, counterplan theory is usually answered on a separate sheet in the 2NR -- as long as you allocate enough time to answer it, it should not matter whether you answer theory before or after extending your DA/CP. Some may argue that it is perceptually advantageous to start your 2NR with your offense (DA) and end with defense (counterinterpretations to 1AR theory). Policy debaters should aim to have pre-written blocks to common counterplan theory arguments, because they will appear in many rounds. | ||
Finally, on the case page, you can extend case defense like you would in a disad 2NR as well. The benefit of going for a counterplan is that you have already proven that the risk of the aff being a good idea (because it solves a certain advantage) is low, since your counterplan would also solve that advantage. Thus, you can afford invest less time on the case page. | |||