2
edits
Difference between revisions of "Counterplans"
→Solvency Deficits
(added parts of a cp) |
Altamont WM (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
T - theory | T - theory | ||
====Solvency Deficits==== | ====Solvency Deficits==== | ||
Solvency deficits are the most important part of answering a counter-plan. Since the point of a counter-plan is to soak up AFF offense, if the NEG wins that the CP solves the impacts from case, it becomes incredibly hard to win because all of the plan’s offense is now solved in the world of the NEG. Solvency deficits contest that part of the counterplan by saying that the counter-plan is not able to solve case for x, y, and z reasons. For example, if the AFF reads a plan to pass compulsory voting with an advantage about how that will lead to policies to stop warming. If the NEG reads a CP to just pass a carbon tax, the AFF could make a solvency deficit by saying that a carbon tax doesn’t solve warming. | Solvency deficits are the most important part of answering a counter-plan. Since the point of a counter-plan is to soak up AFF offense, if the NEG wins that the CP solves the impacts from case, it becomes incredibly hard to win because all of the plan’s offense is now solved in the world of the NEG. Solvency deficits contest that part of the counterplan by saying that the counter-plan is not able to solve case for x, y, and z reasons. For example, if the AFF reads a plan to pass compulsory voting with an advantage about how that will lead to policies to stop warming. If the NEG reads a CP to just pass a carbon tax, the AFF could make a solvency deficit by saying that a carbon tax doesn’t solve warming. There are a couple of types of solvency deficits commonly read by the affirmative against any counterplan. | ||
A. Delay Deficit - This deficit is pretty simple it's just the delay caused by the counterplan means it can't solve for the affs harms. This deficit is really good with affs that rely on timeframe for solvency especially one that describes ongoing harms. However, this deficit only really works with process counterplans and some advantage counterplans not really with agent counterplans. | |||
B. Certainty Deficit - This deficit argues that the counterplan can't solve for the aff because there isn't a 100 percent chance it can so any risk that it can't solve for the aff means that you auto vote aff on a risk of the counterplan not solving. | |||
C. Perception Deficit - This deficit argues that the counterplan illicit a different perception from other actors than the plan does so it can't solve. This deficit applies to any counterplan and is a good go to for answering counterplans because it can be tricky to answer. | |||
====Permutations==== | ====Permutations==== | ||
One of the integral parts of a counterplan is “[[Counterplan Competition|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 “[[Counterplan Competition|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.” | ||