Difference between revisions of "Policy"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
== Counterplans == | == Counterplans == | ||
A counterplan proposes an alternative advocacy to the aff's plan. Since the negative's job is to "negate" the affirmative - they do not necessarily need to defend the status quo. If they can prove that their alternative counterplan is superior to the aff's plan, that is a sufficient reason to negate. | |||
=== Types of Counterplans === | === Types of Counterplans === | ||
==== Textually Competitive CPs ==== | ==== Textually Competitive CPs ==== | ||
Revision as of 01:08, 3 April 2020
Plans
Counterplans
A counterplan proposes an alternative advocacy to the aff's plan. Since the negative's job is to "negate" the affirmative - they do not necessarily need to defend the status quo. If they can prove that their alternative counterplan is superior to the aff's plan, that is a sufficient reason to negate.
Types of Counterplans
Textually Competitive CPs
Plan Inclusive CPs
Advantage CPs
Competition
Conditional
Unconditional
Dispositional
Disadvantages
A disadvantage contains a link and an impact. The link is an event that the aff causes (e.g. the aff decreases US hegemony), and the impact is the result of the link (a lack of US hegemony leads to war).
Brink Disads
Linear Disads
Impact Turns
One way way to turn arguments is by turning the impact itself. For example, rather than saying the aff increases the likelihood of nuclear war, say that the aff will lead to nuclear war but that nuclear war is good.