Difference between revisions of "Policy"

From Circuit Debater LD
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Added some explanations of inherency and added a space to explain other stock issues. Explained models of plans other than stock issues.)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
== Plans ==
 
== Plans ==
Plans defend a more specific instance of the resolution. For example, with the resolution "Resolved: States ought to eliminate their nuclear arsenals," a common plan text was, "Resolved: North Korea ought to eliminate its nuclear arsenal."
+
Plans defend a more specific instance of the resolution. For example, with the resolution "Resolved: States ought to eliminate their nuclear arsenals," a common plan text was, "Resolved: North Korea ought to eliminate its nuclear arsenal." Plans generally must uphold the five stock issues, Significance, Harms, Inherency, Topicality, and Solvency.
 
+
===Significance===
 +
===Harms===
 +
===Inherency===
 +
Inherency is a proof that the harms cannot be solved in the status quo. There are three types of inherency, structural, attitudinal, and existential. '''Structural Inherency''' argues there is a structure that prevents the harm from being solved, such as laws. '''Attitudinal Inherency''' says the harms cannot be solved because peoples' beliefs or attitudes prevent it from being so. '''Existential Inherency''' argues that because the harms exist in the status quo, the status quo has proven itself unable to solve.
 
=== Topicality ===
 
=== Topicality ===
Counterplans are often subject to [[topicality]], an argument that states affirmative's that read a plan are not "topical" since they do not defend the entirety of the resolution.
+
Plans are often subject to [[topicality]], an argument that states affirmative's that read a plan are not "topical" since they do not defend the entirety of the resolution.
 
+
===Solvency===
 +
===Other Models===
 +
However, some plans do not actually state all five stock issues, but rather have only two parts: advantages (formatted similar to a DA, but showing a problem with the status quo instead of the plan) and solvency (how the plan solves the advantages).
 
== 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.
 
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.

Latest revision as of 20:57, 1 August 2020

Plans[edit]

Plans defend a more specific instance of the resolution. For example, with the resolution "Resolved: States ought to eliminate their nuclear arsenals," a common plan text was, "Resolved: North Korea ought to eliminate its nuclear arsenal." Plans generally must uphold the five stock issues, Significance, Harms, Inherency, Topicality, and Solvency.

Significance[edit]

Harms[edit]

Inherency[edit]

Inherency is a proof that the harms cannot be solved in the status quo. There are three types of inherency, structural, attitudinal, and existential. Structural Inherency argues there is a structure that prevents the harm from being solved, such as laws. Attitudinal Inherency says the harms cannot be solved because peoples' beliefs or attitudes prevent it from being so. Existential Inherency argues that because the harms exist in the status quo, the status quo has proven itself unable to solve.

Topicality[edit]

Plans are often subject to topicality, an argument that states affirmative's that read a plan are not "topical" since they do not defend the entirety of the resolution.

Solvency[edit]

Other Models[edit]

However, some plans do not actually state all five stock issues, but rather have only two parts: advantages (formatted similar to a DA, but showing a problem with the status quo instead of the plan) and solvency (how the plan solves the advantages).

Counterplans[edit]

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[edit]

Textually Competitive CPs[edit]

Plan Inclusive CPs[edit]

Advantage CPs[edit]

Competition[edit]

Conditional[edit]

Unconditional[edit]

Dispositional[edit]

Disadvantages[edit]

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).

Impact Turns[edit]

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.

Hegemony Good/Bad[edit]

Capitalism Good/Bad[edit]

Dedev[edit]

Spark[edit]