You have to realize that I was responding more from a strategic standpoint, not theoretical. I wasn't trying to engage the theory debate (I tend to care much more about winning strategies than theory), but, if you want to have that discussion, I'll be happy to.
The problem with Counter-plans in the 2NC is that they shift the negative advocacy halfway through the round. It is very similar to the Affirmative team changing their plan during any part of the round. People say "C means Constructive!", but I think most people would agree that the Affirmative can't change their plan in the 2AC, even if it is a "Constructive" speech.
Actually, over half of the college debate circuit (myself included) would say that, theoretically, the aff can
run a new aff out of the 2AC. Its not smart from a strategic standpoint, because then you let the neg block tee off on it, but theoretically there's no problem with it.
Well just because over half of college debaters like it, doesn't mean "theoretically there's no problem with it." I'm not saying it's a rule or anything, obviously.
Well....yeah. That bit was responding to "I think most people would agree." Outside the NCFCA/Stoa, which I always describe to college debaters as "TP cerca 1970s," your statement is simply not true. The mainstream of debate, in fact, says the exact opposite. The theory discussion, of course, is another discussion altogether.
A CP in the 2NC would definitely waste speech time, even if it's not the full speeches
All of these, no matter how seemingly obvious, are serious questions. I am not familiar with your paradigm, so I'm trying to figure out where you're coming from.
1. What is the point of speech time?
2. What is the neg's job in a debate round?
3. What is your definition of "waste of time?"
4. Why does it matter if someone wastes speech time?
I think the standard of reciprocity applies here very well: if Aff should set up their advocacy in the first available speech, then Neg should set up their advocacy in the first available speech.
Here's something you won't hear often on HSD: I don't give one flying flip about "reciprocity." Debate is inherently unreciprical. The aff effectively gets more prep time (neg has to prep 4 speeches in 5 min, aff only 3), speaks first and last, gets to decide the ground of the debate, and gets first crack at setting up the criterion for the debate. There's a reason why, in balanced rounds (i.e. rounds where the good debaters aren't all on one side), the aff usually has a 65-75% win rate. Additionally, in outrounds my observation is that with lay judges the most important part of the round is the coin flip. The aff wins 75-85% of the time. So why does reciprocity matter? Why should the neg not run something because "the aff can't do it," when debate is inherently structured to favor the aff?
Additionally, debate is by nature non-reciprocal in that it is competitive. My max speed is 317 wpm (one of the fastest in NFA); if I hit someone who can only go 270, but I know can flow me, should I slow down to 270? If I hit a freshman who can only go 150 and I know doesn't understand dedev DAs, should I not run dedev? Obviously the answer is no. My job within the round is to win, and exploit any advantage I can ethically get. To use an old example, no one ever asked Eric Crouch to stop running the triple option because he was too good at it or "the defense can't do it too." The reciprocity argument is basically the same thing. Even if you accept the aff can't run a new PT out of the 2AC (I don't agree with that assertion, but for the sake of argument I won't engage it atm), that doesn't matter in terms of neg strats because the aff and neg have two different roles within the round. The neg is trying to prove the resolution false, and has any means necessary at its disposal to do so. So why not run a CP out of the 2NC?
Additionally, reciprocity doesn't make any sense. I'm smarter than a lot of debaters. I'm not going to argue dumber in the name of reciprocity. A lot of debaters are dumber (and faster) than me. I don't ask them to slow down or debate dumber because I can't keep up. I figure out a way to beat them within my limitations, and I expect other to figure out a way to beat me within theirs. And many have. So, my question is, how much has to be reciprical. And if only this one issue, why?
It's different with Kritiks, given if you are running a K on something said in the previous speech, you are bringing it up during the first available speech. Why is it legitimate to run a K in the rebuttals? Because at that point - when you're K-ing something said in the previous speech - you wouldn't have been able to bring it up in an earlier speech.
With CPs, you're saying it's fine to run them in the 2NC because of something the Aff says in the 2AC. But that's not an issue of practicality, that's an issue of strategy and bad 1NC arguments.
Well...true. You will note above that I said you should only run new CPs in the 2NC when you're desperate. However, your line of reasoning applies to conditionaly/dispo CPs just as much as new CPs. I do
think that condi CPs are legitimate, important, and very strategic facets of neg ground.
And I have not seen a round with a 2NC CP with high quality teams, but so what if those teams who know awesome theory can make a good debate about it? In fact, I would probably enjoy a good debate about whether advocacy can be shifted throughout the round. However, in the vast majority of rounds, that won't be the case. Therefore CPs in the 2NC - in almost all cases - will harm the quality of the debate round. Just because high-level theory debates can be "straight-up awesome", that doesn't mean it's a likely scenario.
Here's the thing--in a high-level round, it doesn't become a theory debate. It only really becomes a theory debate when you have two novices who don't understand what's going on. Really good teams/debaters know that it is incredibly difficult to actually win ground loss/theory as a voter, so beyond throwing the shell out there as a quick time suck, usually theory goes away and it just becomes an awesome policy debate. That's what I mean when I say it doesn't detract from the quality of the debate. Also, if a really good neg is running a new CP in the 2NC, most likely they know they won't win their 1NC strat, so rather than muddling through 40 more minutes of the judges wanting to bash their brains out, they just have a new debate. That seems to increase quality.
Also, I don't really consider a CP an "argument," so to speak, in terms of the Constructives being for making new arguments. A CP is an 'argument' as much as the Affirmative plan text is an 'argument.' A CP is an advocacy.
Why is it not an argument? Why does it have to be an advocacy, and not just one tool among many to get the judge to vote neg?
Another problem is that if CPs are allowed in the 2NC, then people can run them at the very end of the speech. A team almost did this to me last year but ran out of time. The problem with having CPs at the end of the 2NC is that it sets up the negative ground far too late in the debate round. I think that problem - of setting up ground too late in the debate round - applies to any part of the 2NC.
No. Good. Neg. Will. Ever. Do. That. Period.
put CPs at the top of speeches, or at the latest, after T. If you just throw it out at the end of the 2NC, you will always not give enough CP solvency, net benefit, and theory block. If a neg undercovers any of those, the aff should just go to the one the neg didn't do well, explain why that means the aff wins, and walk away.
The ensuing explosion of the CP should not be looked at by the aff as they walk away, as it makes them look that much more epic.