homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:15 am
Not a member? Guests can only see part of the forums. To see the whole thing (and add your voice!), just register a free account by following these steps.

All times are UTC+01:00




Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 4:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:13 pm
Posts: 471
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Purcellville, VA
I have a question: Is the negative team allowed to wait until the 2NC to run a counterplan? If so, would it be considered bringing up a new argument to run disads on the counterplan in the 1AR? My partner and I were talking about this the other day, and we weren't really sure, so I thought I'd ask y'all.

_________________
RIX Alum | Patrick Henry College | Class of 2019


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Speed Spreaders
PostPosted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:02 pm 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
Depends. People disagree about whether it's theoretically legitimate, but most people agree that it's bad form.

But maybe that should be another thread. :) (EDIT: Now split.)

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Last edited by MSD on Mon Jan 13, 2014 8:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
   
 Post subject: Re: Speed Spreaders
PostPosted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 5:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
marinadelayne wrote:
I have a question: Is the negative team allowed to wait until the 2NC to run a counterplan? If so, would it be considered bringing up a new argument to run disads on the counterplan in the 1AR? My partner and I were talking about this the other day, and we weren't really sure, so I thought I'd ask y'all.

Like all theory, there's nothing "illegal" about it, but many consider it abusive (much like bringing up a new aff in the 2AC). It's also not a great idea for neg, strategy-wise, and as MSD pointed out, generally considered bad form since it essentially wastes the first two speeches, so I doubt anybody but a clueless novice would do it (note that 3 years ago, I was a clueless novice that did it :P)

If you're on aff, then by all means address the CP in the 1AR, including any DAs. It's your first opportunity to do that, so neg would be hard pressed to argue that you shouldn't be able to.

_________________
- Will

2010-11 | Freshman | Bardsley/King | IX | 13th at Regionals
2011-12 | Sophomore | Dovel/King | IX | Q'd to Nationals
2012-13 | Junior | Dovel/King | IX | 17th at Nationals
2013-14 | Senior | Dovel/King | IX | 5th at Nationals

Baylor University class of 2018


Top
   
PostPosted: Mon Jan 13, 2014 7:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:13 pm
Posts: 471
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Purcellville, VA
That makes sense. My partner and I aren't planning on ever doing that, but we wanted to make sure we were allowed to bring up new arguments against the counterplan if someone did it against us. There's a counterplan that I could easily see being run against us, and we wanted to make sure we are prepared.
ShaynePC wrote:
Clueless Novice?
At first when I read that, I was thinking, "Wow. Thanks a lot, Shayne. You're too kind." Then I read Will's post, and I was like, "Ohhhh!" Moral of the story: Read from top to bottom, not from bottom to top. XP

_________________
RIX Alum | Patrick Henry College | Class of 2019


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 5:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2013 7:13 pm
Posts: 471
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Purcellville, VA
ShaynePC wrote:
I did not even realize that it could be read as an insult....:?
Only if you read the posts out of order. XP You're fine. I realized what you meant after I read Will's post. It just threw me off for a minute. XP

_________________
RIX Alum | Patrick Henry College | Class of 2019


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 6:21 pm 
Offline
The Great White Sharc
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:58 pm
Posts: 4769
Home Schooled: Yes
New DA's in the 1AR would be fine, since the aff was forced into that position. Of course, then the question becomes, is the neg allowed to bring new responses in the 2NR? It gets really messy really quickly. No judge with debate experience will like you for running a CP in the 2NC, and I, along with others (I'm sure), would be very open to an abuse argument, especially since the CP is so fundamental to negative strategy.

_________________
Marc Davis

I currently help coach at TACT in Region X.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 8:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
013 wrote:
New DA's in the 1AR would be fine, since the aff was forced into that position. Of course, then the question becomes, is the neg allowed to bring new responses in the 2NR? It gets really messy really quickly. No judge with debate experience will like you for running a CP in the 2NC, and I, along with others (I'm sure), would be very open to an abuse argument, especially since the CP is so fundamental to negative strategy.

Well, you're wrong. I'd be fine with a new CP in the 2NC as far as theory and abuse goes. Yes, I'd be open to an abuse argument, but I generally think it's fine. Strategically, it's very dicey and probably not a good idea. But theory-wise, it's a constructive, so go nuts.

Heck, in certain circumstances I'd be fine with a new kritik in the PMR (in parli) Done that.

_________________
-Bryan
Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

Google it, we're the second link that pops up. We're pretty proud of that.


Top
   
PostPosted: Tue Jan 14, 2014 9:18 pm 
Offline
The Great White Sharc
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:58 pm
Posts: 4769
Home Schooled: Yes
I'm wrong? About which part?

_________________
Marc Davis

I currently help coach at TACT in Region X.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 2:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
013 wrote:
I'm wrong? About which part?

This part:
Quote:
No judge with debate experience will like you for running a CP in the 2NC

Assuming you're not a novice who did it by accident, I would like you. Probably vote against you, but like you ;)

_________________
-Bryan
Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

Google it, we're the second link that pops up. We're pretty proud of that.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 7:23 am 
Offline
The Great White Sharc
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:58 pm
Posts: 4769
Home Schooled: Yes
Excluding a strange circumstance, you wouldn't find it a bit annoying?

_________________
Marc Davis

I currently help coach at TACT in Region X.


Top
   
PostPosted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:27 am
Posts: 107
Home Schooled: Yes
Is the Affirmative allowed to change their position of advocacy from the 1AC to the 2AC? As in, are they allowed to change their plan in the 2AC? Most people would say no.

The Negative should be held to the same standard. Their position of advocacy should not shift from the current system to a counter plan in the 2NC.

So either both teams should be able to change their position of advocacy in their second speech, or neither should be able to. I think the latter.

On a strategy/argumentation level, a CP in the 2NC is just a bad idea for the negative team. That least less than half the round to debate/clarify the CP. Also, a CP in the 2NC almost certainly wastes lots of debate from the 1NC/2AC.

_________________
"Until the possible becomes actual, it's only a distraction." ~ Qui-Gonn Jin

Verve, WA
G. Smith


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 4:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 1070
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: NC
For the neg, "changing advocacy" is not as cut-and-dry. In the 1NC, the negative can say "the affirmative's plan should not be passed," and in the 2NC they can say "instead of the affirmative team's plan, this plan should be passed." These two positions are not contradictory and can be upheld simultaneously, so advocacy does not "shift," it merely expands.

_________________
- Will

2010-11 | Freshman | Bardsley/King | IX | 13th at Regionals
2011-12 | Sophomore | Dovel/King | IX | Q'd to Nationals
2012-13 | Junior | Dovel/King | IX | 17th at Nationals
2013-14 | Senior | Dovel/King | IX | 5th at Nationals

Baylor University class of 2018


Top
   
PostPosted: Thu Jan 16, 2014 5:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 2:27 am
Posts: 107
Home Schooled: Yes
kingwill wrote:
For the neg, "changing advocacy" is not as cut-and-dry. In the 1NC, the negative can say "the affirmative's plan should not be passed," and in the 2NC they can say "instead of the affirmative team's plan, this plan should be passed." These two positions are not contradictory and can be upheld simultaneously, so advocacy does not "shift," it merely expands.


Unless otherwise stated, the negative advocacy is the current system. That is and has to be the assumption.

If your reasoning is that the negative could just avoid advocating anything in their speech, that gets really messy, because if they say anything like "stick with the current system", then have proclaimed their advocacy. That means if they then run a CP in the 2NC and the Aff challenges its legitimacy, you spend the rebuttals not only debating whether it's okay to change your advocacy, but also whether the 2NC said anything that implied an advocacy.

_________________
"Until the possible becomes actual, it's only a distraction." ~ Qui-Gonn Jin

Verve, WA
G. Smith


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 5:02 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 30, 2008 2:35 pm
Posts: 2441
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Omaha, NE
013 wrote:
Excluding a strange circumstance, you wouldn't find it a bit annoying?

It depends. If the neg knows what they're doing and knows how to defend it I would find it awesome.

Quote:
Is the Affirmative allowed to change their position of advocacy from the 1AC to the 2AC? As in, are they allowed to change their plan in the 2AC? Most people would say no.

Most people in the NCFCA would say no. In college policy debate, it would be about a 50/50 split of yes and no. I would personally say yes, the aff can. It's called a constructive for a reason. Strategically, it's usually a bad idea, but from a theory standpoint I'm fine with it.

Quote:
The Negative should be held to the same standard. Their position of advocacy should not shift from the current system to a counter plan in the 2NC.

There's a theory called multiple worlds that I, and most college debaters/coaches, adhere to that says this isn't correct. Multiple worlds says the neg can have multiple advocacies, even conflicting advocacies as long as two conditions are met:
1) They all negate the res
2) By the rebuttals the neg has one advocacy

The theory is that, because the neg's only job is to negate the res, not actually propose a plan, as long as they negate the res they can do whatever they want. Therefore, any way they choose to do that is perfectly fine. Of course, all those advocacies should probably be laid out in the 1NC for strategic reasons. (running a CP you're just going to kick in the 2NC really sucks your speech time, plus running everything in the 1NC lets you see all of the aff's responses and choose the more winnable position, versus picking blind in the 1NR) However, since the neg can have more than advocacy, they can "change" (read: add to) their advocacy any time during the constructives.

Quote:
On a strategy/argumentation level, a CP in the 2NC is just a bad idea for the negative team. That least less than half the round to debate/clarify the CP. Also, a CP in the 2NC almost certainly wastes lots of debate from the 1NC/2AC.

Sometimes the best way to come back from a horrible 1NC and/or great 2AC it to just make it go away. But, in the vast majority of rounds, I agree with you.

_________________
-Bryan
Co-Founder of Olympus Forensics

Google it, we're the second link that pops up. We're pretty proud of that.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 6:46 am 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1912
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
To throw things on their head a bit: note that, from the perspective of how it influences the round theoretically, I would hold that advocacy is not even a thing. [warning: linked thread will make your brain hurt] This makes the theory question based on fairness, rather than on an abstract concept of "advocacy" that somehow defines which arguments are "in play" at each point in the round.

_________________
Abe bimuí bithúo dousí abe - "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free"

COG 2016 generics-only sourcebook - NCFCA/Stoa (thread)
Factsmith research software - v1.5 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 8:27 am 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2955
Home Schooled: Yes
RPatz wrote:
Unless otherwise stated, the negative advocacy is the current system. That is and has to be the assumption.
No. Negative's "advocacy" is merely that the plan should not happen. If the status quo is better, then that is a reason to reject the plan. If the plan comes at the cost of an opportunity to do something better (a counterplan), then that is a reason to reject the plan.

Therefore, "changing negative advocacy" is not a reason not to run a counterplan in the 2NC.

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 8:35 am 
Offline
Kenya debate as good as me?
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:06 am
Posts: 1926
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: In your head.
LocutusofBorg wrote:
Quote:
On a strategy/argumentation level, a CP in the 2NC is just a bad idea for the negative team. That least less than half the round to debate/clarify the CP. Also, a CP in the 2NC almost certainly wastes lots of debate from the 1NC/2AC.

Sometimes the best way to come back from a horrible 1NC and/or great 2AC it to just make it go away. But, in the vast majority of rounds, I agree with you.

There is one situation where I would encourage a 2NC counterplan intended from the beginning of the round. In some cases, the negative knows of affirmative responses that open the AFF case up to a counterplan, but the the AFF isn't advertising these points. The only way to get them to concede the points is to force them into their responses. A strong negative strategy is to run a normal 1NC, force the AFF into their responses, and then ditch the 1NC shell, and use the implicit concessions of the 2AC responses to launch into a strong counterplan. This throws the AFF off tremendously, as they have been lulled into expecting traditional arguments, and makes very good use of the 1NC speaking time, assuming there are good concessions garnered from the 2A responses.

I've only seen this used well a few times, but it's beautiful.

_________________
I desire to know nothing but Christ and him crucified.

SDG.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 9:01 am 
Offline
Doesn't have a title.
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2009 8:47 pm
Posts: 2955
Home Schooled: Yes
Or rather than ditching the 1NC, emphasize that the 1NC arguments are reasons why the counterplan is better than the plan.

_________________
Jordan Bakke


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited