homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Mon Apr 24, 2017 8:21 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  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Oct 18, 2013 6:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 2:40 am
Posts: 1179
Home Schooled: No
Years ago, Burleson High School right outside Fort Worth had a couple of quite successful teams, and they would run counterplans that they labeled "non-resolutional policy alternative." If anyone tried to answer them like counterplans, they'd say "It's not a counterplan; it's a non-resolutional policy alternative." Some debaters had the moxie to make fun of that in CX, by chasing them around until they had to admit it was a counterplan, but some debaters didn't have the stick-to-it-iveness to grind that out of them. And they did say that calling it a non-resolutional policy alternative helped them with some judges who thought counterplans were radical departures from their beloved stock issues. They wouldn't vote on a counterplan, but they'd at least listen to a non-resolutional policy alternative.

We, of course, ridiculed it. We abbreviated it to NRPA, which we pronounced "nurpa," and we threatened to give them a purple nurpa if they pulled any of that nonsense with us.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Oct 18, 2013 6:57 pm 
Offline
Get off my lawn, young'ins!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:06 pm
Posts: 1909
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Frantically hitting Ctrl+Alt+Del
Hammy wrote:
Except unless the neg runs a counter plan then they are supporting the status quo. They are saying that nothing should change. Not because there are other solutions (with exception of CP) but because the SQ should be kept.
The Negative negates the resolution. That can mean supporting the status quo, but it doesn't have to - they could run a counterplan, as you say.

But as I've been saying, it makes no difference whether you run an opportunity cost argument as a DA or a counterplan. It's the exact same argument either way. The debate is about the factual truth of the resolution; officially "supporting/advocating" or "not supporting/advocating" a proposal doesn't change the facts involved. Whether the Negative officially advocates the proposal as a CP has no impact on whether it proves the resolution factually wrong.

_________________
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 - v1.4 currently available (thread)
Loose Nukes debate blog - stuff to read with your eyes.


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Oct 18, 2013 8:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1361
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
MSD wrote:
But as I've been saying, it makes no difference whether you run an opportunity cost argument as a DA or a counterplan. It's the exact same argument either way. The debate is about the factual truth of the resolution; officially "supporting/advocating" or "not supporting/advocating" a proposal doesn't change the facts involved. Whether the Negative officially advocates the proposal as a CP has no impact on whether it proves the resolution factually wrong.

In theory yes. But not in the judges mind. ;)

_________________
-Joshua
08-09 | Half-Timer | Verdict | R8
09-10 | Timer | Verdict | R8
10-11 | Folkert/Folkert | Verdict | R8
11-12 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
12-13 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
13-14 | Folkert/Light | Verdict | R8
14-15 | Folkert/Porter | Arx Axiom | R8
15-16 | Doto/Folkert | Verdict | R8


Top
   
PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2014 5:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 17, 2009 7:01 pm
Posts: 160
Home Schooled: Yes
Masked Midnight wrote:
Hammy wrote:
MSD wrote:
But as I've been saying, it makes no difference whether you run an opportunity cost argument as a DA or a counterplan. It's the exact same argument either way. The debate is about the factual truth of the resolution; officially "supporting/advocating" or "not supporting/advocating" a proposal doesn't change the facts involved. Whether the Negative officially advocates the proposal as a CP has no impact on whether it proves the resolution factually wrong.

In theory yes. But not in the judges mind. ;)

It's actually worked in quite a few judges minds. ;)


^This along with a reminder that it's your job to make it work that way in the judges' mind. All this theory is just common sense and logic applied to how debate should operate. I agree 100% with MSD, that's exactly how I explain the theory to my students, and it's won me plenty of rounds both running or negating a CP.

_________________
Isaac Franklin

09-10 | Edmonds/Harris | Rainmakers | R3
10-11 | Edmonds/Harris | Rainmakers | R2
11-12 | Aldrich/Harris | Rainmakers | R2
12-13 | Bayliss/Harris | Rainmakers | R2


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2

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