homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Wed Nov 22, 2017 11:21 pm
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  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 5:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1377
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
sons_of_thunder wrote:
I see. It all comes down to who comes across as more credible when debating about theory, I guess.

Which correct reasoning plays a large part of.

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 5:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:17 pm
Posts: 59
Home Schooled: Yes
sons_of_thunder wrote:
So with that resolved, I'll jump into the discussion.

I researched quite a bit about counter plans, and I read in a book that for a counter plan to be valid, it must be three things:


Was this in the DFW sourcebook?
sons_of_thunder wrote:
1. Non-topical (This seems to be because if it was topical, then it would be affirming the resolution, and thereby saying the affirmative team was right)

Yes when you run a normal counterplan, but no when the counterplan is inferred. My partner and I run counterplans all the time but not as in here is our plan, mandates, etc. We just say hold on a sec the plan the AFF team presented is not the best solution (and there own evidence advocates a different solution) you should not vote AFF when their plan is not the best solution.
sons_of_thunder wrote:
2. Competitive with the Affirmative plan (In other words, you can't enact both)

Again no, plan inclusive counterplans are perfectly valid as well (when run correctly) the argument is basically we should add another mandate to the aff team's plan in order to make it solvent/not lead to XYZ DAs. Again the judge shouldn't waste their ballot on a bill that is not in it's best/final form
sons_of_thunder wrote:
3. Advantaged (The plan needs to have advantages)

And finally. No dur, who would ever run a counterplan that has no advantages :P?

sons_of_thunder wrote:
Now, I did read on Wikipedia that there is something called the Negation theory, which says that the Negative can agree with the resolution but just has to refute the Affirmative's case. But that was Wikipedia. ;) I couldn't find it anywhere else. It seems the vast majority of the alumni/professionals/scholars/coaches believes that a topical counter plan is an automatic surrender by the negative team.

This theory is also known as parametrics. Basically saying as soon as a plan is presented the whole resolution narrows to a debate of the plan, the best argument for it is the real world (congress, parliment, etc.) also it is team POLICY debate and so we are debating the policy and not a truth statement (i.e. the Rez). With that said I just ignore debate theory in my 1nc, why even go there? If the AFF wants to debate it fine I wreck them on it but it comes across better when the judge isn't even given a reason to believe counterplans are invalid.

sons_of_thunder wrote:
Thoughts from those of you who are experienced?


There you go.

_________________
Hammy wrote:
Noah is right


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1377
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
NerdRipper7 wrote:
With that said I just ignore debate theory in my 1nc, why even go there? If the AFF wants to debate it fine I wreck them on it but it comes across better when the judge isn't even given a reason to believe counterplans are invalid.

While technically Parametrics is illegitimate from a debate standpoint, Noah is right that most judges won't be won over by arguing theory against topical counter-plans. It can work and I've seen it happen, but you should probably only do it if you have a panel that would suggest experience. (coaches, alums, etc.)

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:17 pm
Posts: 59
Home Schooled: Yes
Hammy wrote:
While technically Parametrics is illegitimate from a debate standpoint,

Curious to see who's standpoint and what the standpoint is?
Hammy wrote:
Noah is right
might have to frame this one ;).
Hammy wrote:
most judges won't be won over by arguing theory against topical counter-plans. It can work and I've seen it happen, but you should probably only do it if you have a panel that would suggest experience. (coaches, alums, etc.)

Basically some judges will reject countplans off hand (why inferred counterplans are better) but I think it is always better to debate and weigh the merits off each plan instead of abstract debate theory.

_________________
Hammy wrote:
Noah is right


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:14 pm
Posts: 51
Home Schooled: Yes
NerdRipper7 wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Noah is right
might have to frame this one ;).


…That would be against author's intent, and would be quote mining. ;)

_________________
- Joshua Beckman
Region X

Beckman/Hopkins 2015-2016
LD 2016-2017
Ellerslie Discipleship Training Summer 2017
http://www.ellerslie.com


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:35 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:14 pm
Posts: 51
Home Schooled: Yes
NerdRipper7 wrote:
sons_of_thunder wrote:
So with that resolved, I'll jump into the discussion.

I researched quite a bit about counter plans, and I read in a book that for a counter plan to be valid, it must be three things:


Was this in the DFW sourcebook?


No, actually, I read it somewhere else online, from a coach or someone like that… I can't remember where, though. (Yes, I realize that wouldn't be valid in a debate round. :| )

_________________
- Joshua Beckman
Region X

Beckman/Hopkins 2015-2016
LD 2016-2017
Ellerslie Discipleship Training Summer 2017
http://www.ellerslie.com


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 7:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:17 pm
Posts: 59
Home Schooled: Yes
sons_of_thunder wrote:
NerdRipper7 wrote:
sons_of_thunder wrote:
So with that resolved, I'll jump into the discussion.

I researched quite a bit about counter plans, and I read in a book that for a counter plan to be valid, it must be three things:


Was this in the DFW sourcebook?


No, actually, I read it somewhere else online, from a coach or someone like that… I can't remember where, though. (Yes, I realize that wouldn't be valid in a debate round. :| )


You can't quote debate coaches on debate theory anyways (I think that is generally accepted at least. @Hammy?) But I know for a fact DFW teaches that and thought maybe that was where you picked it up :P.

_________________
Hammy wrote:
Noah is right


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 8:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:14 pm
Posts: 51
Home Schooled: Yes
Hammy wrote:
Debate seems to have shifted in NCFCA from the hypothetical discussion about the resolution to a real world discussion of Congressional policy.


Isn't that the way it should be? I mean, we're debating actual policy, right?

_________________
- Joshua Beckman
Region X

Beckman/Hopkins 2015-2016
LD 2016-2017
Ellerslie Discipleship Training Summer 2017
http://www.ellerslie.com


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 9:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:17 pm
Posts: 59
Home Schooled: Yes
sons_of_thunder wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Debate seems to have shifted in NCFCA from the hypothetical discussion about the resolution to a real world discussion of Congressional policy.


Isn't that the way it should be? I mean, we're debating actual policy, right?


My sentiments exactly.

_________________
Hammy wrote:
Noah is right


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Wed Mar 16, 2016 10:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1377
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
sons_of_thunder wrote:

Isn't that the way it should be? I mean, we're debating actual policy, right?

It's debatable. ;) But no, personally I'd lean against the real world policy trend. The real world policy mindset can seriously encroach on fiat power which is one of the greatest parts of debate, the ability to assume that the Aff plan will pass regardless of real world factors. Helps you to debate the actual merits of an idea instead of whether or not it will pass.

Not saying that a real world policy mindset guarantees this end, but it can be a byproduct in the general argumentation.

NerdRipper7 wrote:

You can't quote debate coaches on debate theory anyways (I think that is generally accepted at least. @Hammy?)

Yep. I mean, you can quote debate coaches all day long, it just probably won't help you much. At that point a smart Neg would probably shift the focus of the round back to impacts and away from the theory side. Or they could delve into how debate theory is always changing and that "experts" are counter-intuitive to that idea. :)

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2016 2:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:14 pm
Posts: 51
Home Schooled: Yes
Hammy wrote:
The real world policy mindset can seriously encroach on fiat power


How so?

_________________
- Joshua Beckman
Region X

Beckman/Hopkins 2015-2016
LD 2016-2017
Ellerslie Discipleship Training Summer 2017
http://www.ellerslie.com


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2016 4:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:17 pm
Posts: 59
Home Schooled: Yes
sons_of_thunder wrote:
Hammy wrote:
The real world policy mindset can seriously encroach on fiat power


How so?


Basically, every once in a while a team will go there plan doesn't solve because it would never pass in the real world, the SCOTUS world overturn it, the states wouldn't sign the amendment, etc. The problem is that obviously the plan hasn't passed in the real world (otherwise it would be inherent) we aren't debating whether or not it would pass but whether or not it SHOULD pass (i.e. the pros and cons of the plan).

_________________
Hammy wrote:
Noah is right


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2016 4:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1377
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
sons_of_thunder wrote:
Hammy wrote:
The real world policy mindset can seriously encroach on fiat power


How so?

If you start looking at TP from a strictly real world mindset then the question starts to get asked: "Would this plan be passed in the real world?" This leads to argumentation about how Congress might vote it down (past bill records, for example) or how the President has vowed to veto it etc. This heavily detracts from the huge advantage of debate which is where we can discuss hypothetical ideas regardless of whether or not they'll be passed. When Congressmen decide whether or not to present a bill, the chance of it being passed is a large part of that equation. We, as debaters, skip that step in favor of discussing the actual merits of the bill or plan of action.

Edit: Same grain as what Noah said. :)

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2016 4:19 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:14 pm
Posts: 51
Home Schooled: Yes
I see. I think I get it now. So we are debating the plan, but whether or not it would actually pass isn't what we're debating, it's whether or not it's a good idea to pass it.

_________________
- Joshua Beckman
Region X

Beckman/Hopkins 2015-2016
LD 2016-2017
Ellerslie Discipleship Training Summer 2017
http://www.ellerslie.com


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2016 5:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:17 pm
Posts: 59
Home Schooled: Yes
sons_of_thunder wrote:
I see. I think I get it now. So we are debating the plan, but whether or not it would actually pass isn't what we're debating, it's whether or not it's a good idea to pass it.


Exactly, the debate should be on the merits of the plan not the feasibility of passing it. However, debates on its effectiveness (for instance add judges won't work because of senate, president gridlock) are perfectly valid.

_________________
Hammy wrote:
Noah is right


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Thu Mar 17, 2016 6:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:14 pm
Posts: 51
Home Schooled: Yes
NerdRipper7 wrote:
However, debates on its effectiveness (for instance add judges won't work because of senate, president gridlock) are perfectly valid.


I see. So the plan will always pass, however, if it will do anything after it passes is always up for debate.

_________________
- Joshua Beckman
Region X

Beckman/Hopkins 2015-2016
LD 2016-2017
Ellerslie Discipleship Training Summer 2017
http://www.ellerslie.com


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Fri Mar 18, 2016 2:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:17 pm
Posts: 59
Home Schooled: Yes
sons_of_thunder wrote:
NerdRipper7 wrote:
However, debates on its effectiveness (for instance add judges won't work because of senate, president gridlock) are perfectly valid.


I see. So the plan will always pass, however, if it will do anything after it passes is always up for debate.


Exactly

_________________
Hammy wrote:
Noah is right


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 1:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:14 pm
Posts: 51
Home Schooled: Yes
I just had a thought: What if there are two possible solutions, let's say between a constitutional amendment and a statute, and the affirmative is promoting the constitutional amendment? Would it be a valid neg argument to say that because it's easier to get a statute passed than a constitutional amendment, then a counter plan doing that would be better?

_________________
- Joshua Beckman
Region X

Beckman/Hopkins 2015-2016
LD 2016-2017
Ellerslie Discipleship Training Summer 2017
http://www.ellerslie.com


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:17 pm
Posts: 59
Home Schooled: Yes
sons_of_thunder wrote:
I just had a thought: What if there are two possible solutions, let's say between a constitutional amendment and a statute, and the affirmative is promoting the constitutional amendment? Would it be a valid neg argument to say that because it's easier to get a statute passed than a constitutional amendment, then a counter plan doing that would be better?


I don't quite think that would work, mainly bc debaters try to not pass amendments (it is hard to get a judge to pass an amendment) so they only do them when they are absolutely necessary i.e. Term Limits or Retention Elections. So my guess is your statute change would be shot down by a good team, although a novice-ish team might pull out a case which they haven't run by anyone that includes an amendment but the chances of that are slim.

_________________
Hammy wrote:
Noah is right


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Mar 22, 2016 3:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1377
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
sons_of_thunder wrote:
I just had a thought: What if there are two possible solutions, let's say between a constitutional amendment and a statute, and the affirmative is promoting the constitutional amendment? Would it be a valid neg argument to say that because it's easier to get a statute passed than a constitutional amendment, then a counter plan doing that would be better?

Fiat power takes care of the question of whether or not it would actually happen. The only ground that you would have to run this counter plan is if you could somehow show how there is a unique disadvantage to a constitutional amendment in this case. It's highly unlikely such reasoning would exist and most judges would probably vote against you for trying to cheese your way to victory. :P

_________________
-Joshua
The dumb Boatswain's Mate who once did debate
Proud Coastie, Puddle Pirate, and Shallow Water Sailor


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

All times are UTC+01:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] 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