homeschool debate | Forums Wiki

HomeSchoolDebate

Speech and Debate Resources and Community
Forums      Wiki
It is currently Tue May 30, 2017 4:27 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  [ 116 posts ]  Go to page Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:17 pm
Posts: 58
Home Schooled: Yes
atshelton wrote:
Hammy wrote:
But their advantages still outweigh your inferred counter plan because nothing actually happens on a neg ballot, just an obscure possibility that something might happen if we leave the status quo alone.

This is where knowing solid debate theory is helpful.
1. Most debaters (and judges) view TP as a policy discussion. (Many people use the analogy of congress, however, that's not completely accurate because the actor in most resolutions is the US federal government as a whole not just the legislative branch.)
2. In a policy discussion it would be rather ridiculous for the federal government to say, "Plan B > Plan A > Status Quo but since Plan A was introduced first and B is similar to it we're going to go with Plan A." In a policy discussion, proposing a counter solution that is better than the original solution (competitive), and can not be done if the original plan is passed (mutually exclusive) refutes the first solution. In other words, if a plan would eliminate the opportunity for the actor in the situation to do something better than that plan is a bad idea.
3. The argument of "the government probably won't pass your implied CP" is rather weird if you understand that the judge you are arguing to is pretending to be the government for the sake of the debate. That should never be a reason for a policy maker (what the judge is pretending to be) to pass a plan that he thinks is worse than an alternative. I think this is what you disagree with. The problem is your assumption that "nothing actually happens on a neg ballot." A neg ballot is not necessarily a vote for the status quo, (if you believed that you would have to decry all CPs as illegitimate) it's a vote against the affirmative team. And the possibilities of what the judge could do after rejecting the affirmative team's plan are endless. The judge could say "I reject the affirmative plan because the status quo is better." Or they could say, "I reject the affirmative team's plan because this other option is better and if this were real policy making I wouldn't support Aff's plan when I knew this better option existed." Both are negative ballots.

^Why Andrew is awesome. My thoughts exactly, but a much clearer explanation than I would have given tbh.

_________________
Hammy wrote:
Noah is right


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 12:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1367
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
atshelton wrote:
Most debaters (and judges) view TP as a policy discussion.

Truth.
atshelton wrote:
(Many people use the analogy of congress, however, that's not completely accurate because the actor in most resolutions is the US federal government as a whole not just the legislative branch.)

Not entirely true. :)

We discussed this earlier. This is the difference between real world policy and a policy discussion. I prefer straight up policy discussion because we aren't in the real world. We aren't Congress/Gov. We don't make decisions from their standpoint, otherwise we would have to factor in perspectives such as: "Can I get enough Senators to pass my bill?" We skip that step for the sake of policy discussion.

In the same way, we skip the step of ambiguous possibilities of inferred counter plans. Aff presents a case, from there even under your precious doctrine of parametrics it is up to the Neg to refute that plan. Stating that there's a slight chance something better might happen is in no way proper refutation.

_________________
-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
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 2:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:17 pm
Posts: 58
Home Schooled: Yes
Hammy wrote:
atshelton wrote:
(Many people use the analogy of congress, however, that's not completely accurate because the actor in most resolutions is the US federal government as a whole not just the legislative branch.)

Not entirely true. :) We discussed this earlier. This is the difference between real world policy and a policy discussion. I prefer straight up policy discussion because we aren't in the real world. We aren't Congress/Gov. We don't make decisions from their standpoint, otherwise we would have to factor in perspectives such as: "Can I get enough Senators to pass my bill?" We skip that step for the sake of policy discussion.

Yes and no, Andrew is correct in saying the actor is the USFG as a whole, but no that does not mean we need to worry about will the plan pass through the real world Legaslative, Executive, and Judicial Branches or whether it will be failed. The passing of the plan (according to traditional debate theory) is done by the judge. They have fiat power bc they are acting as the entire USFG. There is the "Can I get enough to pass my bill" and it is made up of getting the majority of the judges in the room whether there is 1, or 3, or 5 etc.
Hammy wrote:
In the same way, we skip the step of ambiguous possibilities of inferred counter plans. Aff presents a case, from there even under your precious doctrine of parametrics it is up to the Neg to refute that plan. Stating that there's a slight chance something better might happen is in no way proper refutation.

Yes, no dur saying "there is a slight chance something better might happen" is terrible refutation. If someone runs inferred counterplans like that send them my way so I can put some sense into there head. An inferred counter-plan refutes the AFF plan by saying hold up your own evidence says there is a better plan OR all of our DAs could be avoided with a slight change to the plan. So the judge now has 2 option either they pass a plan that can be easily changed for the better, brought up in a future round, and passed. Or they vote NEG knowing the AFF plan was not worth passing bc there is clearly a superior way of solving the problems presented.

_________________
Hammy wrote:
Noah is right


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 8:19 pm
Posts: 123
Home Schooled: Yes
Hammy wrote:
Not entirely true. :)

We discussed this earlier. This is the difference between real world policy and a policy discussion. I prefer straight up policy discussion because we aren't in the real world. We aren't Congress/Gov. We don't make decisions from their standpoint, otherwise we would have to factor in perspectives such as: "Can I get enough Senators to pass my bill?" We skip that step for the sake of policy discussion.

What you need to realize to understand inferred counter plans is that debate is not just a policy discussion in the general sense, it's a policy discussion centered from the actor's perspective. (In most cases the USFG.) The question is not "should the Aff's plan be done?" It is "should the Aff's plan be done by the USFG?" The judge is most certainly making a decision from the actor's perspective but since the actor is not just one senator but rather the federal government as a whole, you are completely correct that they don't have to factor in whether or not it would pass. If the resolution was "Senator ____ should substantially reform X" then you would have to worry about that. Which is why basically every debate resolution ever sets the judge as the US as a whole not just one tiny part of it.

Hammy wrote:
In the same way, we skip the step of ambiguous possibilities of inferred counter plans. Aff presents a case, from there even under your precious doctrine of parametrics it is up to the Neg to refute that plan. Stating that there's a slight chance something better might happen is in no way proper refutation.

The same analysis refutes this idea. If the judge is acting as the whole government then the judge can also guarantee that the implied counter plan would be passed after the affirmative plan is rejected. Neg. never states that there is a slight chance of something else being passed. That would be a weak argument, but that's not what an inferred CP is. An inferred counter plan is telling the judge "Since you're making policy from the USFG's perspective you should pick the best policy for the US. The Aff teams plan isn't the best and therefore shouldn't be pasted. As evidence that their plan isn't best here is a plan that would be better." That argument refutes Aff's plan.


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Wed Mar 23, 2016 3:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:17 pm
Posts: 58
Home Schooled: Yes
atshelton wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Not entirely true. :)

We discussed this earlier. This is the difference between real world policy and a policy discussion. I prefer straight up policy discussion because we aren't in the real world. We aren't Congress/Gov. We don't make decisions from their standpoint, otherwise we would have to factor in perspectives such as: "Can I get enough Senators to pass my bill?" We skip that step for the sake of policy discussion.

What you need to realize to understand inferred counter plans is that debate is not just a policy discussion in the general sense, it's a policy discussion centered from the actor's perspective. (In most cases the USFG.) The question is not "should the Aff's plan be done?" It is "should the Aff's plan be done by the USFG?" The judge is most certainly making a decision from the actor's perspective but since the actor is not just one senator but rather the federal government as a whole, you are completely correct that they don't have to factor in whether or not it would pass. If the resolution was "Senator ____ should substantially reform X" then you would have to worry about that. Which is why basically every debate resolution ever sets the judge as the US as a whole not just one tiny part of it.

Hammy wrote:
In the same way, we skip the step of ambiguous possibilities of inferred counter plans. Aff presents a case, from there even under your precious doctrine of parametrics it is up to the Neg to refute that plan. Stating that there's a slight chance something better might happen is in no way proper refutation.

The same analysis refutes this idea. If the judge is acting as the whole government then the judge can also guarantee that the implied counter plan would be passed after the affirmative plan is rejected. Neg. never states that there is a slight chance of something else being passed. That would be a weak argument, but that's not what an inferred CP is. An inferred counter plan is telling the judge "Since you're making policy from the USFG's perspective you should pick the best policy for the US. The Aff teams plan isn't the best and therefore shouldn't be pasted. As evidence that their plan isn't best here is a plan that would be better." That argument refutes Aff's plan.


Again, ^Andrew comes in clutch.

_________________
Hammy wrote:
Noah is right


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2016 6:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:42 am
Posts: 44
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 6
atshelton wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Not entirely true. :)

We discussed this earlier. This is the difference between real world policy and a policy discussion. I prefer straight up policy discussion because we aren't in the real world. We aren't Congress/Gov. We don't make decisions from their standpoint, otherwise we would have to factor in perspectives such as: "Can I get enough Senators to pass my bill?" We skip that step for the sake of policy discussion.

What you need to realize to understand inferred counter plans is that debate is not just a policy discussion in the general sense, it's a policy discussion centered from the actor's perspective. (In most cases the USFG.) The question is not "should the Aff's plan be done?" It is "should the Aff's plan be done by the USFG?" The judge is most certainly making a decision from the actor's perspective but since the actor is not just one senator but rather the federal government as a whole, you are completely correct that they don't have to factor in whether or not it would pass. If the resolution was "Senator ____ should substantially reform X" then you would have to worry about that. Which is why basically every debate resolution ever sets the judge as the US as a whole not just one tiny part of it.

Hammy wrote:
In the same way, we skip the step of ambiguous possibilities of inferred counter plans. Aff presents a case, from there even under your precious doctrine of parametrics it is up to the Neg to refute that plan. Stating that there's a slight chance something better might happen is in no way proper refutation.

The same analysis refutes this idea. If the judge is acting as the whole government then the judge can also guarantee that the implied counter plan would be passed after the affirmative plan is rejected. Neg. never states that there is a slight chance of something else being passed. That would be a weak argument, but that's not what an inferred CP is. An inferred counter plan is telling the judge "Since you're making policy from the USFG's perspective you should pick the best policy for the US. The Aff teams plan isn't the best and therefore shouldn't be pasted. As evidence that their plan isn't best here is a plan that would be better." That argument refutes Aff's plan.


This is gold.

_________________
click for details
14-15: Churchman/Wright
19-20
15-16: Churchman/Kauk
46-20

WI Open: 7-1 | 6-0 | 5th
KY: 4-3 | 4-2 | 12th
NC Open: 9-3 | 4-2 | 2nd
WI: 7-1 | 6-0 | 5th
OH: 4-3 | 4-2 | 13th
IL: 5-3 | 4-2 | 7th
Regionals: 5-4 | 3-3 | 4th
Nats: 6-2 | 5-1 | 5th

now coaching
top12gun@gmail.com
-
Chapman/Chapman


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2016 7:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1367
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
atshelton wrote:
The same analysis refutes this idea. If the judge is acting as the whole government then the judge can also guarantee that the implied counter plan would be passed after the affirmative plan is rejected. Neg. never states that there is a slight chance of something else being passed. That would be a weak argument, but that's not what an inferred CP is. An inferred counter plan is telling the judge "Since you're making policy from the USFG's perspective you should pick the best policy for the US. The Aff teams plan isn't the best and therefore shouldn't be pasted. As evidence that their plan isn't best here is a plan that would be better." That argument refutes Aff's plan.

You need to make up your mind, are you presenting a counter plan or not? What you're describing now is counter plan theory. You present another solution to the judge. Absolutely. But you are held to that plan, you can't shift your position from plan to plan (unless you're presenting all of them as counter plans)

What you are doing is putting the choice of inferred counter plans before the judge. We all have those judges who make their decisions based off of opinion instead of the in round argumentation. Inferred counter plans are encouraging this behavior. It's poor argumentation to state: "Judge, pass whatever you want to pass under a negative ballot."

_________________
-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
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2016 7:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:17 pm
Posts: 58
Home Schooled: Yes
Hammy wrote:
atshelton wrote:
The same analysis refutes this idea. If the judge is acting as the whole government then the judge can also guarantee that the implied counter plan would be passed after the affirmative plan is rejected. Neg. never states that there is a slight chance of something else being passed. That would be a weak argument, but that's not what an inferred CP is. An inferred counter plan is telling the judge "Since you're making policy from the USFG's perspective you should pick the best policy for the US. The Aff teams plan isn't the best and therefore shouldn't be pasted. As evidence that their plan isn't best here is a plan that would be better." That argument refutes Aff's plan.

You need to make up your mind, are you presenting a counter plan or not? What you're describing now is counter plan theory. You present another solution to the judge. Absolutely. But you are held to that plan, you can't shift your position from plan to plan (unless you're presenting all of them as counter plans)

What you are doing is putting the choice of inferred counter plans before the judge. We all have those judges who make their decisions based off of opinion instead of the in round argumentation. Inferred counter plans are encouraging this behavior. It's poor argumentation to state: "Judge, pass whatever you want to pass under a negative ballot."


No, the judge isn't passing whatever they want under a NEG ballot, the judge is instead NEG the AFF plan in favor of looking at other plans/permutations of the AFF plan. You present a counter plan in the sense that it is a plan counter to the original one, but you don't present a counter plan as in Mandate 1... Mandate 2... Comparative advantages to AFF case... Complex debate theory as to why voting NEG actually get's your plan passed... Instead you just say, wait there is a better solution, here it is, fail their plan bc it is not the best solution and if it were passed you would lose the opportunity to pass a better plan that fixes the stated harms.

_________________
Hammy wrote:
Noah is right


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2016 7:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1367
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
NerdRipper7 wrote:
Instead you just say, wait there is a better solution, here it is, fail their plan bc it is not the best solution and if it were passed you would lose the opportunity to pass a better plan that fixes the stated harms.

But you aren't passing that solution, two worlds, a solution vs no solution, you outweigh, we covered that already. Andrew is suggesting that the judge takes it upon themselves to pass whatever the H*wl*tt P*ck*rd their opinions dictate.

_________________
-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
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2016 7:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:17 pm
Posts: 58
Home Schooled: Yes
Hammy wrote:
NerdRipper7 wrote:
Instead you just say, wait there is a better solution, here it is, fail their plan bc it is not the best solution and if it were passed you would lose the opportunity to pass a better plan that fixes the stated harms.

But you aren't passing that solution, two worlds, a solution vs no solution, you outweigh, we covered that already. Andrew is suggesting that the judge takes it upon themselves to pass whatever the H*wl*tt P*ck*rd their opinions dictate.

No Andrew is saying they (the judges) are the Gov so once they fail the AFF solution they can pass a better one. What I am saying is that no real government body ever passes a bill because the Alt. is not passing a bill instead what they should do is way the merits of the said bill against itself and then against other similar bill/bills that solve the same problem and pass the best one. We don't pass something bc if we don't we wouldn't be passing anything we only pass it if it is the best way to solve a problem. If there is a better way we fail the bill and debate better ones.

Clarification: This isn't saying the NEG should just get up and say as many random plans as possible and hope the judge likes one better. What it is saying is that if the AFF evidence and NEG evidence together suggest a different plan then the NEG can say said different plan would be better than AFF plan be reasonable and fail AFF plan.

_________________
Hammy wrote:
Noah is right


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Mon Mar 28, 2016 7:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:14 pm
Posts: 51
Home Schooled: Yes
Wow, I had no idea I would kick off a debate like this when I asked that question! :D

_________________
- 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 29, 2016 2:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 1:57 am
Posts: 124
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Check your fridge.
sons_of_thunder wrote:
Wow, I had no idea I would kick off a debate like this when I asked that question! :D


That should seriously be the slogan of HSD.

_________________
Ben Vincent, R II
South Sound Speech and Debate
www.lifeinthesunrise.com

I have won things. No really, I promise.

"Everything in this world is either a potato... or not a potato."


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 7:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1376
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
No, the judge isn't passing whatever they want under a NEG ballot, the judge is instead NEG the AFF plan in favor of looking at other plans/permutations of the AFF plan.

Isn't the judge voting NEG to the resolution though, not the Aff plan? ;)

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 7:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 3:47 pm
Posts: 1367
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: H*wL*tt P*ck*rd muffins
Cyberknight wrote:
Quote:
No, the judge isn't passing whatever they want under a NEG ballot, the judge is instead NEG the AFF plan in favor of looking at other plans/permutations of the AFF plan.

Isn't the judge voting NEG to the resolution though, not the Aff plan? ;)

^This all day long.

_________________
-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
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 7:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 2:17 pm
Posts: 58
Home Schooled: Yes
Hammy wrote:
Cyberknight wrote:
Quote:
No, the judge isn't passing whatever they want under a NEG ballot, the judge is instead NEG the AFF plan in favor of looking at other plans/permutations of the AFF plan.

Isn't the judge voting NEG to the resolution though, not the Aff plan? ;)

^This all day long.

Nope according to the JO slides which I have printed out the NEG has to Negate the resolution or the AFF team.

_________________
Hammy wrote:
Noah is right


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Tue Mar 29, 2016 7:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:14 pm
Posts: 51
Home Schooled: Yes
NerdRipper7 wrote:
Hammy wrote:
Cyberknight wrote:
Quote:
No, the judge isn't passing whatever they want under a NEG ballot, the judge is instead NEG the AFF plan in favor of looking at other plans/permutations of the AFF plan.

Isn't the judge voting NEG to the resolution though, not the Aff plan? ;)

^This all day long.

Nope according to the JO slides which I have printed out the NEG has to Negate the resolution or the AFF team.


Wait… so that, in one stroke, ends the debate. Topical counter plans are perfectly fine!

NCFCA Debate Orientation Notebook wrote:
The Affirmative team argues for the topic, and the negative team opposes the topic or the affirmative’s position.

_________________
- 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 29, 2016 8:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 14, 2008 9:28 pm
Posts: 2878
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: I'm not lost! I'm locationally challenged. -John M. Ford
sons_of_thunder wrote:
Wait… so that, in one stroke, ends the debate. Topical counter plans are perfectly fine!

Although they could be using "or" in the exclusive sense. i.e. "either against the resolution or the affirmative plan."

(as an aside, NCFCA rules should never ever ever ever be referenced in a theory debate. Rules can't mitigate pre-fiat impacts.)

_________________
There cannot be a crisis next week. My schedule is already full.
- Henry Kissinger


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 3:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:07 am
Posts: 1376
Home Schooled: Yes
Quote:
Nope according to the JO slides which I have printed out the NEG has to Negate the resolution or the AFF team.

This is JO slides, not NCFCA rules. Mrs. Hudson specifically said that counterplans are open for debate. Plus, if you accept this interpretation of the duties of the two teams, wouldn't that mean the Aff team can just ignore the resolution and propose any plan whatsoever?

_________________
Check out my new website!

"Never quote yourself on internet forums" - Gabriel Blacklock, 2014


Top
   
 Post subject: Re: TOPICAL COUNTERPLANS
PostPosted: Wed Mar 30, 2016 3:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2016 5:14 pm
Posts: 51
Home Schooled: Yes
Cyberknight wrote:
Plus, if you accept this interpretation of the duties of the two teams, wouldn't that mean the Aff team can just ignore the resolution and propose any plan whatsoever?


Right. Very true.

As an aside, aren't you at Cherry Hill Qualifier right now? :)

_________________
- 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 30, 2016 5:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 12:42 am
Posts: 44
Home Schooled: Yes
Location: Region 6
Cyberknight wrote:
Quote:
Nope according to the JO slides which I have printed out the NEG has to Negate the resolution or the AFF team.

This is JO slides, not NCFCA rules. Mrs. Hudson specifically said that counterplans are open for debate. Plus, if you accept this interpretation of the duties of the two teams, wouldn't that mean the Aff team can just ignore the resolution and propose any plan whatsoever?


Nope, Topicality checks with impacts of abuse and education. The purpose of a resolution is to provide common ground for preparation and debate. If that purpose is met, then a lot of this is just semantics because there is more topic education by evaluating through a real-world policy stand point, and it's more argumentatively strenuous to allow a broad range of argument. Therefore, it's better for education. Abuse checks idiocy.

As an aside, the JO slides were put together by individuals with a fairly limited understanding of theory to provide a brief introduction to a complex world, for people entirely unfamiliar with it. They should never be construed as the ultimate guide on anything other than what judges are hearing in orientation.

_________________
click for details
14-15: Churchman/Wright
19-20
15-16: Churchman/Kauk
46-20

WI Open: 7-1 | 6-0 | 5th
KY: 4-3 | 4-2 | 12th
NC Open: 9-3 | 4-2 | 2nd
WI: 7-1 | 6-0 | 5th
OH: 4-3 | 4-2 | 13th
IL: 5-3 | 4-2 | 7th
Regionals: 5-4 | 3-3 | 4th
Nats: 6-2 | 5-1 | 5th

now coaching
top12gun@gmail.com
-
Chapman/Chapman


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: 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:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited