1 / 32

Debating the CP

Debating the CP. Matt V. Gomez Oxford University (Ogden Campus). Part One: Forming the CP. The Counterplan. Factors that make a good counterplan Does it solve the aff better? Is it competitive Does it solve the aff or a portion of the aff AS WELL AS a DA (net benefit) Original.

taurus
Download Presentation

Debating the CP

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Debating the CP Matt V. Gomez Oxford University (Ogden Campus)

  2. Part One: Forming the CP

  3. The Counterplan • Factors that make a good counterplan • Does it solve the aff better? • Is it competitive • Does it solve the aff or a portion of the aff AS WELL AS a DA (net benefit) • Original

  4. The Counterplan Text • Factors that make a good text • Generic CP • Adjustable – • The easiest way is to not have pre-written phrasing. • Can be worded to adjust to stupid plan texts. • Write out the action of the plan • This excludes [insert mandates of the plan] • Case Specific Counterplan • Every plank written out • Adjustable – • Changes accordingly to 1AC advantages

  5. Competition Factors that make a good competition claim: None, the best counterplans are clearly competitive by the texts. However, assuming you are reading a generic CP: • “Avoids DA to…” • Small T Violation. Accusing your own counterplan of being untopical for doing something the aff also does – game over.

  6. Solvency • Factors that make good solvency claims • Solvency Advocate • An Author that explicitly advocates the counterplan • These will be the best warranted cards • Definitive • Conclusive • 1AC Author

  7. Net Benefit • Factors that make a good net benefit • Unique • Doesn’t matter how awesome your net benefit is if the squo solves it • Definite Solvency • Turns the case

  8. Part Two: The Negative and Debating the CP

  9. The Negatives Goal • Assuming the affirmative has done their job right, the squo will not be an easy world to defend • To combat this, we have counterplans.

  10. Before the Round • Read 1AC’s. • The best counterplans are found in the un-underlined portions of 1AC solvency cards • Predict and prepare • 2NC Impact Modules

  11. 1AC • Review the affirmative plan text • Review advantages • Make sure the text is competitive • Insert appropriate net benefit

  12. 1NC • When to read: • Easy • Read after T • Before External DA that are also net benefits

  13. 2NC • Not 1NR • Step One: Begin with an overview: • Line by line • This is true of the DA notes from the other day • However, these will be vague guidelines based on the normal 2AC order • Step Two: Perm Debate • Step Three: Solvency Debate • Step Four: Theory • Step Five: Net Benefit

  14. The Overview • CP solves 100% of the case” OR • “CP solves X advantage and the net benefit turns the other” • 20-30 seconds on why • 30 seconds on the net-benefit explanation – impact calc

  15. Perm Debate • Each perm needs to be addressed separately 1. Theory 2. Doesn’t solve 3. DA to the perm

  16. Perm Theory • Intrinsic • Adding something that was in neither the exact plan text nor the exact cp text • Severance • Excluding part of the original plan text • Timeframe • A type of intrinsicness • Delaying either the aff or the cp

  17. DA to the perm • Self-explanatory • Factors that make a good perm DA • Not just a solve takeout • Impact that the affirmative can’t claim to solve • Big magnitude

  18. Solvency Debate • Extend from overview • All the solvency explanation form the 1NC should be done • Answer their solvency deficits • Generally 2AC will go advantage by advantage • So will you • Step one: analytic • Too often we forget the 1NC cards answer most solvency deficits • Step two: card

  19. Theory Debate • Counterplan’s have a “status” • 3 status’ • Conditional – can be kicked at any time • Dispositional – multiple interpretations • If you read any theory other than dispo bad, we can kick it • If you straight turn, we’re stuck with it • Unconditional – have to go for it unless they go for T

  20. Net Benefit • Treat as a DA • Impact Calc on Top if not on overview • Explain why even if the CP doesn’t solve all of the case, the net benefit outweighs what you don’t solve.

  21. 2NR • Must have either an internal net benefit or an external. The counterplan itself is not a reason to vote negative. • Overview – similar to the 2NC, but with more explanation • Admit defeat – we may not solve this part of the case. However, the Net Benefit outweighs. • Same structure as the 2NC

  22. 1AR 5 minutes of Theory • Do we just answer theory, or should we extend the CP too? • Extend the CP and NB in 10 seconds • “1AR concedes the CP solves the case and avoids the NB of X impact” • Serves as a tie-breaker for theory • 4:50 on theory

  23. The Affirmative and the Counterplan

  24. Answering the CP • 4 Categories • Theory – will be covered in theory lecture tomorrow • Perm • Solvency Deficit • DA to the CP

  25. Perm • DO NOT READ 5 PERMS IN A ROW AT BREAKNECK SPEED!!! • Judges need ink time • Common Perms • Perm: Do Both • Perm: Do Plan then CP • Perm: Do CP then Plan • Perm: Do CP • Great time trade-off – but toe the line carefully

  26. Perm • Factors that make a good perm: • Does it have a net benefit? • Specificity • Tricky CP Texts • Tread the abuse line very carefully

  27. Solvency Deficit • Factors that make a solvency deficit effective • Doesn’t solve the aff • 1AC card extension • 2AC cards • Analytics • Doesn’t solve the net-benefit • Cards • Analytics

  28. DA to the CP • Avoid reading an impact the 1AC already has • Can be an Add-on, or a DA to their mechanism • Also can impact turn the NB

  29. 2AC • S.P.O.T. • Step One: Solvency Deficit • Every flow starts with case extension • Explain why this outweighs the NB • Step Two: Perm • Place at different parts of the flow so they 1) might drop, 2) have to actively organize, 3) judge ink time • Almost always no more than two • Perm do both, perm do cp • If they bust out the Consult • 5 perms, Jimmy’s got this one

  30. 2AC • Step Three: DA to the CP (Offense) • Step Four: Theory • Status • Consult/Process/Competition

  31. 1AR • Step One: Solvency Deficit • A. Extend from 2AC • B. Answer 2NC arg • C. Extend that it outweighs NB • Step Two: Perm: • A. Answer any theory (reject arg not team) • B. Extend exact text • C. Explain how it functions • Step 3: Choose between theory or the DA unless you’re excessively quick or only have to cover 3 flows.

  32. 2AR • Know what you are winning – spend most time on your best offense. • Know what they are winning – that’s second • Your best arg is the solvency deficit – makes your 1AC offense • Perm – easy way out for the judge • DA – external offense aside from case – even if they best solvency deficit, they still have to win the DA to the CP • Theory – must be 5 minutes

More Related