A good year for counterplans?
While last year seemed near impossible to run good counterplans based on the requirements of the NFA-LD rules for counterplans, this year seems really solid.
Specifically, the rules state that counterplans:
The negative may present one counterproposal specific to the affirmative problem area. By this, we mean that the counterproposal must deal with the problem area defined by the affirmative, and not the form of government, economic system, or need for further study (UNLESS SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED AS A KEY ISSUE IN THE RESOLUTION). Counterproposals should be used to demonstrate that a reasonable alternative plan would be better policy than either the status quo or the affirmative plan. Counterproposals should be logically consistent with all other negative arguments constructed during the debate. If inconsistencies arise and the affirmative points them out, the judge should reject the arguments inconsistent with the counterproposal. Counterproposals must be non-topical and are subject to the same burdens of solvency as are required for affirmative plans. Source
The affirmative will lay out a harms scenario and propose that the solution is based on transportation infrastructure – building more roads, changing highways, etc… But the negative can then propose in a counterplan that the harms scenario is better solved without changing our infrastructure but our land use policies.
The auctioning off all highways in the NFA-LD Coop evidence set would be an example of this type of counterplan. The counterplan is not changing anything with the actual highways, just who owns them. Here is one of the arguments from that counterplan:
The counter-plan is non-topical: We are reforming transportation management, in the sense of who owns the roads, rather than transportation infrastructure, which would be a physical change in the roads themselves.
The key here is that you must frame the topic as requiring the affirmative to change the physical transportation infrastructure itself. The Definition Database contains 3 definitions for the term transportation infrastructure. I prefer the 3rd one the best but with a different tag:
Transportation infrastructure is a physical system, such as highway, road, airport, railway and waterway, used to transport people and goods
American Public Works Association. "Infrastructure Facts." February 7, 2007, http://www.apwa.net/documents/advocacy/infrastructure%20facts.pdf
America’s transportation system is one of the world’s most extensive, and includes highways, roads, airports, railways, and waterways. Public Works Departments maintain our transportation infrastructure so that people and goods can travel with ease.
With this definition the affirmative must build or rebuild a transportation infrastructure system that is physical. The negative, on the other hand, can leave everything physical the same but simply tinker with the way that we use them.
For example, an affirmative plan might be to widen major interstate freeways from 4 lanes to 5 lanes across the country to ease congestion. However, the negative, while leaving the 4 lane freeways in place, could institute congestion pricing much like London has done.
Since February 2003 the city of London has charged a fee for driving private automobiles in its central area during weekdays as a way to reduce traffic congestion and raise revenues to fund transport improvements. This has significantly reduced traffic congestion, improved bus and taxi service, and generates substantial revenues. Public acceptance has grown and there is now support to expand the program to other parts of London and other cities in the U.K. This is the first congestion pricing program in a major European city, and its success suggests that congestion pricing may become more politically feasible elsewhere. Source
Here is an article discussing the benefits from congestion pricing in London. Now, you would probably not be able to funnel the money back into infrastructure improvements but you could use the money to offset any impact on poor people not being able to pay for the congestion pricing.
I think this is an entirely reasonable interpretation for the following three reasons:
- Reasonable: The aff gets to reform the physical infrastructure system through its plan such as rebuilding roads or creating new systems like high speed rail. The negative, on the other hand, has to leave the infrastructure system alone but reform the use of that infrastructure. It would be akin to a situation where your car is not working well. The aff could buy a new car whereas the negative could simply drive the car less frequently or not as fast. The resolution could have easily used the word policy in place of infrastructure but instead specifies infrastructure for the affirmative.
- Real World: It makes sense that there is a real world choice between building or rebuilding systems and changing how we use the ones we have. It would make perfect sense in policy analysis to say “wait, we don’t need to add 5 more lanes of highway, we need to use the existing infrastructure system but change the way we use them.”
- Good division of ground: this interpretation gives the affirmative a ton of room to change the infrastructure whereas the negative gets to change the use policies. This division means that the negative can have some good generic ground on any affirmative plan since the affirmative will have to deal with tangible physical infrastructure whereas the negative can deal with the use policies – whether it be roads, air, rail or sea infrastructure. This interpretation gives a good balance to the two sides.
This would enable the negative debater to have a generic use policy counterplan for any of the major transportation systems (say, roads, rails, air and sea) and counter any affirmative plan that reforms the physical infrastructure.
Please share your thoughts! Is this a good interpretation of the topic? A good negative strategy?
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
To all, counterplans are tricky. Everyone needs to make sure facts are straight before running one. To this day, I find myself talking with colleagues and debate coaches about the fine line of CP’s.
I remember last year I went up against a great debater who pulled a counterplan on me, without saying that the counterplan is mutually exclusive. I ended up permutating the plan and winning the ballot. CP’s need to be mutually exclusive and need to solve for the harms produced by the affirmative. This year will be fun because CP’s are very likely. People need to be really careful though. CP or Permutations.
On congestion pricing as a CP, it’s not a bad idea. I think the person above me is looking more into NFA at the 4 year level where they start debating little things here and there. At the 2 year level, they’re just wondering, “is your plan really solid?” as well as a variety of other questions.
As far as the elitism argument on the CP, there are actual studies out there that show, “non-elitist” residents would be more than happy to pay higher prices on a toll road in order to get home quicker and to refute the unpopularity argument you could easily state a great quote, “What is popular is not always right.” I know Florida has a ton of toll roads which do pay for themselves and their residents are not complaining. (but then I guess they would be elitist too right?) All this refutation is grounds for showing why the CP is good and competitive. But I think it would be strategic to pull an elitist argument overall because you could veer the argument away from the Resolution, straight into a K argument about “elitists vs. non-elitists” if one would ever occur.
I debated this way when I was in the 2 year circle. I only debated at 2 tournaments (CCCFA and PRP) during that time but I did swing a bronze at PRP (still grumbling over that bronze round).
Yup, lets all pay more for the same roads then we already pay… I know that the people in Compton would be happy to do that, right? Just because people are ‘willing’ to pay for something doesn’t mean mean it isn’t elitist. The popularity argument goes to congress for a politics DA, burns capital = no whatever. People in Florida also have a lower cost of living then a lot of places.
Competitiveness is based off of a DA or a K. It means asking if the CP is a good idea to be done over the plan. If it is elitist it is not a better idea – as long as those arguments are made in round.
Before this question can be seriously discussed, I have some preliminary thoughts:
Are the judges going to be any more serious about enforcing NFA-LD rules re: Counterplans than they are about enforcing the other NFA-LD Rules? Frankly, I doubt it. As a group, they DON’T enforce the “anti-spread” rule, and they don’t enforce the rules on evidence citation. So I suspect that “back East” it will not be uncommon for many debaters to run well-developed, well-structured, well-evidenced CPs for about 30-45 seconds of their constructives. And I fully suspect that most, if not all, of the CPs run this year will be as topical as hell – perhaps even more topical than the standard Affirmative plans.
For the record (in other words, as notice to all whom I might judge), I do not like PIC’s, nor do I believe that the Affirmative should be allowed to “perm” a CP without a helluva lot of detailed argumentation. (“Perms” are not mentioned in the NFA-LD Rules.) But, as always, I will do my best to vote on what I hear in the round, and not upon any preconceived debate theories I might have.
Final point: the possibility – if not probability – of CP’s enhances my view that the Affirmative should define terms in the opening constructive. Obviously, it would behoove the Affirmative to define terms generically, and in such a way as to set up the argument(s) that any competitive CP is topical, and that any K is, in fact, an argument for adoption of an alternative Affirmative plan, not negation of the resolution. I say this for many reasons, not the least of which is that I personally consider “congestion pricing” to be a method of substantially reforming domestic transportation infrastructure (i.e., the “financial” infrastructure of domestic transportation).
I do not think that perms are listed anywhere in most ‘rules of the game’. However, I would like to hear more form what you would expect to see from a debater who wishes to test the competitiveness of a CP. More specifically, what do you mean when you say “a helluva lot of detailed argumentation” will be needed?
Good evening, all. Please permit me a few thoughts on this discussion.
1. There is no rule against spread debate, there is simply a “spirit of the event” comment in the rules.
2. There are a LOT of reasons why topical counterplans are theoretically illegitimate, and that’s without getting into the rules at all–if you run a topical CP, you’re risking losing to some pretty legitimate theory that your opponent will probably have more traction on with more critics than rules indictments.
3. It’s only the judge’s place to enforce rules, in my opinion, at the insistence of the competitor.
4. If you interpret a CP to be simply an opportunity-cost disadvantage, than the perm simply says that there is no dichotomy between plan/counterplan. If the perm is net beneficial, then counterplan can’t be a true opportunity cost to plan… it’s not (it shouldn’t be) a new advocacy, so in my opinion the burden of evidence/analysis shouldn’t be TOO high… i think this is a really important point.
5. I feel like putting out your interps in the 1AC is strategically unsound–yes, you may tag a CP as topical, but you are admitting your interpretations are very poorly limiting. Insofar that topicality debates typically come down to the most limiting interp, you’re already way, way behind the starting line going into the 1AR. I just don’t feel the tradeoff is sufficient. now, if you’re delivering interps/counterstandards in the 1AC to save a bunch of time on answering T in the 1AR, that’s a different story, but still risky.
6. Mutual exclusivity is different than competition–i don’t think CPs should be held strictly to a mutual exclusivity standard. So long as they compete through net benefits (or textually, if you want to argue that), then there is a dichotomy and thus sufficient theoretical grounds to endorse the CP.
oh one more thing: nerdy db8r, why are CPs in NFA-LD unconditional? I’ve never heard this, nor do I see it in the rules…
Hey Brandon, it’s good to see USAFA on these boards now! I haven’t seen you post here before so this is my hi, how are ya?
1) When the rules say drop someone if they go fast or you will be removed from the judging pool that says there is a rule against it.
2)Saying, “It is a rule – so vote them down” takes 5 seconds to say and more the that to answer, it isn’t the best argument ever but it sure kills your time more then mine.
3)duh? We don’t want judges intervening any more then they already do; for better or worse.
4) why are CPs opportunity costs?
5)agree for sure
6) MHM is a rule following kind of person. He likes his rules; for better or worse. He is just offering what he would like an aff/neg team do do when they debate in front of him and what he sees that debate should look like according to his interpretation of said rules. If you don’t like that interpretation, don’t run those arguments or try and strike him when you can. As I was writing this I was surprised to see myself agreeing with him as much as I did, which is odd because we both have different views of what the activity should be.
In the end, at least he is honest and says what he thinks instead of lying and then basing his decision on something that was opposite from what he says.
Now, to defend my perspective of what the event should look like:
There is only 1 speech to kick out of – it is a BS move to kick a CP in ld because of the time constraints. Ask almost any school and they will tell you the same for parli. At both camps I went to this year the debaters themselves are agreeing more and more that CPs are unconditional.
You don’t have to go for the CP but you are stuck with the effects of the CP. You are allowed to propose 1 CP. The CP when you do not advocate a change to the SQO in the 1NC is the SQO. The CP when you do have one becomes your new ground. It is really hard to me to see a reason to 1) allow you to have multiple advocacies in an event that says you may not. 2) time skew an aff like that. 3) waste your own time.
When do you run a CP?
Maybe to CP the uniqueness to your DA? away goes the CP away goes the DA.
Maybe to avoid the politics DA? Get rid of the CP and you lose on the SQO vs the Politics/spending/focus/whatever… much of the time
Maybe as an alternative to the K? Yup – kick your alt, I beg you – any offense from the 1AR will probably put you ahead. Not to mention, “His own CP was kicked because s/he couldn’t solve – we’re all F’d no matter what. Vote Aff to make the world better!”
Maybe as an “Oh shit!” States CP? well, there goes the neighborhood.
You may not spend the entire 1NR on it, but you, my friend, are stuck with the CP once you put it out. If you go all in on T that is not kicking the CP – kicking the CP is when you totally disavow knowledge of it in the round – so if they are T they can win by beating your CP. That is what I interpret unconditional as being. To be more specific you cannot say, “Voting for the perm is illigit because I am not going for the CP.” Does that make sense?
well i don’t want to get into my frontline of conditionality good, but suffice it to say i don’t agree 
a clever enough debater can leverage a dropped CP against the aff, even outside of ‘conditionality bad’ arguments
an alternate view of counterplans:
1. the counterplan demonstrates a BETTER Policy option that, by endorsing plan, you are losing the ability to do. This is why competition matters. If it was a plan neg thought was good, there really isn’t any reason why a perm would make the CP suddenly go away. As a test of opp cost is the only way a perm could function the way it does.
2. anyway on rules, i was just commenting on Mr. Miller’s note about judges enforcing the rules: my opinion is that a judge should vote on the flow where the arguments tell him most persuasively and logically to do so. if that happens to be a rules violation, then absolutely.
Your conditionality good frontline was probably taken from a policy file. That file assumes 2 extra constructive speeches and real backside rebuttals. LD is different and until people start to notice that it is going to be a bumpy ride for all of us. Talk to parli debaters on net-ben and I am sure kevin and others will get out their speeches on the evolution of parli theory. LD needs a similar revolution because without it you’re loosing out on a lot of good arguments. So we need to set down the CEDA bible and think for ourselves for a bit.
1. CPs do not usually demostrate a better policy option – just a different option. The reason why it is preferable is that there is a DA you run with it. If Affs were smart, they would run DAs to the CP to show that they are not better policy options. However, Affs like to lose so they don’t. An example of this would be co-ops for UHC. NOT a better policy option but it is a proposed cp because it doesn’t link to politics…
2. MHM is referring to when GCC went to NFA and what was observed there. The comments made reference that the rules don’t matter to many judges. NFA said short cites are ok and no one enforced speed violations or topical CPS or a bunch of stuff like that, I am sure. It is like bringing up a K in front of Steve Gram. Will he vote on it – maybe, but you should just run something else (like T). Many judges were that way, from what I understand, which is not really cool to ambush someone that is still relatively new to the event (remember a qual for NFA is ?any?/almost any break at any tournament at any level). So, if we want to establish rules for an event and forget to tell people that the don’t matter I guess we could do that, too. That makes the event less fair in his eyes, or something along those lines, I am sure.
I am sure MHM will have more to add at a later date.
Aff side bias justifies conditional counterplans – end of story. Sorry, but NFA-LD is the only debate format that exists where one side gets *more* overall speaking time than the other. The same tired old time skew objection the aff will bring up doesn’t fly in LD when the negative is time skewed BY DEFAULT. A smart negative should be allowed to strategically find ways to get around that – that requires neg flex. They should at least have the option of defending either a CP or the SQ in the 1NR to keep the aff on its toes.
I have never debated a policy round in my life, nor am I familiar with any socalled CEDA bible (I am aware it’s a figure of speech 
), and I still think conditionality has some solid warrants in, yes, LD. Oh, and I write my own frontlines
NFA is a national tournament. In my opinion, that justifies any action, short of flagrantly unethical actions, to get the ballot. Of course, spreading out a novice debater is risky, as it’s easy for the judge (rightfully so) to sympathize, so engage with less experienced debaters on open debater terms at your own risk.
Finally, if a policy option avoids the disad, then it is inherently a better policy option. If it doesn’t demonstrate a better option, and only a “different” option, then it isn’t competitive and shouldn’t win. I maintain it’s simply an opportunity cost disad with fiat’d propensity of the agent. If you agree with that, the reasons why conditionality is good (or at least, not bad) abound.
I am late to this discussion, but I strongly advise all of the debaters to get all of this jargon-warring out of the way now and keep it out of the debate tournament. Most likely you will not encounter a judge who has been exposed to this level of discussion regarding counter-plan theory. And if you do get a judge who does know the theory, you’ll bore or insult the judge by misrepresenting what is commonly accepted among argumentation theorists. Just reading over this discussion I get a bit of a headache and cannot follow it all. If it were in a round, I’d pray for the double-loss; I would certainly give low points. While debaters may have their personal preferences or wishes, that doesn’t mean that they exist anywhere in theory. A couple of points of clarification and observations:
1. CPs will be very difficult this year, because the topic is so broad. There are many definitions of “infrastructure” and “reform” and the worst thing that can happen to the debate round is having the AFF go after the NEG CP for Topicality as his/her main line of attack. As much as we were trying to suggest that the NEG avoid running T all the time, I’d recommend that the NEG should be very very sure that the CP is non-topical, meaning there aren’t *any* definitions which would make your CP topical. If the NEG tries to wiggle into Non-Topicality by presenting a limited def. and then saying, “I’m not topical because I don’t meet that,” it is red flag that there is another definition out there somewhere that does make the NEG CP topical. The CP listed above by Danny is, I believe, Topical. So are State CPs, based upon what I’ve read so far about infrastructure reform and the agents involved. Granted the Resolution calls for a USFG action; but if you read the literature you’ll find that the States inevitably micro-manage policies handed down by the USFG. There is no distinct act that is Federal alone. And if it isn’t Topical, it can probably be permed. So, the CP is non-topical, great, but it isn’t mutually exclusive, so oops.
2. CP Competition is demonstrated by the NEG *either* by net benefits *or* by mutual exclusivity. It isn’t the reverse that the AFF gets to prove that the CP isn’t competitive by one means or the other. This should make us re-evaluate the thread from above. I’m a NEG, I offer a CP, and I say that my CP is competitive *either* because it is net-beneficial OR because it is mutually exclusive, or I can use both as reasons. I can say it is better because it solves more, faster, or avoids this or that DA, or I suppose does not violate some K, though I generally see debaters committing preformative contractions when it comes to this (i.e. the CP violates the K anyway). It seems that the NFA rule saying specifically that the CP has to address the AFF harms was perhaps designed to ensure that the CP is net-beneficial. At the least, the person or persons who wrote that into the rule ascribed to that debate theory. The NFA rule on Non-Topicality is to better ensure that the CP is mutually exclusive, to achieve some kind of division of ground, in that if the CP were topical it could probably be permed pretty easy by the AFF. A PERM is used to test the competition of the CP. One can PERM by saying “we could do both” or by saying “we will do both”, or both. “Could” says it isn’t ME, but I don’t want it, so I can still turn it. “Will” says it isn’t ME, and I do want it, and now I have a monster plan and vote for me! “Could” and “will” are two separate arguments, and an AFF can run both of them. Anyway, you should check out the article on CP theory by David Cheshier. You can find it by Googling, and it is truly helpful for anyone who wants to actually argue predictable CP theory, not made-up whimsical CP theory. I’d say the main frustration that judges experience derives either from not understanding the jargon or from understanding the jargon but realizing that the debaters are “confused”. Just because one debate coach told you one thing at one time, or you saw one debater win saying something, or you were successful making this or that argument doesn’t mean it is grounded in theory. Debaters should avoid making those kind of hasty generalizations before they map out their own strategies.
3. CPs can be: conditional, unconditional, or dispositional (to name a few). If presented conditionally, in the text, then the NEG reserves the right to not go for it and is not then tied to the turns on the CP. An AFF can argue conditionality bad, but the AFF better be sure to go for all of his/her planks and all, and basically not grant out of any positions elsewhere. If presented unconditionally, then the NEG says, “I’m keeping it no matter what,” and will be debating it out until the bitter end. This is a way of avoiding the conditionality bad attack, and why not argue it unconditionally, if you have it as an idea then you should have already investigated the negative effects. And dispositionally is basically that you will decide as you go through the round, and this is another avenue the AFF can pursue if he/she wants to call the NEG a moving target, but actually it isn’t unfair (even potentially) until the NEG actually does kick out of it, and if he/she doesn’t, then the AFF wasted all that time arguing a moot procedural.
4. Time limits are irrelevant to the types of arguments that are accepted. While I appreciate Nick’s perspective, it is only his and not something that exists in the main stream. It is not, and I’m sure he was just being creative, the “end” of the story. The AFF could easily argue that the 2AR is so short as compared to the NR that it isn’t fair to let him/her trick the AFF with the CP all the way until the final seconds of the NR and then ditch it. It won’t fly that the NEG can say, “I’m running this conditionally because I don’t get enough speaking time and it isn’t fair so I want to be able to kick out of my own positions if I haven’t though it through.” A judge will not appreciate that, and wonder why the debater already is doubting his/her own strategy.
5. It is possible to argue a CP and defend elements of the SQ. I would have to think about an example on this topic, since I am not yet sure of the CP ground; but it is possible to do and has been done in the debating world.
6. The CP is supposed to present a “better” solution (better than the AFF or the SQ). The definition of “better” can have to do with a variety of things: bigger, faster, more effective, more likely to be adopted and carried out, more accepted by this or that entity, etc.
Our view of the CP may have to be adjusted to see the LD round, but our view of CP theory cannot change just so we are still able to run our fun CPs in the debate and avoid doing case research. Any debater should start with the format and the rules, and branch out from there. I think MHM had talked about this a lot, that you start with the foundation and work your way out. Much of this discussion seems quite “Parli” to me. You want to run a CP so you now have to talk your way into having people accept it, non-topical ones, non-competitive ones, and so on. Again, start with the rules and the format. Adopt an approach that respects the rules, the format, and CP theory. Don’t make up CP theory, find it written someplace by a Professor or other accomplished person who has published something on CP theory. This is an evidence-based activity, and that also goes for the CP theory.
Mr. Kasle,
I appreciate your lengthy response. I must object, however, to your offensive indictments of mine and others’ opinions on counterplan theory, which is neither constructive or, in my “parli” opinion, correct.
I assume you are an educator or student, so I’m pretty shocked to see you say things like “don’t make up CP theory.” If the theories are incorrect, please engage and explain to us how. If it’s simply not common, I fear advise like “don’t make up CP theory” is pretty useless, especially when all debate theory was, at some point or another, “made up.”
Really, though, I would encourage all to read the article Mr. Kasle references, located at http://debate.uvm.edu/NFL/rostrumlib/CheshierApr%2700.pdf . This was, of course, from Rostrum, a high school policy debate publication, so I am not sure if Mr. Cheshier’s theories meet your threshold of “adjusted to LD.”
Interestingly enough, Mr. Cheshier explains counterplan and perm theory in pretty much the same way I do in my above statements–while some differences might exist, I question whether or not it’s valid to accuse any of us of “making up” theory.
AFA Brandon. My comments were not directed toward you, so it is too bad you were offended. As you have done yourself, when someone wants to post in response to a particular person then they usually refer to them by name. Notice I didn’t address my previous post to you at all. Debaters, and coaches, and Directors, should be allowed to advocate a position without being labelled as offensive. Educators can attempt to steer a conversation onto a course without being viewed as antagonistic. It is our job to facilitate discussions among those who are learning. This isn’t personal, and if you are offended by my suggestions then you have missed the point. Debate Theory wasn’t made up, and it is sad you think that. Does that shock you as well? I would suggest taking a course in Critical Thinking, Informal Logic, Argumentation, Classical Rhetoric, and/or Contemporary Rhetoric.
As an undergraduate you are welcome to have an opinion about counterplan theory, but blogging it doesn’t make it true. Once you publish in a peer reviewed journal or a book, it can become an actual theory. Then your credentials will be weighed against the others’, and your theory can be assessed on its salience among scholars in the field. There are many ways to test evidence, and source qualification is one of them. Not only should you make sure a comment was directed toward you before you fire back at me, you should develop a thicker skin. It will help you in debate. And I will try not to be offended that you assumed I was a man. In the future, I go by Dr. Kasle and please refer to David as Dr. Cheshier.
Sydne,
With regards to my opinion on conditionality – yeah, it’s just my perspective. While there’s absolutely no such thing as a “correct” theoretical standpoint (my “end of story” comment was simply a point of emphasis and not a literal statement), I think it is at very least 1) strategic to argue 2) easy to justify. “Aff side bias – first and last speech, infinite prep time means you err neg on theory” has been a common theoretical argument in the high school policy circuit as well as CEDA for many years. The fact that the aff gets 120 seconds of additional speaking time only makes it an even more compelling argument in LD, imo.
It’s true that the 2AR is a short speech, but so is the 6 minute 1AR in comparison to the 15 minute negative block in CEDA debate, and 5 minutes to 13 in high school. The short speeches merely demand that a successful debater must be efficient and manage time in expert fashion. Additionally, having 2 extra minutes in the 1AR makes it substantially easier to extend more arguments in an depth-fashion in the 2AR.
I kind of understand what you’re saying about the 1NR fooling the 2AR at the last minute about going for the CP but I don’t really think it’s an issue because 1) most debaters give roadmaps before their speeches to identify what arguments they are going for, 2) strategic debaters kick out of their arguments at the top of each speech, not the bottom, 3) if the 1NR does in fact wait until the literal last minute to get to the counterplan, it’s a *pretty good* indication that they’re either not going for it or they’re going to undercover it badly enough that a halfway competent aff should win handily.
I also disagree with your characterization of the justification for running a conditional counterplan. The issue at hand is not that the neg doesn’t have enough time to develop it or think it through, it’s that the negative needs to be able to follow the “path of least resistance” to the judge’s ballot.
For those not familiar with the term, PoLR is a strategical concept where the negative looks at all of his/her positions before their final speech, and decides on one or two flows that represent the easiest way to obtain a win. More often than not, two main factors go into the PoLR: opponent’s argument quality and opponent’s total time spent answering an argument. If the aff has 4 minutes of high quality answers to a counterplan, it would be strategically unwise for the negative to go for it because of a lack of a favorable time tradeoff in the negative’s favor. In this instance, a conditional counterplan would allow the negative to go for other arguments that represent a more favorable *time* and strategy swing in the neg’s favor. (This ties back to the original argument – conditional cp’s allow the neg to more effectively mitigate the aff’s speaking time advantage).
PoLR is a hard concept to nail down and even the most skilled debaters often get it wrong. I remember a round last year that I had against one of the top high school circuit teams on the west coast – they went for a Consult Nato CP in the 2NR. The judge gave them the win, but was absolutely furious with them. Why? Because I had actually had decent answers against the CP…unlike the politics disadvantage that I and my partner had basically been dropping the entire round. They failed to follow the PoLR. I commonly make this mistake too – my round against Mat at RCC, I went for a K in the 1NR instead of the CP/Politics combo that he undercovered. The judge pointed it out and my reaction was, well, “duh, I should have seen that.”
@ the time skew:
they added 2 minutes to the aff because they lost so much that in out rounds every aff that was out there dropped. This is the way that the event should still be. However, these ******* ***** ***** ******* (you can tell I like the topic committee, can’t you?) people that choose the topics keep choosing topics that are so broad that the neg will ‘almost’ never have predictability. The theory argument you should make is that the topic is F’d up not whine that they get an extra 2 minutes… which any coach/judge that has been doing LD for over 3 years will remember and agree with you. Break it down; you get 7 minutes in the 1NC, then I get 6 in the 1AR to cover your 7 and extend case, then you get 6 minutes to collapse to 2-3 arguments with 2-4 minutes on each argument, and then I get 3 minutes to figure out why I didn’t lose. In most debate rounds I would laugh if someone said the Aff is better off. However, because of the shitty topics we have been getting for the last 3 years (shitty in reference to the predictability/Aff bias) it has shifted the focus from the topic committee to the time skew, which is wrong.
PoLR does not mean that you can kick a CP. However, it does mean that you can choose not to go for it. Kicking means it doesn’t have weight in the round anymore. Not going for it means the judge can still vote for it as offense for the other team if you loose what you are going for.
At the end of the day, why do you need to run a conditional CP to waste the aff’s time? Your 2-3 T’s and obtuse case turns were not enough to waste their time? Why throw out more offense for the Aff to win on? If you run a conditional CP in a round and someone decides to go theory against it you can lose just for running it. Why not save the sh**ty debate (that is what I think condi/dispo good/bad is) for a round when you can garner offense from it, like when you are aff? What are you going to do? Say, “I ran a conditional CP so vote for me!” or are you going to say, “They ran a condi/dispo cp, vote them down?” Why give the aff another reason to win the round? When I run my theory block against you it will say “vote you down” not “don’t vote for the CP” and there will be reasons for it.
Dr Kasle,
If i am in fact mistaken, then I apologize–I just assumed phrases like “i’d pray for the double loss” and “don’t just repeat what you see other debaters saying” are directed at both people in a conversation you state is “giving you a headache,” particularly when a potential third party is named specifically.
Anyway, as I said, Dr. Cheshier confirms in his article a lot of things that have been said, so I am still unsure where we went wrong.
And I do agree that educators can steer conversations, in fact I love it when they do, as I am quite aware of my own limitations as an undergrad. So I do apologize for any perceived hostility or inappropriateness, but it really did disappoint me to see put-downs towards students just trying to work out pretty complex issues.
And re: time skew, the aff definitely has an advantage in LD–not necessarily because they have longer, but because they speak first and last, and their plan is the focus (usually). Especially in an event with a huge amount of lay judges, or judges who think T, PICS and other generics are “bad for debate” or what have you, being able to go Affirmative and run an unpredictable case can make a world of difference. An adapting neg will be reduced to on case arguments, which are easy to check back.
And conditional CPs aren’t a timesuck. I think that labeling the CP a special position that can’t be kicked, unlike pretty much every other neg position, is a timesuck for the neg–if I’m not winning it, why should I have to go for it? Because I “advocated” it? What does that even mean? I present a CP as an opportunity cost disadvantage–a potentially better policy option. If that’s proven to not be the case, why would I continue to argue for it?
And “punish the debater not the position” is a risky voter–in my experience judges are much more hesitant to circle aff on a ballot on theory. You’re much more likely to get traction on “punish the position not the debater,” as that’s far more reasonable.
Great discussion and I’m glad that we are getting a diversity of opinion here. The worst thing for debate is if we all agree =)
Regarding counterplans, as I was researching this post and am reading the discussion, a few things came to mind:
1) The rules actually state the negative may introduce a “counterproposal” rather than a counterplan. I’m not sure if the change in terminology is important but I thought I’d throw that out there.
2) The rules never actually say the counterproposal has to be mutually exclusive… Thus leaving that entire argument up to the debate in the round. Same with conditionality. I do think that the discussion here is very helpful in drawing out some of those concepts and theories. Perhaps we can have a post soon regarding the concept of conditionality. The rules do say that if arguments are run that are inconsistent with the counterproposal the judge should “reject the arguments inconsistent with the counterproposal” which gives some weight to the idea that introducing a counterplan changes the game so to speak. As a judge I’m supposed to stick with the counterplan in the event of an inconsistent advocacy.
3) Given that the negative has only two speeches I think it would be an unwise strategy to run a counterproposal and then ditch it in the next speech. If you are going to spend time on the position it better be a good argument in the round. As a judge, when negative debaters in NFA-LD kick a position it looks like really sloppy debate. The impression I get is that the debater had no idea what a good negative strategy was going to be in the round so he/she threw everything at the wall and saw what stuck. I’d much rather see a coherent strategy across both speeches – one that is developed and extended rather than dropped.
Thanks to everyone for sharing their thoughts and I hope everyone is safe from the fire.
At this point, I would like to ask for something approximating a point of personal privilege:
1. On Monday – shortly after what I thought was a TERRIFIC experience at RCC, I was hospitalized with severe internal bleeding, and I almost died. (Obviously, I didn’t.*) I also learned that I DIDN’T have colon cancer or some other malignancy – just a bleeding ulcer.
2. On Wednesday afternoon, I was discharged to my home in La Canada – just in time for the fire. My family and I were evacuated less than 36 hours later.
3. The fire came within 100 yards of our house – but passed us by. However, as you know, two brave firefighters have died in this holocaust, lots of homes have been destroyed, and this is just the beginning of “fire season.”
So I haven’t been able to get back to debate until just now. (We were allowed to return this morning.)
I will write more – with specificity, erudition, and passion, I hope – later, but for now, let me just say that there are things more important thant Counterplans – not the least of which is good people being good to each other. I implore everybody to turn down the heat and listen to the other side for a while. Let’s not turn this Board into eDebate or NetBenefits.
As I said in my opening lecture at RCC:
Respect everyone; fear no one.
Love to all,
MHM JD
*In fact, a poll conducted by my school (Servite) found that the prayers were running 53-47% in my favor.
P.S. – And this is no joke; when we got the mandatory evacuation order, the first thing I packed was my LD evidence.
mhm, I am glad to know that nothing happened to you and yours.
I would have guessed the poll was a little higher in your favor though…
Yes, very glad that MHM and his family are okay. VERY glad also that MHM does not have colon cancer and is not dead . Not a surprise that the Ox Box was the first to survive. Danny raises a great point about not wasting your own time as a Negative running a CP and then getting rid of it during the next speech. And AFA Brandon raises a common frustration about the AFF speaking first and last….AFF also has the burden of proof….and traditionally AFF speaks first and last….some judges have AFF biases and so it doesn’t factor into it…but some judges have NEG biases…or still remember the notion of “presumption”, so AFF technically has a heavier load from the onset, AFF has to overcome presumption. While we may not always see the obligation of actually presenting solvency evidence met (shout out to Mike Marse and his lovely Invasion case), the rules were created long before contemporary debaters got into the activity and did their magic. I’m glad that Danny pointed out that it is okay to disagree. And also glad to see that perhaps AFA Brandon will not take things personally, especially comments not directed toward him in the first place. To provide context…I worked with Matt and Nick at the debate camp and think they are both stand-up guys who have a great deal of debate potential. We worked with one another and respect one another. At our camp we discussed the use of jargon and I do not think that my comments made them feel personally attacked (they know I am only one judge with one opinion and they will do as they like both on this discussion board and in a real debate). I have no time for putting down college debaters. I am adding my two cents in now just in case I am ever in the back of the room and they know to avoid that overuse of jargon. It seriously would give me a headache and I seriously would wish to give a double-loss. We spent four days trying to bring the conversation always toward the Resolution. We had an expert in from the FHWA and I have spent many vacation days reading about roads and rails and all sorts of non-vacationy stuff. An entire debate on the abovementioned theory, which would take away precious minutes from talking about transportation, seems useless to me – not to mention risky. There’s simply no right answer when it comes to these issues, and seemingly not enough time to discuss them in detail during the short LD round. I’m seeing this discussion as some form of panic, that the rules are unfair so let’s just throw out reason and common sense and do whatever it takes to try to win. Matt put things into perspective well in his last reply, and Nick does a good job providing a specific example wherein a certain strategy worked. At the end of the day, everyone is thinking a little differently about the issue based upon everyone’s posts, and that is all that really matters. Now that the term has started, I’ve got four classes to teach and a bunch of people to coach. I may miss much of the next wave of heated discussions, but I hope to find posts from my debaters on here every so often. I hope everyone has a great start to the year, and I hope to see you in Riverside on Oct. 4 for six fantabulous rounds of LD.
sydne
MHM – I am greatly relieved to hear you and your family are alright.
Sydne – I think it’s a good thing that we have these little discussions online, where the stakes are irrelevant and we can treat each other as fellow intellectuals and not competitors. I agree that mashing out this kind of theory debate in an actual round would be an absolute bore. Ask any judge what kind of debate they would hate to hear the most and/or find the hardest to judge is a highly-nuanced theory debate. It’s a true statement across all formats.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
1st, not competitive – you can expand highways while also enacting congestion pricing… now that that is out of the way, I do agree that this year will be a larger year when it comes to the CP. Last year it was a little more difficult to do so but this year it is going to be mad easy to find a CP or 10 for every aff. I think that this is something to watch out for indeed.
Back to Congestion Pricing: CP is extremely unpopular and highly elitist. I don’t think it would take more then 2 minutes worth of time (roughly the same as to say a CP and a Net Ben to the CP) to prove that it is a bad idea.
I also believe that once you read a CP in NFA you are stuck with it; aka the disposition of the cp is unconditional. This means that you lose the ability to defend the SQO and have to defend a world with the CP vs a world of the plan. The advantage of this for the aff is that a disad/K to the CP that has a higher magnitude then the off-case competitiveness argument means the aff wins.
Keeping this in mind – the 2 minutes that they spend saying the CP is a good idea is 2 minutes you just have to say it is worse then the aff plan. Due to the time constraints of the event I do not feel that this is what I would want to deal with as an Neg. Realistically, no one will run a DA/K to the CP in 92% of the rounds this year so feel free to run it.
Why would the neg would respond to an aff running elitism good (expanding highway lanes) and they would counter with elitism awesome!?! Only the wealthy will be able to afford the congestion pricing and public transit isn’t good enough in most cities to make it feasible. Not to mention I hate big brother in the US already but now we are facing being stalked??? I love Orwell, don’t get me wrong, but I do not want the reality he showed us.