Ask Jim about Debate
|
Breaking Down Barriers: Ask Jim about Debate |
You can submit questions too, just email Jim at hansonjb@whitman.edu
This answer was written by Joe Boyle, Fort Hayes State University
1) The affirmative plan is the focus of the round - the affirmative has opted not to defend the entire resolution and instead defend only the plan. Because the affirmative has REJECTED all topical ground EXCEPT the affirmative plan, that ground is available for the negative. This is true for several reasons:
a) There's no justification for the affirmative to choose to reject topical ground but still prevent the negative from taking that ground. b) If the affirmative chooses to keep or defend all topical ground then the plan is not the focus and the negative can run disads to all possible topical cases and/or counter warrants.
2) The affirmative is responsible for ALL of their advocacy. All planks
and provisions of the plan are things the affirmative is advocating and
things they should be required to defend. This is true for two reasons:
a) The affirmative has an infinite amount of prep time before
the round to prepare their case, they get to choose what
is in it.
b) Allowing affirmatives to sever out or cease to advocate parts
of plan creates a moving target for the negative, preventing
any evaluation of the policy to occur across speeches because
the plan can change in the round.
3) The negative has the right to run topical counterplans. This is true
for 2 reasons.
a) The plan is the focus. All ground which is not the plan
is rejected topical ground or non-topical ground available
for the negative.
b) Topical counterplans test the intrinsicness of plan planks
to affirmative solvency of the problem.
3) The exclusionary counterplan uniquely tests all affirmative advocacy
by selecting a portion of the affirmative plan and excluding it from the
counterplan text. For those who may not have encountered the
exclusionary counterplan, here's what might happen:
AFFIRMATIVE PLAN
In order to reduce juvenile crime the USFG will
Plank 1: Implement a MENTORING program to reduce
juvenile crime per Dr. Smith's advocacy.
Plank 2: Implement the TARGET program to reduce
crime outside of school per Dr. Jone's
advocacy.
The negative counterplan is to do all of the affirmative plan but
EXCLUDE plank 2. The disad is that the TARGET program is a hard-line
approach to juvenile crime, Israel will model our hard-line policies, if
Israel adopts a hard-line policy on gang crime the Hezzbolah will
backlash, the backlash will take the form of terrorism, Terrorism breaks
the peace process, if the peace process fails nuclear war occurs.
The counterplan EXCLUDES a plank of the affirmative plan (i.e., all the
cp does is mentoring) and shows that doing Plank 1 AND Plank 2 together
is a bad idea. Plank 1 _ALONE_ however would be net-advantageous (it
solves a certain degree of juvenile crime and doesn't cause a nuclear
war).
4) Possible objections to this:
Objection #1: The CP is topical.
Answer: So what, the affirmative picked their ground, the plan,
my counterplan isn't the PLAN in its entirety so it's
legitimate. I'm testing whether or not plank 2 is integral to
solving the problem of juvenile crime. The DA proves that
it isn't. If PLANK 1 outweighs the DA it doesn't matter b/c you
can vote for the COUNTERPLAN (which _does_ mentoring) and gain
that advantage,
Objection #2: Perm
Answer: Whatever! The perm would require SEVERING part of the
aff plans. That's illegitimate (moving target, responsible for
original advocacy, et cetera). A perm must be WHOLE PLAN
inclusive (it CAN be partial CP inclusive but can't EXCLUDE
parts of the AFF plan, this way the aff perms can test non-
competitive parts of neg counterplans, i.e. perm all of the
CP except the plank that says 'ban the affirmative' b/c the
plank that bans the affirmative doesn't have a net advantage
to it IN AND OF ITSELF).
Objection #3: The CP invades the affirmative parametric
Answer: So what? The aff didn't HAVE to put plank #2 in plan
they CHOSE to (to spike out my 'soft-line only bad' disad).
The exclusionary CP tests plan plank. If we didn't run the
exclusionary CP the aff could claim that PLANK 1 alone creates
an advantage that outweighs the DA and so you'd vote aff _EVEN
THOUGH_ plank 2 was bad. We stop that abuse by COUNTERPLANNING
out Plank 1 to force the aff to DEFEND plank 2. If Plank 2
is bad then you don't want to DO plank 2 and the cp gives
you an alternative option.
Merry Christmas
Joe Boyle
Assistant Coach