Casper Counterplan Defense PDF

Preview

Summary

a LD counterplan example...

Description

Theory

Agent CPs

Agent CPs Bad Agent counterplans are bad for debate. The neg should only get the resolutional actor as a counterplan agent. Reject the CP. Fails to Negate Just because agent X should do the aff doesn’t mean the resolutional actor can’t or shouldn’t.

Ground They steal key aff ground when they are able to centralize the debate over the agent of action instead of the actual resolution.

Predictability The neg could run an infinite number of different agents. I could never prepare to debate them all.

Fairness All of my offense is garnered by the inaction of the resolution. Allowing the neg to steal that destroys fair debate.

Education These CPs are generic and overused. The focus that the resolution provides is on topical ethics and not on debating agents.

Perm Perm: do both. Both agents can contribute which just means better solvency.

Consult CPs

Consult CPs Bad Counterplans that make the resolution conditional on consultation are bad for debate. Time and Strategy Skew They moot the entire aff and I only get the remaining short aff speeches to argue offense.

Ground They steal key aff ground when they are able to centralize the debate over consulting an entity instead of the actual resolution.

Predictability The neg could consult an infinite number of different entities. I could never prepare to debate them all.

Fairness All of my offense is garnered by the inaction of the resolution. Allowing the neg to steal that destroys fair debate.

Education The focus that the resolution provides is on topical ethics and not on debating net benefits of consultation.

Stick me with the aff for the purposes of DAs, but allow me to perm CPs. It solves their moving target argument. Forces the aff to defend the resolution. Maintains a balance of aff and neg ground. Generates aff predictability predicated on the res.

Perm Perm: do the counterplan. There’s a double bind. Either they say yes and there is no severance or they say no and the counterplan can’t solve the case and impacts.

AT Real World The CP isn’t real world. Politicians don’t reject a policy because of consultation. The standard is a bad for education. Real world consultation is never binding.

AT Predictable They allow consulting any entity or combination of entities. That potential abuse is standard for competitive equity. They have no brightline which is necessary to judge the allowable range of ground for the neg. Only a clear brightline avoids arbitrarity.

AT Don’t Steal Aff This is simply not true. If consultation results in approval, they steal every aspect of the aff. They pass the res exactly as I argue it. They create their offense. I can’t even read uniqueness arguments which means that the CP allows them to create unique offense while taking all of my offense proving it’s unpredictable and unfair.

AT Aff Side Bias Consult CPs go too far. They eliminate the entirety of the aff and all predictable offense. Plus, they give the neg infinite preparation against the aff by creating artificial offense.

AT Literature Checks There’s no relevant lit. They may have evidence about X, but it’s not in context of the resolution and the CP. Literature is a terrible standard. Limitless You can find lit for almost anything. It’s arbitrary and provides no fair check.

Fairness Lack of lit in a certain area can spell doom for debaters on both sides.

AT Best Policy Option Fairness “Best policy” arguments allows me to use private fiat or make run abusive strategies if it resulted in a good policy.

Reciprocity Even if I search for the best policy. The search must be reciprocal. My perm should be preferred over their general warrant.

Predictability They justify severance and intrinsic perms because those would be the “best policy option".

Intrinsic perm…

No Certainty ‘Resolved’ doesn’t require certainty. MW, 09 (Merriam Webster 2009. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolved) # Main Entry: 1re·solve # Pronunciation: \ri-ˈzälv, - ˈzolv also -ˈzäv or - ˈz ov\ # Function: verb # Inflected Form(s): re·solved; re·solv·ing 1 : to become separated into component parts; also : to become reduced by dissolving or analysis 2 : to form a resolution : determine 3 : consult,

deliberate

‘Should’ doesn’t require certainty. BLD, 79 (Black’s Law Dictionary – Fifth Edition, p. 1237) Should. The past tense of shall; ordinarily implying duty or obligation; although usually no more than an obligation of propriety or expediency, or a moral obligation, thereby distinguishing it from “ought.” It is not normally synonymous with “may,” and although often interchangeable with the word “would,” it does

not ordinarily express certainty as “will” sometimes does.

Delay CPs

Delay CPs Bad Counterplans that delay the resolution’s implementation are bad for debate. Reject the CP. Fails to Negate My burden is to argue whether the resolution is good, not when it should be implemented.

Ground They steal key aff ground when they are able to centralize the debate over the time of implementation instead of the actual resolution.

Predictability The neg could run an infinite number of delays. I could never prepare to debate them all.

Pragmatism There is no way to predict and assess the future as well as we can the present.

Fairness It’s a resolution inclusive CP. All of my offense is garnered by the inaction of the resolution. Allowing the neg to steal that means that the aff always loses.

Education The focus that the resolution provides is on topical ethics and not on debating small and uncertain benefits of postponement.

Perm Perm: do the counterplan. It doesn’t fundamentally conflict with my case at all. There’s no timeframe in the resolution.

No Immediacy ‘Resolved’ doesn’t require immediacy. PTE, 9 (Online Plain Text English Dictionary 2009. http://www.onelook.com/? other=web1913&w=Resolve) Resolve: “To form a purpose; to make a decision; especially, to determine after reflection; as, to resolve on a better course of life.”

Fails to Negate No part of the text says immediate. It proves the CP isn’t competitive and the perm solves.

Fails to Negate It doesn’t serve to show why the resolution is bad, it serves to prove waiting good.

No Offense They have zero reason why the aff defending immediacy in a world of an artificial CP is good for debate

Detail CPs

Detail CPs Bad Counterplans that add a specific detail to the resolution are bad for debate. Allow for the permutation. Ground They steal key aff ground when they are able to centralize the debate over an additional detail instead of the actual resolution.

Predictability There is an infinite number of potential details or specs that could be added to the resolution. This creates an impossible preparation burden for the aff.

Fairness All of my offense is garnered by the inaction of the resolution. Allowing the neg to steal that destroys fair debate.

Education The focus that the resolution provides is on topical ethics and not on debating small net benefits of adding details to the resolution.

Perm Perm: do the counterplan. It’s the resolution plus a detail. There is no conflict whatsoever; it’s just a supplementary addition.

Fiat

Neg Fiat/Counterplans Bad Negative fiat and counterplans are bad for debate. The neg should only defend the status quo. Reject the CP. Perm: Negation Theory A. Arguing the counterplan does nothing to prove the resolution bad. B. Neg fiat assumes resolutional ground. Moral obligation only occurs on my ground. There’s no “should/ought not” in the resolution. Even if, it would just mean action shouldn’t be taken, not that other actions should be.

Predictability Aff fiat is constrained by the resolution, but competitive neg fiat isn’t. They could run an infinite number of different CPs. I could never prepare to debate them all.

Multiple Advocacies Neg fiat allows shift between the status quo and the CP. It makes me defend against multiple contradictory worlds, arguing for or against the resolution. It skews aff time and steals my ground.

Fairness A. All of my offense is garnered by the inaction of the resolution. Allowing the neg to steal all my offense destroys fair debate. B. With fiat, the neg could run a CP that solves all aff harms. For example, “country X will not invade” becomes a legitimate argument.

Education The focus that the resolution provides is on topical ethics and not on debating insubstantial differences between the resolution and alternatives.

Utopian Fiat Bad Unreasonable and unrealistic fiat that appeals to an idealized conception of reality is bad for debate. Reject the CP. Fallacy Appeal to purity is a formal fallacy.

Literature I can’t research answers to utopian positions or have good clash between positions because the lit and empirics don’t exist.

Fairness I can literally never win a debate when my opponent can just imagine away relevant arguments.

Education Learning about real world is a better for pragmatic education.

Object Fiat Bad The neg should not just be permitted to claim fiat on anything that they want. Reject object fiat and the CP. Fairness If they can fiat objects, the neg can intrinsically wish away any impact scenario and the aff always loses.

Education It destroys discussion of the resolution. Topical education is more important than mechanistic education because it is the best model for real world decision making.

Functional Competition Good Evaluating debate through functional competition and analysis rather than textual competition is good for debate. Allow for the perm on the CP, which is only textually competitive. Advocacy Holding them to function prevents abusive shifts sustaining competitive equity and ground.

Objectivity A function is the only unmovable way to determine competition, giving clear delineation.

Predictability Textual competition is contrived and artificial making it impossible to predict.

Education Evaluation the round objectively and based on concrete pragmatic analysis is key for organized, effective, and educational debate.

Insubstantial Change CPs

Insubstantial Change CPs Bad Counterplans that insubstantially change the aff are bad for debate. Vote for the permutation. Ground Having an insignificant resolution/CP difference steals aff ground.

Predictability There is an infinite potential for CPs that only slightly change the resolution.

Fairness All of my offense is garnered by the inaction of the resolution. Allowing the neg to steal that destroys fair debate.

Education It is a complete waste of time to debate about insubstantial changes to the resolution rather than debating the massive ethical implications of it.

Perm Perm: do the counterplan. There may be some conflict, but it insubstantial, unpredictable, and distracts from more substantive debate.

Multiple Agent CPs

Multiple Agent CPs Bad Multiple agent counterplans are bad for debate. Reject the CP. Predictability Their ability to run an infinite number of agent combinations gives the aff an impossible burden of preparation.

Reciprocity The aff is limited to a single resolutional agent. It is inordinate to allow the neg an infinite number of CP actors.

Fairness Fiating multiple agents allows for inordinate and unrealistic means for solvency. The aff can’t compete.

Real World Education The CP is unrealistic. No fiatable actor would ever be able to pass it.

Perm Perm: do both. All agents can contribute which just means better solvency. And there’s no severance.

Permutations

Perms Good Permutations are good for debate. Critical Thinking They force debaters to think quickly and effectively.

Logical Necessity Perms are key to test the competitiveness of the CP.

Fairness They are key to checking abusive, unfair, non-conflicting, and insignificant CPs.

Education A. We should be able to debate all possible and potentially beneficial solutions. The best solution is usually a perm. B. They force debate about the topic. They check generic neg arguments and force the neg to research case specific strategies. This is key to research, clash, and constructive debate.

Intrinsic Perms Good Pointing out that the net benefit can be externally solved is a completely valid argument that is beneficial to debate. Pragmatism Actors in the real world are never limited to the false dichotomy that the neg presents. And only a sith deals in absolutes.

Preparedness It tests the germaneness of the CP. It forces better clash and provides a check on overly general arguments.

Predictability Their offense against the aff should actually be unique to the resolutional action. Artificially competitive arguments like theirs are unpredictable, unrealistic, and kill fairness.

Fairness Intrinsicness is key to checking abusive, insignificant, unpredictable, and non-competitive arguments.

Education I force debate about the actual resolution. Intrinsicness checks generic neg arguments and forces the neg to research case specific strategies which is key to research, clash, and constructivity.

Education The best objective and comprehensive ethical solution can likely be found an intrinsic evaluation. In a world filled with very real problems, search for the best ethical option justifies.

My interpretation is that the aff should be permitted to run intrinsic perms that only involve the resolutional actor. It keeps both sides from making stupid and unfair arguments.

Multiple Perms Good Running multiple perms is good for debate. Time Skew There’s no time skew. The neg can group perms just like I can.

Fairness Good argument writing checks abuse. Don’t reject perms just because the neg is running a CP that sucks so much that I can perm it multiple ways.

Education Perms are key to testing the CP. We get more and better opportunities to see if it’s competitive.

Regardless, it’s not a voter. Reject the argument, not the debater. The punishment paradigm rewards theory over substance, decreasing education.

PICs

PICs Bad Counterplans should not be able to do the entire aff. Reject the CP. Time and Strategy Skew They moot the entire constructive and I only get the remaining short speeches to argue offense.

Ground They aren’t competitive and steal all of my ground.

Predictability The neg could run an infinite number of different CPs with different nuances. I could never prepare to debate them all.

Fairness All my offense is garnered by the inaction of the resolution. Allowing the neg to steal that completely destroys fair debate.

Education PICs undercut the research benefit of debate, support lack of preparation, and make meaningful clash in debate impossible.

Aff Wins They concede the resolution is a good idea. Just because they don’t think it’s done perfectly has nothing to do with the general validity of the resolution and you vote aff.

Perm Perm: do the counterplan. It includes the entire aff. There is no conflict.

Conditions CPs

Conditions CPs Bad Counterplans that make the resolution conditional are bad for debate. Time and Strategy Skew They moot the entire aff and I only get the remaining short aff speeches to argue offense.

Ground They steal key aff ground when they are able to centralize the debate over the conditionality of a certain factor instead of the actual resolution.

Predictability The neg could make the CP contingent off an infinite number of different conditions. I could never prepare to debate them all.

Fairness All of my offense is garnered by the inaction of the resolution. Allowing the neg to steal that destroys fair debate.

Education The focus that the resolution provides is on topical ethics and not on debating potentially small net benefits of conditionality.

Stick me with the aff for the purposes of DAs, but allow me to perm CPs. It solves their moving target argument. Forces the aff to defend the resolution. Maintains a balance of ground. Generates aff predictability predicated on the res.

Conditions counterplans are a voter for fairness and education.

Perm Perm: do the counterplan. There’s a double bind. Either the condition allows the resolution and there is no severance or it doesn’t and the CP can’t solve the case and impacts.

AT Real World The CP isn’t real world. Politicians don’t reject a policy because of an arbitrary condition. The standard is a bad for education. Real world conditionality is never binding.

AT Predictable They allow consulting any entity or combination of entities. That potential abuse is standard for competitive equity. They have no brightline which is necessary to judge the allowable range of ground for the neg. Only a clear brightline avoids arbitrarity.

AT Don’t Steal Aff This is simply not true. If the condition is met, they steal every aspect of the aff. They get the resolution exactly as I argue it. They create their offense. I can’t even read uniqueness arguments which means that the counterplan allows them to create unique offense while taking all of my offense proving it’s unpredictable and unfair.

A Aff Side Bias Conditions CPs go too far. They eliminate the entirety of the aff and all predictable aff offense plus they give the neg infinite preparation against the aff by creating artificial offense.

AT Literature Checks There’s no relevant lit. They may have evidence about X, but it’s not in context of the resolution and the CP. Literature is a terrible standard. Limitless You can find lit for almost anything. It’s arbitrary and provides no fair check.

Fairness Lack of lit in a certain area can spell doom for debaters on both sides.

AT Best Policy Option Fairness “Best policy” arguments allows us to use private fiat or make run abusive strategies if it resulted in a good policy.

Reciprocity Even if I search for the best policy. The search must be reciprocal. My perm should be preferred over their general warrant.

Predictability They justify severance and intrinsic perms because those would be the “best policy option".

Intrinsic perm…

No Certainty ‘Resolved’ doesn’t require certainty. MW, 09 (Merriam Webster 2009. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/resolved) # Main Entry: 1re·solve # Pronunciation: \ri-ˈzälv, - ˈzolv also -ˈzäv or - ˈz ov\ # Function: verb # Inflected Form(s): re·solved; re·solv·ing 1 : to become separated into component parts; also : to become reduced by dissolving or analysis 2 : to form a resolution : determine 3 : consult,

deliberate

‘Should’ doesn’t require certainty. BLD, 79 (Black’s Law Dictionary – Fifth Edition, p. 1237) Should. The past tense of shall; ordinarily implying duty or obligation; although usually no more than an obligation of propriety or expediency, or a moral obligation, thereby distinguishing it from “ought.” It is not normally synonymous with “may,” and although often interchangeable with the word “would,” it does

not ordinarily express certainty as “will” sometimes does.

General Solvency Deficits

Delay I outweigh on timeframe and probability. I have already established the imminent and massi...