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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Welcome to the
Dark Side of the Force
--Congress is the legislative branch of government. Its primary job is to pass laws.
--This is the normal means of creating policy
--Primarily, the courts (especially the Supreme Court) determine if laws are Constitutional
--Debaters may change policy by altering Court actions
--Consists of the President AND the Cabinet AND the many
government agencies run by the various Departments
--Policy may be enacted by the Executive Branch through an Executive Order or by action of any of the Departments or agencies
--North Korea provocation
--Tactical nuclear weapons
--Counterinsurgency = instability
--US relations w/…
The affirmative must prove that present policies are harmful.
The affirmative must prove that the cannot or will not be solved in the present system. Generally, you must prove that there is some barrier that prevents the status quo from solving the problem.
The affirmative must provide a solution to the problem (the plan). Solvency provides evidence that the plan will actually solve the problem.
Although not stated explicitly in the affirmative case, the affirmative must fall completely within the scope of the resolution (must meet all terms in the resolution).
--The partner of the next speaker should conduct cross-examination. This provides 3 extra minutes of prep—off the clock.
--The 1NR should never need to use precious prep time minutes. Since issues should be divided between the two negative speakers for the block, the 1NR can use the entirety of the 2NC time as well as the 3 minutes of CX following to prep (a total of 11 minutes to prep the speech).
Multiple structures used in contemporary CX
--Mandates—the policy proposed by the affirmative
--Administration—an agency or administrative procedures that will oversee the implementation and functioning of the mandates
--Funding—explains where any money necessary for the plan will come from
--Enforcement—explains how violations of the plan will be dealt with
--Congress approves the legislation, allocates funding and establishes administrative and enforcement procedures
--President signs the legislation into law
--The Courts interpret the Constitutionality of the law
Some standards include:
--contextual (how experts in the field interpret the meaning of the word)
--limits (because the negative has limited prep time and can’t possibly prepare for every conceivable case, the interpretation which most limits the topic is the best interpretation)
--predictability (again, neg can’t prepare for everything, so the most predictable interpretation is the best to promote fairness and education in the round)
--brightline (draws a clear distinction between affirmative and negative ground
--ground (fairly divides affirmative and negative ground)
--jurisdiction (the judge may only vote for affirmatives which fulfill the mandates of the topic; anything else is outside the judge’s jurisdiction)
--fairness (both teams should have an equal opportunity to win the round)
--education (an unpredictable affirmative that the neg has no answers for does nothing to make debate an educational experience; learning 1 issue in-depth is far more educational than learning 1 minor fact about 10 issues)
--explain why the affirmative actually meets the negative definition (try to give at least one or two reasons why the affirmative meets the negative’s definition)
--read your own definition of the term in question (make sure you actually meet the definition)
--explain why your case meets this new interpretation
--present a standard more appropriate for the affirmative
Reasonability—the affirmative’s only responsibility is to be reasonable in its interpretation of the resolution; I.E., Would a reasonable person accept the affirmative’s interpretation of the topic?
--explain why the affirmative meets the counter-standard
--explain why the judge should not vote on topicality (example: no in-round abuse or literature checks abuse)
--general definitions are better than contextual because they are more widely understood; general definitions make the debate more predictable
--limits are bad because the negative over-limits the topic; over-limiting decreases education; violates the affirmative right to interpret the resolution, etc.
--explains why impacts are unique to the affirmative plan; the system is okay right now [which means that the affirmative plan is what causes the bad things or impacts to happen]
--what action the affirmative plan takes which causes the impacts to happen
--affirmative passes environmental regulations and environmental regs are expensive for businesses to implement them, decrease profits, increase inflation, etc., which destroy business confidence or damage the economy
--the bad things which will occur as a result of implementing the plan
--plan destroys the US economy; US economy keeps world economy afloat; global depression will result in World War
--economy is cyclical in nature, it goes up and down all the time; therefore impacts should have already happened; aff isn’t responsible
--other factors affect the economy
--impact will happen in the status quo with or without the plan
Just as the affirmative has plan text in their case, the negative CP must also have plan text which states precisely the action of the counterplan.
Explains how the counterplan violates one or more terms of the resolution.
Explains why the judge is forced to make a choice between the plan and the counterplan.
Explains why the counterplan is a better policy option than the affirmative plan. This will usually be an explanation of how the affirmative gets disadvantages that the counterplan avoids.
Just as the affirmative must provide evidence to prove that plan will solve the problems addressed, the counterplan must also have solvency evidence to prove that the CP mechanisms will solve the problem.
Beyond the traditional theoretical requirements of a counterplan (nontopical, competitive, net beneficial), there are a number of debate theory implications related to counterplans:
a. unconditional—the negative is committed to this policy position throughout
the debate. The negative cannot revert to the status quo.
b. dispositional—the negative may kick out of advocacy of the counterplan if
the affirmative presents theoretical objections (perm or competitiveness), but
cannot kick out of the counterplan if it is turned.
c. conditional—negative has the option of jettisoning the counterplan at any
point in the round. They do not have to advocate a conditional counterplan.
The permutation is an affirmative answer to the counterplan. It is intended to be a test of competitiveness. A perm argues that if you can do all of the plan and all or part of the counterplan at the same time, then the counterplan is not competitive (i.e., it does not force a choice and is, thus, not a reason to vote against plan).
There are several types of perms:
a. Pure permutation: advocates all of plan and all or part of the counterplan.
b. Timeframe permutation: advocates doing one or the other first.
c. Severance permutation: does not include all of plan (i.e., leaves a word or action out). This
type of perm is sometimes used to prove that the counterplan is abusive to the affirmative.
d. Intrinsic permutation: makes an addition to plan. Intrinsic perms add something that does
not exist in either the plan or the counterplan (i.e., do plan and counterplanand have US and
Japan act cooperatively in response to a Japan counterplan).
This could be:
--use of objectionable language
--use of arguments based on incorrect assumptions
--use of arguments which entrench objectionable thought
This is, essentially, the impact of the kritik.
a. Alternative may be in the form of a counterplan, different mindset, or a specific action or inaction.
b. Not all kritiks have alternatives; some just question.
(This type of kritik is considered to be nihilistic. It sets up an endless regression of argument deconstruction. We question our assumptions, then question the answers until, ultimately, there is nothing left to believe in.)
These kritiks may challenge things like rational thought or world view. For example, the normativitykritik argues that we are taught to see things through an instilled normative thought process. We are unaware of how it affects our way of thinking, yet this pattern of thinking determines how we view the world and prevents us from looking outside of the box for solutions to critical issues.
Gender language kritiks argue that using sexist language (human, mankind, etc.) entrenches or reinforces a dangerous patriarchical mindset.
The nuclearismkritik argues that talking about nuclear war scenarios desensitizes part of our culture to the horrors of nuclear war and thus makes such a war more likely.
The statismkritik argues that the framework of the “state” is by its very nature oppressive and that any action taken by the state entrenches oppression. (The alternative to this kritik is anarchy.)
1. No link--Explain why the actions or mindset of the plan do not link to the kritik.
2. Permute—Advocated doing both the plan and kritik.We can think about “x” then do plan if the Kritik is not a reason to
reject the affirmative.
3. Turn-- Plan is a step in the direction of the kritik.
Plan serves as a springboard for the kritik because it focuses attention on the kritik issues.
Kritik is infinitely regressive. It only deconstructs ideas and ignores real world issues. Instead, we should adopt an alternative mindset advocated by the affirmative.
--pragmatism vs. critical
--deontology vs. consequentialism
--capitalism vs. communism
5. Performative contradiction--Negative advocates an action, mindset, or language that violates their own kritik.
Negative runs a nuclearismkritik (arguing that discussing scenarios for nuclear war desensitizes us to the real horrors of nuclear war, making the unthinkable doable) and then runs a disadvantage with a nuclear war impact.
Negative indicts the affirmative mindset and then runs a plan-inclusive counterplan.
6. Direct refutation of kritik philosophy.