Advanced cp competition exercises. The plan says “United States”. The CP replaces that with the word “global” and the net benefit is a critique of ethno-centrism. 2AC says “perm: do both.”
The plan says “United States”. The CP replaces that with the word “global” and the net benefit is a critique of ethno-centrism.
2AC says “perm: do both.”
2NC says “1) It is functionally competitive—the K proves that the two phrases have very different meanings, 2) The perm links to the K.”
Write a long version of the 1AR on the perm.Exercise #1
“Extend the permutation, the US is a subset of “global.” The CP is not functionally or textually competitive because it is plan plus. The US + Canada + India etc. If CPs that added to the plan were allowed, then debate would cease to be a clash of ideas as the negative would just have to think of friendly amendments to the plan. Counterplans only compete if they are better than both the plan and the permutation. Also, the perm solves all of their links. We will answer the K separately in case they kick the CP but the permutation is just as global as the CP text.”Exercise #1…what you ought to have
“Extend the permutation, the plan does not mandate that X corporation gets the bid so the counterplan is not textually or functionally competitive. It is a friendly amendment to the plan. Competition based of normal means is terrible: 1) normal means is a myth—there is no standard way of passing all plans, the neg just found some random contextual evidence that is not predictable, 2) if our aff is inherent then it passed by abnormal means, 3) normal means CPs justify condition or consult CPs + they could PIC out of the color of ink used to sign the legislation, various treatments offered by the insurance companies, etc. It would be impossible to be aff. Our counter-interpretation of a legitimate PIC is one that PICs out of a mandate of the plan. That solves their plan focus argument better because we are actually debating about the aff policy, not normal means.”Exercise #2…what you ought to have
The CP says the Army, Marines, Navy, and Coast Guard. The net benefit is that extending the plan to the Air Force would kill heg.
The 2AC says “perm: do both.”
The 2NC says: “1) The CP is plan minus, the DOD includes the Air Force (ev). 2) We are a PIC out of a word in the plan text. This is justified because the aff gets to choose exactly what goes into the plan. They could have chosen to leave out the Air Force but by using the phrase DOD, it should be open to debate. Reward in depth research.”
Write a long version of the 1AR on the perm.Exercise #3
“Extend the permutation. Do both. The CP is a clarification of what is meant by the plan and so it is not severance. The DOD has policies all of the time that only impact some of the branches. Using the phrase “DOD” does not imply that every single person under DOD jurisdiction will be impacted. It is the same as a plan that says the USFG—the neg does not have a right to PIC out of the courts. Allowing these types of CPs opens us up to a list of 49 of the 50 states or excluding a particular person from the plan. Our counter-interpretation is that they do have the right to PIC out of words or mandates in the plan text but NOT to define those words and PIC out of a portion of the definition. This solves all of their PICs good arguments but protects the aff against unpredictable interpretations of the plan. And, an Air Force DA can solve their education without giving them defense on 4/5ths of the plan.“Exercise #3…what you ought to have