This year's WFI had a panel of guest coaches gather together to talk about conditionality and the status of counterplans. Our amazing guests included:
0 Comments
This year's WFI had a panel of guest coaches to talk about the States Counterplan on the water resources topic (and beyond). Our amazing guests included:
Author: Ryan Galloway, Director of Debate at Samford University
Editor’s note: in the comments of our CP 101 series, a student asked for an expanded take on the theoretical aspects of the states counterplan. I can think of no better starting point than this article, re-posted with the author’s permission. The original article was posted long ago to edebate and its availability there has been lost to the ravages of time. Every year about this time I begin to work on the Baylor Briefs for the high school topic as well as get ready for the upcoming Samford Debate Institute. As I began to delve into the poverty topic, I got excited about Affirmative possibilities. I found articles about: *Poverty and Immigration *Social Services in segregated areas with concentrations of poverty *Full Service Community Schools for Low-Income Children *Faith based legal services as bolstering legal benefits for those in poverty And then I quickly realized the obvious. None of this matters. None of these affs are strategic, no negative team will ever research any of them, nor will they learn about any of this literature, because all of it will be obsolete when the 1nc says: The 50 states, the District of Columbia, and all relevant territories should implement the mandates of the affirmative plan. It’s time to put the sacred cow out to pasture. The states counterplan devastates education and the benefits of in-depth, topic specific research. The arguments in favor of it are weak, shallow, and protected mainly by about a decade of presumed legitimacy and the negative’s ability to spew off 15 answers to protect it. [Below the fold are the arguments against the states counterplan.] Author: Matt Liu, University of Wyoming director of debate
Counterplans offer an alternative avenue to solve all or part of the affirmative, usually one that avoids a disadvantage you have read that links to the affirmative plan but not your counterplan. Let’s use a common real world example: your friend proposes going to McDonald’s because you’re both hungry, but you’ve heard the local McDonald’s is giving people food poisoning, so you counter with going to Chipotle. The Chipotle counterplan solves the hunger advantage, but avoids the food poisoning disadvantage. Game, set, match for the neg right? Maybe, maybe not. In this series, we’ll discuss counterplan strategy for both the neg and the aff, but we’ll also focus on breaking down some of the debate jargon and theory that can make counterplans seem imposing. This article is broken into 3 sections, and I suggest you read through the articles in this order: 1) The Status of Counterplans 2) Counterplan Competition & Perms 3) Types of Counterplans If you have any questions, as always, please feel free to comment on the articles. Go Pokes! Author: Matt Liu, University of Wyoming director of debate
“What’s the status of the counterplan” is often one of the first questions you’ll hear in the cross-x of the 1NC. I’ve judged my fair share of debates where a bewildered debater turns to their partner for help after this question is asked. Fear no more, because after this primer you’ll know everything you need to confidently answer that question. Author: Matt Liu, University of Wyoming director of debate
This section is going to provide a brief primer on permutations, perm theory, and perm jargon. Perm strategy will be discussed more in depth with specific examples in the next section, “Types of Counterplans.” Counterplans need to be competitive; they need to be mutually exclusive with the aff's plan. If doing the plan and the counterplan at the same time would obviate the advantage of the counterplan, it’s not a winner. The name of the affirmative argument that challenges the mutually exclusivity of the counterplan is the permutation, or perm. When the affirmative perms a counterplan, they are generally arguing that doing both the plan and the counterplan resolves the net benefit to the counterplan. To win, the neg needs to win that the counterplan alone is best. If the plan + the counterplan is as good as the counterplan, that’s not a reason to vote neg. Keep reading to learn more about perms... Author: Matt Liu, University of Wyoming director of debate
In this section, we’ll discuss a few common types of counterplans. I’ll be bringing back the legitimacy meter to give you a general idea of how most judges feel about these arguments (and how I feel about them). Remember, the legitimacy meter is just about the theoretical legitimacy of an argument. You can refer back to the “status of counterplans” article if you need the key for the legitimacy meter. In addition to the legitimacy of each type of counterplan, we’ll explore how CP competition and perms work with each example, and I’ll discuss a general picture of what aff strategy should look like against common counterplans. A general strategy will only get you so far, having a specific 2AC strategy against each counterplan that makes sense against your aff is critical, but the following general discussion will help you start thinking through counterplan strategy. Author: Tyler Thur, Michigan State University
Editor's note: Tyler Thur was a semi-finalist at the 70th NDT (2016) for Michigan State University. Tyler works for Michigan State University's Office of K-12 Outreach as their Assistant Director of Data and Evaluation. He has coached debate at Michigan State University, Homestead High School (WI), and Glenbrook South High School (IL). This guest post is also a breakout feature: it addresses an advanced topic that is also a national circuit trend. Breakout features like these are designed to make sure that you know how to beat any debater, anywhere. For our breakout features, we especially encourage asking questions about the content in the comments. As a debate competitor, judge, and coach, I went for, voted for, and encouraged students to introduce a litany of process counterplans. Along the way, I was fascinated by the disdain for these arguments. Whenever I told students about a new process strategy, I received looks as if I was openly backing cheating and saying something like “I love the New England Patriots; they would never spy on their opponents and deflate footballs to get a competitive advantage.” Similarly, if I expressed excitement about process debates to others, peers would look at me like I had no appreciation for what debate offered to participants and had just said something like “the Beatles are cool, but have you all ever heard of Nickelback?” I am sympathetic to some of these reactions. That said, I think that too often students adopt this communal disgust for process counterplans without ever delving into the strategy behind them, thinking about why these debates often result in teams going for theoretical objections or permutations, and considering how to insulate their affirmatives on a substantive level. Consequently, they are left unprepared when negative teams inevitably unleash these strategies at year-end tournaments and in the face of topic expansion. I hope that by talking through the strategic utility of process counterplans and how to answer them substantively (i.e. not with permutations and theory arguments), students can better engage and defeat these strategies – even if they are near and dear to my debate heart. |
MissionWyoming Debate Roundup is dedicated to providing quality debate content to Wyoming and Rocky Mountain area high school debaters. We’re a resource for Wyoming debaters by Wyoming debate coaches. Categories
All
Archives
February 2024
|