10
Things I Love About Disads – featuring Eric Suni as Heath Ledger
Basic
Counterplans by Eric Suni
Advanced
researching at Whitman lecture, Jeff Buntin
Novice Cross-Examination, Candi Kissinger
Topicality
Lecture Outline, Jessica Gates
Advanced
CP Theory Lecture Outline, Jessica Gates
1. Intro: The disad is probably
the most important strategic tool of the
negative but the art of the disad is more than brute
force impacts to weigh
against affirmative advantages. Hopefully, by the end of the lecture, you'll
understand how to effectively structure and deploy disadvantages.
2. Structure:
uniqueness: why the disad isn't happening now
brink: the cliff analogy
linear brink/uniqueness
link: what the aff does to start the initial bad
chain of events
internal links: the link between the link and the impact
impact: the end bad thing that happens
3. Answering disads:
what is the difference between offensive and defensive arguments
the link turn
the unique link turn
--uniqueness take outs
how to impact turn effectively
--saying the opposite of what the impact says
--having external impact turns/scenarios not in direct confrontation to the
impact (e.g. different heg scenarios not
related to W.O.T.)
--having defensive arguments against the original impact scenario
4. The politics disad: a slightly different beast
theoretical arguments that you can make against politics disads
--bottom of the docket
--magic wand of fiat
--not intrinsic
5. Impact analysis: the key to effectively deploying your disads
timeframe
risk
magnitude
(ask students how to evaluate different impacts)
When should you start doing impact analysis? 2AC/2NC: Setting up your framework
for evaluation early so you can have some depth to your argument.
using disads to turn advantages
how to effectively extend disadvantages
--overviews with impact analysis
--extending the link by author
--extending the impact by author
1) Who loves the K? Who hates the K?
2) How do you spell it? Critique or Kritik?
Kant, Descartes
3) What is the K?
It's an action--not just passive like a disad because
you have an advocacy.
Like my weird friend Sam Spegel used to say, "We
are kritiking you...yes, we
are kritiking you."
Think of it like a disad with a counterplan
attached to it.
the structure: link, implication, alternative but before we delve into the
specifics of those...
5) What is fiat?
what is pre and post fiat?
why do people say that K's are pre-fiat?
why does that not make any sense?
6) Link: the link of a K works like the link of a disad
but it has to do more
with the type of thought/system of ethics rather than a chain of causal events.
7) implication: again, like a disad, the implication
is like an impact but
it's usually more abstract like you destroy ontology rather than nuclear war.
Also, along with the implication people usually set up a framework for
evaluating the debate other than traditional
policymaking/utilitarianism/consequentialism. Other
frameworks concern
methology like Foucault kritiks--people
who run this K will say that
understanding power is more important than looking for the best policy.
Winning a framework is important because if you win your framework then the
other team's offense doesn't make sense in your calculative scheme--which
means that it goes away. For example, who cares who saves the most lives if
the judge should evaluate the debate on who best understands the workings of
power?
8) the alternative: like a counterplan, the negative
should offer up some sort
of alternative to their criticism of the plan.
If we think of the alternative like a counterplan,
does it have to be
competitive with the affirmative plan?
having a text
Can it be conditional/dispositional? **performative contraditions**
can alternatives be things like: vote negative, reject the affirmative,
embrace love? **alternative vagueness**
9) Form and content:
some people will articulate their kritik in the
traditional manner with cards
others will make the form match the content...for example, Long Beach talks
about disempowered voices and United states hegemony, so they rap in their
speeches over fat beats coming out of their laptops. People do things like
these
to make their argument stand out and have more weight than just reading
cards--some people find style and new approaches to be interesting but in more
conservative places, like
very well.
10) Answering kritiks:
can you non-unique it?
link turns
impacting turning (probably better than link turning)
disads to the alternative
solvency take outs to the alternative
permutations
11) common themes in kritiks
power/biopower
capitalism
the state
identity politics/subjectivity/difference/alterity
ontology/metaphysics
the Other/Self
epistemology
12)talk about camp kritiks
14)Overall, don't be afraid--if something doesn't make sense, call the other
team out
on it.
--------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through Whitman College Webmail 3.1
1. (aff/neg) Unique link turns
2. Winning the link
is more than having a card.
3. It’s the impact,
silly: offensive impact calculus and new impact modules/add-ons.
4. Argument
interrelationships—how they can help you or hurt you.
5.. Formulating CP
net-benefits
6. The love/hate
relationship: the politics DA
7. Shadow
extending—maxim: if it takes as long to kick it as it does to go for it, then
you should probably go for it
8. Extending what’s
important: 2NC, 2NR; 1AR, 2AR
9. (Aff) Impact turning (and how it affects net-benefits)
10. (Aff) Tricky analytics and time tradeoffs
Essential components
of a CP:
--A text:
What is the purpose of the text?
How do you write a CP text?
--Competition
--Functional
--Textual
--Net-benefits
Other important
components/issues:
--CP solvency
--CP status
--CP topicality
--Aff answers:
solvency deficits
permutations
add-ons
theory
How to bracket evidence:
DO NOT begin card in the middle of paragraph.
Be
sure to include complete thought/argument –claim, warrant, evidence!
Last
names or pronouns should include reference (places, organizations, conventions,
etc.)
Prepare
for photocopy, make discrete but comprehensive markers.
Keep
all your notes or thoughts in margin (scanning, and photocopy)
DO
NOT MARK IN LIBRARY BOOKS—NOT EVEN PENCIL
Keep
a Master Cite List
For
electronic work use Paste Special ---not Paste – to insert your articles into
word documents
Once
pasted convert the text to Times New Roman, 10 font
NO
PICTURES OR IMAGES IN YOUR FILES PLEASE
How to tag evidence:
Header or easy thought to flow
Grammatically correct
Claim of argument/ how it functions in debate
Nothing offensive, inside jokes, etc.
Note if evidence is gender paraphrased.
How to cite evidence:
Include Qualifications for
author and all authors names ( note when editor and author are different)
Bold Year and authors last
name
Remove all formatting and hyperlink
Example--
July
July
Davis, Professor of Politics,
Affirmative and Negative
files must be separate files!
How to do brief titles
and indexes:
“Harms” is not an acceptable block title.
Different
Harms arguments should be placed on separate pages with explanatory titles, ex.
“GTIMO detainees tortured” or “Patriot Act searches violate 4th
Amendment”
Your block title is then used to create index
Document Map
Please
gender modify evidence by changing "his conception of . . ." to
"his or her conception of . . ." or "their conception of . .
." AND note that you did this in the evidence.
NO
HIGHLIGHTING OF EVIDENCE. You can underline but highlighting slows the printers
down significantly.
IF
YOU DO YOUR EVIDENCE ON PAPER: Please leave at least ½ inch margins on all
sides! Please use DARK, THICK, BLACK OR DARK BLUE INK for your handwriting!
Researching
Internet—
Google (scholar)
Lexis-nexis
Penrose library
site—electronic databases
Username
and Password.
Library—
9 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday–Friday
Closed Saturday & Sunday
Start out in lecture room, then move students to computer lab to have them actually research, then take students to library to have them physically get materials
A. Google – picking good search terms, using quotes to find specific phrases, modifications on google (i.e withingoogle.com, print.google.com, google news, etc)
B. Think tanks – what is a think tank, how do you find them on the web, which ones are useful for evidence (CATO, Heritage, center for security policy, etc). Show students how to create a database of think tanks organized by subject matter and political leaning (CATO is libertarian, Townhall.com is conservative, etc) and how to refer to their list of think tanks while researching
C. Finding dates/qualifications for authors on the internet – how to distinguish qualified evidence from unqualified evidence (i.e. no evidence from blogs)
II. In computer lab – tips for researching online at Whitman, researching at nearby college libraries when students return home
1. Each student should retrieve one article about their affirmative case from lexis or infotrac
1. Each student should search journals for one article about a disadvantage, counterplan, or kritik they’ve worked on – walk around the room, check student searches/articles etc.
III. Have students physically go over to the library and research
I: What a Critique is (Phil
objection to affirmative plans, advantage areas, or actions)ow
they function
II: Parts of a critique
a)
Links
b)
Impacts
c)
Alternative (discuss necessity)
d)
Solvency
e)
Does the alt need a text?
III: How critiques function
a)
Solvency Take-out/Turns
b)
Like a DA
c)
Like a CP
IV: Answering the Critique
a)
b)
No Link
c)
Attacks against the alt, how the alt doesn’t
solve the aff, or reasons the K needs an alt.
d)
Going further “right” – Args
against Ks in general
e)
Going further “left”—arguing counter-kritiks
V: Discuss some kritiks they might hear a lot this year and ask them
questions about Kritiks
they have heard and have questions about.
Topicality
I: Basics of T
a)
Parts
b) Whis
the point of T
II: Why run T – even if they
are Topical
a)
Time adv
b)
Links to positions
c)
Hidden violations
d)
Arguing through the block
e)
Answering critical cases
III: Arguing T
a)
About competing interps
on how the rez should be interpreted
b)
Based on ground and fairness – GROUND GROUND GROUND
IV: Answering T
a)
We meets
b)
Counter-Interp
c)
WM the C-I
d)
Reasons to Prefer the Counter-Interp
e)
General Answers to T – Predictability, Lit
checks, etc.
V: Q&A
T is very important strategic position—at the very least it’s an effective time-trade off for the negative. But more importantly, topicality can often be won not because the violation is particularly persuasive, but because the affirmative has been outdebated on the mechanics of the argument. Which means that as long as you understand the best way to debate topicality, you can often have a viable 2NR position to go for. On most topics, we ran T every round, and a lot of very successful teams run a couple procedurals as a rule.
What is topicality?
Topicality is about interpretations of the resolution…which definitions are best for debate, how should the resolution be debated, and why?
Basics of a topicality violation—definition, violation, standards, voting issue
First two are simple, but the standards are really where the meat of the topicality argument lies….what are some of the standards by which we evaluate competing interpretations of the resolution?
Biggest and most important one is ground—why is ground important?
Simply stated, ground is the very core of debate. If there was unfair ground, people wouldn’t want to debate. In other words, good division of ground is critical for competitive equity, which is key to debate.
More nuanced ways to talk about ground---biggest is predictable ground. Why is predictable ground good? Increases the ability to research, which is good for education, and it increases the depth of argumentation, also good for education, and predictable ground is the only ground the negative wants, because the only ground it can prepare for.
Ground is key to education and fairness…ground, limits, and predictability boil down to the same thing.
Limits are ways we delineate ground, so the ultimate reason why limits are good is because of the ways they affect ground. Limits can either be good or bad—good because they keep ground predictable, which arguably increases depth and quality of argumentation—all the reasons why ground are good can be construed as reasons why limits are good.
On the aff, limits are bad because they decrease education by narrowing the focus of discussion, arguably breadth is better than depth.
So, when discussing ground and limits, want to give warranted explanations of why the judge should care about those things…don’t just say topicality is key to ground, but explain why…because otherwise we can’t predict, and thus can’t research, which is bad for both education and fairness
Other standards that aren’t so central to debate---debate about which sorts of definitions are best (legal, contextual)…framer’s intent gets brought up a lot, but sort of dumb…any others?
Voting issues—ground, fairness, education—voting issues because if they didn’t exist, debate could cease to be a viable, enjoyable activity.
Affirmative—
Need we meets—many of them. The more we meets the better.
Need counter-definition, why you meet it, and the reasons why it is better. These will be similar to negative arguments…our counter-definition allows this sort of aff, which is central to the topic and thus good for education, our CD is more limiting, less limiting, better defines ground, eliminates bi-directionality, and the negative needs to provide reasons why the CD is bad…if they don’t, they should lose their violation.
Topicality isn’t a voting issue unless there is ground loss---they have to prove why your interpretation of topicality is abuse.
Don’t vote on potential abuse, because its unfair punishment---for the negative, why should you have to run something you know they’ll ‘no link’ out of…vote on the possibility that this could happen, even if you didn’t jack what ground you do have
Affirmative standards—reasonability, 100% sure…others??
Those are the mechanics of what you need…the KEY to winning topicality is giving compelling warrants that both relate to the resolution and the affirmative at hand and ground and fairness.
Topicality as strategy…
First and foremost, as a 2AC timesuck
Run topicality to get links to disads---make them say they are a foreign policy so they link to your imperialism kritik, significantly so they link to spending, establish has to be a new policy to throw all their non-uniques into question
If at all possible, keep it alive in the block, because the 1AR will usually overcover. Make it seem like you might go for it in the 2NR…dropping arguments in the block because you couldn’t care less will end up being a worse timetradeoff for the negative because the 1AR can extend a few easy arguments and win.
Question of whether you can go for T and other stuff in the 2NR. Depends on many factors…huge one in HS is the judge and what their opinion on it is. Also depends on how handily you are winning it, if you have a lot of 1AR responses to cover or not
Major T arguments—establish means to create, increase means to make larger, have various definitions of support and UNPKO to be able to say most anything is untopical for some reason or another, establish doesn’t mean ban (PDD 25), foreign policy if the case just changed US laws
Dealing with topicality is oppressive—look, without topicality we wouldn’t be here. Ground issues are a prerequisite for debate. Its completely unfair to expect the negative to be prepared for every liberal, kritikish argument that isn’t a part of the topic. Not to mention we shouldn’t have to be negative against a case like this (because its probably an undebate-able issue)
What to do on the aff—strike the appropriate balance between timeliness and being thorough. Say everything you need to without repeating yourself…make sure the judge can flow what you are saying—its hard to flow t responses, so slow down and articulate without being sloth like.
In the 1AR go for your winning arguments—try and gauge how you sit on t, and allocate time accordingly. Did the 1NR or 2NC take it? Does it seem like the 1NR is a tool and the 2N has her favorite kritik going on, and thus will never take T in the 2NR? If there are a lot of good block responses, extend almost everything, even if you don’t answer all the negative arguments—better to make the 2NR a pain and lose a few speaker points.
I. Permutations
a) a legitimate permutation includes the entirety of the plan and all or part of the counterplan
b) there are several types of illegitimate permutations
i) intrinsic permutation: a perm that includes something not found in either the cp text or plan text. For example, a perm to have the federal and state government cooperate over the plan, when the cp was just have the states do it.
j) severance permutation: a perm that doesn’t include the entirety of the affirmative plan. For example, a perm to do both when the counterplan bans part of plan action, or a perm to both consult Japan over the plan and do the plan at the same time, which would sever out of the plan’s guaranteed passage.
k) severance and intrinsic perms are bad for negative ground: they create a moving target such that the negative can’t debate a consistent advocacy, which makes strategizing impossible, they don’t test competition because the plan isn’t being compared to the counterplan, they are voting issues for ground and fairness
l) timeframe permutation: a perm to do the plan and then the cp or visa versa. These are bad because they don’t test competition.
c) things to consider when dealing with permutations
i) Decide to perm based on strategy. If they run the counterplan dispositionally, and if you perm it they can kick it, don’t perm the cp if you think you can stick them with the cp to your advantage (ie, it’s a bad cp or your can turn it with big impacts).
j) Is the perm an advocacy or test of competition? Generally speaking, permutations are policy options that the aff. team isn’t required to go for if they want to go for other args or the aff plan. It can also be argued that perms can’t be advocated in the 2AR because they only test competition.
k) Run more than one permutation, as there may very well be more than one that is viable, and remember that they take very little time for the 2AC to make and much more time for the negative block to answer.
l) What happens to your permutation in the context of the conditionality of the counterplan? If they kick the CP can you still advocate the perm?
II) Plan inclusive counterplans
a) A PIC is a counterplan that includes part of the affirmative plan
b) There are a few arguments why PICs are bad: they force the affirmative to debate against itself in order to generate offense on the counterplan, which is bad for affirmative ground; they are infinitely regressive because the neg can pick out of a small part of the plan (like a dollar of funding) and claim net benefits that the aff. can’t predict; they create a time skew by mooting portions of the 1AC advocacy; they encourage vague plan writing; these are voting issues for ground and fairness
c) There are a few arguments why PICs are good: they force good affirmative plan writing and debate, because the negative is allowed to test individual parts of the plan and make the aff defend its entirety, for example, the agent of the affirmative; they advance the search for the best policy; they are most real world because we should debate the details of policies; they don’t destroy affirmative ground because the aff can generate offense on the parts of the plan the CP doesn’t do; all counterplans include part of the plan.
d) Things to consider when dealing with a PIC:
a. if the CP gets most of the affirmative solvency, don’t rely on “aff outweighs” to beat the CP. PICs make it such that one can’t use one’s affirmative against the CP, so make offense elsewhere.
b. If the neg is going for the PIC, what is the value of the solvency arguments on the case? Need they be answered by the affirmative in the 2AR if the counterplan is stuck with them too?
c. What are the net benefits to the CP given it uses part of the plan?
III) Conditionality issues
a) Conditional counterplans: counterplans that can be dropped at any point in the debate by the negative team
b) Dispositional counterplans: counterplans that can or cannot be dropped by the negative team based on predetermined conditions. Most typically, if the affirmative team permutes or makes theoretical objections to the counterplan then the negative can kick the counterplans. These terms should be discussed in the debate.
c) Unconditional counterplans: the 2NR will advocate the counterplan.
d) Reasons why conditionality and dispositionality are bad: they force the affirmative to debate multiple worlds, which isn’t reciprocal and is thus unfair; they artificially inflate the CP because the aff. won’t want to spend time answering something they aren’t sure will be in the debate; justifies running multiple conditional counterplans, which would make it impossible for the affirmative to debate; it is unclear what constitutes a straight turn to the CP, which means conditionality requires judge intervention; not real world because policymakers don’t flip flop on their advocacies.
e) Reasons why conditionality and dispositionality are good: its most real world to evaluate multiple policy worlds and advances best policy making; its reciprocal because the aff. can advocate two worlds with their perm; it increases strategic thinking; all arguments are conditional, including aff 2AC responses; the SQ should always be a logical option, because the affirmative must prove there are better.
f) Debaters should know what the conditionality of the CP is before the 2AC and what the terms of such agreements are. Strategy should be devised with this knowledge in mind. Also consider which arguments are net benefits to the dispositional counterplan, so one can evaluate what the 2NR will look like with or without the CP and time/priorities can be adjusted accordingly.
IV) Other potentially illegitimate forms of fiat that will not be discussed in detail
a) International fiat: the negative’s ability to fiat that an/many international actors do a CP. Theoretical objections rest on issues of reciprocity, literature bases, predictability.
b) Multiple actor fiat: the negative’s ability to fiat more than one agent, for example, 50 state fiat. Theoretical objections rest on issues of reciprocity with implications for aff. Ground
c) Plan plus counterplans: plans that do the entirety of plan and something else. Not mutually exclusive, and generally effectively permutable.
d) Topical counterplans: the negative’s ability to CP to do something topical. Is this fair for affirmative ground, does this create good debate?
V) Debating theory, things to remember
a) You must explain why voting on theory is important for debate
b) You must explain why the other teams violation warrants them losing the debate round
c) When answering theoretical objections to your arguments, insist that if the theory is won, then the argument should be dropped, not the team (you), and make them defend why b) is true.
d) Don’t just read lists of reasons why X is good or bad. Good theory debaters engage the other team’s arguments and then make their own. Consider dividing theory arguments into defensive and offensive claims. For example, PICs don’t hurt affirmative ground, etc., and PICs are good for the following reasons.
e) Put voting issues on things, or else you may be wasting your time making theoretical objections.
f) Explain your voting issues, and argue against the other teams. For example, time skew isn’t a voting issue because debate is a time constrained activity and creating time tradeoffs is both part of the game and inherent to every argument.