Presentation on theme: "Mike Shackelford. Factors that make a good counterplan Does it solve the aff better? Is it competitive Does it solve the aff or a portion of the aff."— Presentation transcript:
Factors that make a good counterplan Does it solve the aff better? Is it competitive Does it solve the aff or a portion of the aff AS WELL AS a DA (net benefit) Original
Factors that make a good text Generic CP Adjustable – The easiest way is to not have pre-written phrasing. Can be worded to adjust to stupid plan texts. Write out the action of the plan This excludes [insert mandates of the plan] Case Specific Counterplan Every plank written out Adjustable – Changes accordingly to 1AC advantages
Factors that make a good competition claim: None, the best counterplans are clearly competitive by the texts. However, assuming you are reading a generic CP: “Avoids DA to…” Small T Violation. Accusing your own counterplan of being untopical for doing something the aff also does – game over.
Internal vs. External Factors that make a good net benefit Unique Doesn’t matter how awesome your net benefit is if the squo solves it Definite Solvency Turns the case
Principle of Neg Strategy: Resolve the affirmative impacts Assuming the affirmative has done their job right, the squo will not be an easy world to defend To combat this, we have counterplans.
CP solves 100% of the case” OR “CP solves X advantage and the net benefit turns the other” seconds on why 30 seconds on the net-benefit explanation – impact calc
Each perm needs to be addressed separately 1. Theory 2. Doesn’t solve 3. DA to the perm
Counterplan’s have a “status” 3 status’ Conditional – can be kicked at any time Dispositional – multiple interpretations If you read any theory other than dispo bad, we can kick it If you straight turn, we’re stuck with it Unconditional – have to go for it unless they go for T
Treat as a DA Internal vs. External Net-Benefits Impact Calc on Top if not on overview Explain why even if the CP doesn’t solve all of the case, the net benefit outweighs what you don’t solve.
Must have either an internal net benefit or an external. The counterplan itself is not a reason to vote negative. Sliding Scale Solvency Claims– we may not solve this part of the case. However, the Net Benefit outweighs. Kick the CP?
4 Categories Theory – will be covered in theory lecture tomorrow Perm Solvency Deficit DA to the CP
DO NOT READ 5 PERMS IN A ROW AT BREAKNECK SPEED!!! Judges need ink time Common Perms Perm: Do Both Perm: Do Plan then CP Perm: Do CP then Plan Perm: Do CP Great time trade-off – but toe the line carefully
Factors that make a good perm: Does it have a net benefit? Specificity Tricky CP Texts Tread the abuse line very carefully
Factors that make a solvency deficit effective Doesn’t solve the aff 1AC card extension 2AC cards Analytics Doesn’t solve the net-benefit Cards Analytics
Avoid reading an impact the 1AC already has Can be an Add-on, or a DA to their mechanism Also can impact turn the NB
S.P.O.T. Step One: Solvency Deficit Every flow starts with case extension Explain why this outweighs the NB Step Two: Perm Place at different parts of the flow so they 1) might drop, 2) have to actively organize, 3) judge ink time Almost always no more than two Perm do both, perm do cp If they bust out the Consult 5 perms, Jimmy’s got this one
Step Three: DA to the CP (Offense) Step Four: Theory Status Consult/Process/Competition