Answering the CP Casey Parsons

Review CP’s have two parts: The CP text The net benefit CP’s are designed to solve either part of or all of the aff CP’s are designed to get around the majority of the case debate

Answering them We have a useful acronym for answering CP’s SPOT: Solvency Deficit Permutation Offense Theory

Solvency Deficit By far the most important argument – any risk that the CP doesn’t solve the aff means the aff is preferable to the CP Even winning that the plan solves better than the CP is usually enough It really depends on the specific CP You often times won’t have a block for this – you have to make this argument analytically and on the fly

Permutation The CP and the plan aren’t mutually exclusive – in other words, they don’t compete If the CP doesn’t compete with the aff then it doesn’t disprove the resolution Permutations have two parts: Perm text Examples include: Perm do both, perm do the plan then the CP, etc Explanation of how the perm functions Explain why the perm solves better than the CP and how it works Make several perm arguments

Offense Offensive reasons as to why the CP is a bad idea If the CP doesn’t solve all of the aff, use the advantages that it doesn’t solve You can also read DA’s that the CP links to that the plan doesn’t, but this is a pretty last ditch idea

Theory Theoretical reasons as to why the CP is a bad idea We’ll talk about this more on the theory lecture