Agent CPs

Midshipman Adam Johnston, USNA m993264
Thu Sep 4 12:57:50 CDT 1997


While I agree that the standard for counterplan solvency seems to be
plummeting, I don't think that's a very compelling reason to pitch out
some of the really GOOD options on this topic.  For me, it comes down to
two things:

1)  NEGATIVE EVIDENCE.  A counterplan that evidence specific to their
actor - be it Japan, ASEAN, Russia, or an NGO - is waaaay ahead of the
ball game.  The other key aspect is propensity: a card that indicates that
Japan is interested in expanding their foreign policy into region x not
only makes the d/a more unique, but it proves that the cp isn't just a
cheap way to run a perception disad and steal all the aff's solvency
cards.

2)  LONG-TERM SOLVENCY:  Fiatting "China will stop contesting the Spratly
Islands" or "Burma will increase drug enforcement" ignores the reasons WHY
these states do these things.  Resource shortages and economic factors, to
name merely two, are not going to go away under this fiat (PLAN: Massive
oil and timber reserves will appear in the sky).  In these circumstances,
the affirmative harms, which will be MUCH more detailed than the 1NC
shell, serve as long- or short-term disads to the counterplan.  The war
may not break out tomorrow with the counterplan, but the root problems
will still be there.  The affirmative will still present a better solvency
approach -- at least, it should.  Holding the CP to SOME sort of solvency
burden will go a long way to preventing the "fiat solvency" type of
argumentation.

And all of this ignores the permutations, which will have 20 answers in
the 2NC but will STILL probably be accurate.

Fiercely searching for a case,

Adam Johnston
U.S. Naval Academy




More information about the Mailman mailing list