Delay CP

[Matt Vega]

>i dont think there is a good reason to let the aff say that the plan
gets
>done later, or that it gets put at the bottom of the docket.  the
reason
>is it kills neg disad ground--unless you find some cards where the
writer
>is reading the future you cannot get a uniqueness story..."in 2 months
>when the plan goes into effect, clinton will need a big win to get x
>passed...."  aint gonna happen.

I don't think so either, but we got away with it for 6 tournaments last
year--of course not oo many people payed attention to us at the lower
end of the pairings.  Only one team that I can remember said anything
about our plan being at the bottom of the docket even when it was the
first answer to every disad.

>you may be thinking that a smart neg would respond to the "plan in 2
>months" by cping "do the plan now."  not.  there are still no disads to
>the plan, so all the aff has to do in the 2ac is grant that the cp
>competes and run all their disads.  any risk of a link isnt worth it if
>there is no disad to waiting 2 months...the neg story when they delay.
by
>the way, there are very few cases where a delay of a month or 2 causes
>such a solvency deficit that it outweighs a weak risk of a decent
disad.

No, a smart neg might do that, but an even smarter negative might
counterplan to do the plan one day before the aff or put it second to
last on the docket etc.  Try and find a link/uniqueness distinction
there (if there is one then props to the aff and go for the abuse
arguments!).  Plus, it might be justified to argue, even without
evidence since its so abusive anyway, that congress never gets to the
bottom of the docket and its never passed.

>all that said, the problem i have with delay cps is that they are
>literally EVERY SINGLE MATERIAL PART OF THE PLAN.  no "part" of the
plan
>is excluded.  i can explain it like this:  the aff is the only team
that
>should be able to "get credit" for the plan they read.  the neg should
be
>seen as "cheating" by "copying" the plan.  if the neg has a link to a
>disad, the appropriate comparison is the solvency of the plan vs the
>impact of the disad (oversimplified).

I am not sure that I have heard the reasons that plan-inclusive are bad.
The delay is clearly a different advocacy, the affirmative still has the
ability to argue that waiting is bad.  i don't think that the "copying"
is the part that is "cheating."  I think that what is cheating is that
the negative fiats action in the future.  i missed the first post on
this and am wondering if we are talking about passing the plan later or
passing the plan now and implementing it later?  If its the first then I
have a few thoughts to throw out (my theory on abuse is to abuse them
back to 1. prove the abuse or 2. win our abusive argument.):
   Delay counterplans seem to be the biggest justification for aff
intrinsicness answers to disads that I can think of.  If the neg can
delay the plan because that is what the calculus of a rational thinker
would be when determining what policy could be passed, then the aff
should get some reciprocity.

>i havent heard a good reason why the neg gets to do EVERYTHING the aff
>does, the ENTIRE PLAN, except later.

overall I would agree.

>same thing for exclusionary cps.  if the neg has a link to a shunning
>disad, the appropriate comparison is the solvency of the plan vs the
>impact of the disad.  and i have not heard a good reason why the neg
>should get credit for doing the EVERYTHING the aff does, except not to
>laos.

I do disagree here though.  I think that the argument is pretty good.
The affirmative has a lot of time to research a specific action and is
able to write it out very precisely.  Therefore they should have to
justify every action of the plan.  The affirmative gets to still compare
the solvency of the counterplan to that of the plan, so if Laos was
relly needing to be in the action then there should be a significant
impact to taking it out of plan.  I laos really does have no value for
being in the plan, except as a link to shunning, then why is it in the
plan?  If the reason that it shouldn't be in there is actually right,
then don't put it in there, and wait for the neg to run the counterplan
to add it, then run the disad against that (granted the cp would be
somewhat non-competitive).  The job of the negative is to prove that the
plan is not the best policy that could be adopted.  If the counterplan
is net beneficial, then what is the problem?  Did we hurt aff ground?
Yeah right, aff's rarely are hurting on ground, just on ideas.  Fritch
says that exclusionary counterplans justify giving one less penny,
person, etc. and claiming a penny saved is a penny earned, but the
solvency distinction is usually just as good as the saving of a penny.
Now if the plan gives 21 billion dollars and the cp gives 20 and has a
card that says giving that extra billion does something substantial
while not causing a significant tradeoff on solvency to outweigh the net
benefit, then why punish them for a good argument with maybe little
impact that could not be discussed because the aff got to pick and
prepare for their ground weeks ago.  Even though it does not by itself
outweigh case, it should be in a policy-makers decision calculus
regardless.  I think that the appropriate check on plan-inclusive
counterplans is competition--if there is truly a net benefit, then what
is the problem.  If the plan is to give food to all people and dogs in
Malaysia, and there is no benefit to giving food to the dogs (assuming
they are not hungry--i'm not a dog-hater), but it costs an extra 100
million, then why should the disad have to outweigh saving people, when
the counterplan can do that.
  Also, I don't think that the argument that plan-inclusive cp's force
the aff to argue against their own plan is valid.  They don't have to
argue against their plan, but for it--I mean part of its gone.  If it
didn't need to be in there then why is it?  If we did not have reasons
why E-Imet is necessary to solvency along with Imet, then it sure as
heck wouldn't be in plan.

>i know this is pretty simple, but maybe a good place to start...
>
>steve
>
>Steve Herro
>Director of Debate
>University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh
>(920) 424-7048
>
That's just my opinion, and I could be wrong.
Matt Vega
SMS

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com