Delay CP

[Paul Skiermont]

On Tue, 17 Feb 1998 herro at vaxa.cis.uwosh.edu wrote:

> 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.
Nobody said to let the aff say theplan happens later or at the bottom of
some mystical docket, rather the aff DOES NOT SPECIFY when the plan is
adopted and we can assume for the fairness of the da's that it happens
immediately, but as long as nothing is fiated, there is no way the aff is
liable for defending the plan against a time sensitive cp.


> > 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.
If the aff specifies to do it in two months it just may be strategic to do
the plan now since you are conceding the full weight of the 1ac claims and
arguing that now is important.  The 2ac running disads to the cp should
never really be a reason not to counterplan given the overwheliming
advantage the neg has in this situation.  The 1ar has to extend disads
like the block but is in no position to deal with the onslaught of
arguments that the 2nc/1nr can make to the 2ac's disad.

>
> 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).

The delay cp is not every material part of the plan IF the aff fiats WHEN
the plan is done, because then it is excluding THAT material part of the
plan.



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

That would be because noone really makes that argument.




> 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.
 How does a cp solve the Laos aff it does not go to Laos?  Usually this
strategy entails an NGO cp which is materially different from a plan that
goea to the gov't of Laos.

Paul
> 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
>