[eDebate] Consult CP Thoughts Re: Hardy

Brett Wallace brettawallace
Wed Nov 7 12:07:40 CST 2007


I'm currently unsure of whether Aaron's strategy of docking points as a
remedy for getting rid of consult CP's is appropriate or not, but I will say
I wholeheardly support his desire to get rid of consult CP's from debate.

As for me, in my judge philosophy I merely put that aff teams should go for
"perm: do the CP" and textual competition good, as a guide for how to beat
these types of counterplans in the debate I am judging, I really think
winning that textual competition is good can be done by even the most
piss-poor theory debater.  Although Im thinking about changing my
philosophy to provide alittle more explination regarding CP competition,
because in reality, too much of debate about whether texual competition is
good or not gets caught up in textual vs. functional. Having a counterplan
that is only competitive via one method regardless of which one, is bad.
They both allow counterplans that are both unfair and uneducational.  The
ONLY good counterplans for debate, are ones that are both textually and
functionally competitive.

I think the "call them Persia rather than Iran" (only textually
competitive) and "condition the foreign assistance/security guarntee on
afghanistan doing TWO things rather than just ONE" (only functionally
competitive, because it is being just a LITTLE bit more hardline by making
them do two things) are excellent examples of CP's that should not being
run.

Also, while on the subject of CP's. I feel it necessary to once again
mention that alternate actor CP's are bad. They are an illogical response to
the affirmative that is not an opportunity cost. See the 07' DRG for an
in-depth explination why.
http://groups.wfu.edu/debate/MiscSites/DRGArticles/DRGArtiarticlesIndex.htm

Ok I guess I'm just a CP facist... but I'm starting to think that
conditionality is probably good...and logical...and that running multiple
conditional PIC's that are textually and functionally competitive and that
test the opportunity cost of the aff is plenty of negative CP ground.

-- 
Brett Wallace
Research Coordinator
International Center for Terrorism Studies
Potomac Institute for Policy Studies
901 N. Stuart Street, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22203
Cell: 214-693-6591
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20071107/304fa5bb/attachment.htm 



More information about the Mailman mailing list