[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page

Re: Counterplans in the 2NC

	Affirmatives who put out a new case would be abandoning their 
original position, or shifting, but a 2N counterplan [I can't believe I'm 
defending this!!!!!] could be part of a consistent overall negative 
strategy.  I can see why changing counterplans in 2N would be a shift 
too, of course . 
	I think the reason no one would actually do a counterplan is 2N is 
because it could not be developed adequately, but that does not mean it 
should be unthinkable.  However, even a counterplan lover like me would 
not be voting for one in 2N any time soon in the face of massive social 
conventions against it!
 


	I like 3 constructive speeches [we've already taken away the 2AC 
as a place to initiate new arguments and even "additive advantages" put 
out by the 2AC have become obsolete] and I wish we could return to 4.  
Failing that let's not mandate even further reduction of adaptive debate.
Negatives often have trouble clarifying what an affirmative is doing 
after the 1AC and without a chance to probe and then attack they are 
toast.  That doesn't elminate tactics, it just shifts its location.  The 
trend toward longer rebuttals did kill the advantages of the negative 
block as a "junk spread" tactic, espcially since judges gave 1ar/2ar answers 
greater latitude than they do under the current practice.  That tendency 
plus the belief that one could win a DA better with one more extention 
plus the development of the turn as a major affirmative strategy (forcing 
better negative answers) made the move to earlier negative arguments 
desirable.  It also lead to the rise of the generic DA and the 
elimination of logical analysis [a.k.a. case pimps -- the connotations 
speak volumes about current attitudes about analytical negative 
positions] as even a portion of a viable negative strategy.

	I'm not arguing that debates without evidence are better than 
evidenced debates, or that shallow is better than depth in research.  I 
will argue that reducing debate to competing affirmative and negative 
cases reduces clash and renders moot the affirmative prima facie burdens. 
It is a forelorn hope for a negative to win a round on logical 
analysis of the failure of an affirmative team to meet its burden of 
proof, and very rare to win "case side" even with good evidence, compared 
to the number of teams who win with generics.
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page