[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Hypo.Counterplan Scenario
OK. The DA doesn't outweigh case but almost does. That's the
assuming no CP. Given the CP, the only case sig at issue is the interrim
sig (during the delay period). But the delay avoids all of the DA--is
that what you mean? So that while the DA doesn't outweigh the case sig
taken by itself, the DA does outweigh the interrim sig--right?
Whether neg loses because the CP is topical would depend on aff's
response to "net benefits checks abuse" (which I would take to mean that
neg was claiming that topical counterplans were OK--even though that's
not epxlicitly stated).
> 1NC runs a conditional C/P, 2NC runs a 2nd conditional C/P (can
> you say "Abusive"? (-: ),
Yeah, I can say it. But in doing so I might be being
self-referential. ("Abuse" is abused.)
> 2NR goes for both, indicating that C/P's should be weighed
> independently vs. the plan (cp1 vs. plan, cp2 vs. plan), and that
> they only have to win one. Assuming neg is winning 1 C/P, but not the
> other, how would you reconcile the round?
Depends on what arguments aff makes claiming neg's strategy
should not be accepted the way neg wants it to be, and neg's answers to
those arguments. It might also depend (depending on the arguments) on
whether the two conditional CPs compete with each other.
Meredith Garmon, Fisk U.
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page