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

Re: InquiryDelay Counterplans

With all of the discussion on counterplans I would like to open another area
of discussion.  What are peoples opinions on delay counterplans?

This type of argument was pretty widespread last semester.  I have run the
argument with quite a bit of success.  However, in many cases it seems that
the critics did not particularly care for the argument but it was answered
poorly so wound up voting for it.    

I will describe my logic in arguing delay counterplans and put it up for
public scrutiny.

Argumentative basis:

The affirmative is advocating that a policy be implemented at a particular
time, usually immediately.  The harms are such that we should act now to solve
the problem etc.  This facet of the aff case should be held to scrutiny and
the delay counterplan is a means to do this.  By arguing that the plan should
not be implemented now, and instead should be put into effect at a later time,
the negative is directly attacking the affirmative supposition that action
needs to be taken now.  If the negative can show that the affirmative advocacy
of immediate action is not net beneficial in comparison to later action, the
negative should win because their advocacy under the counterplan is the
superior policy option.

Competition:

The delay counterplan is net beneficially competitive.  The plan is eating a
disad based on immediate action (bipart, Clinton, Spending etc.).  The
counterplan, because it waits does not get the disad and is hence a superior
option.  The only permutation that I will refute here is the "do both" perm. 
(I will not address partial perms here so I can keep this post shorter) The
permutation in this case would still get the disad because of immediate
action.  Minus the aff ability to show doing the plan twice overcomes the
disad or outweighs it, the perm would not be net beneficial to the counterplan
alone.

Non-Topicality:

Aside from arguing the validity of non-topical counterplans, I believe the
delay counterplan to be non-topical.  (assuming the rez has the word should in
it)  The affirmative interpretation of the word should is immediately
following an aff ballot.  i.e. the US should build OTEC plants now.  If the
neg grants this interpretation as legitimate, and grants it as the definition
of should for the round, than delay actions violate the word should in the
resolution.  The argument to counter this is that 'should' forms a conditional
verb and therefore imposes no limitations on the timeframe of action. 
However, the affirmative is operationally defining the word in the context of
their plan.  Why then if I as the negative accept this should other
interpretations be allowed?  

Affirmative ground:

The affirmative still has plenty of ground in against a delay counterplan. 
First, the aff could beat the disad and show that the consequences of delay
are worse than the risk of the disad.  Second, turn the disad.  Third, run a
disad against the delay.  This could be done by showing that the existing
disad will be worse later than now, (i.e. spending will be more critical in
the 1996 election year so do it now instead etc.), or by running a new disad
based on the delay.  By running a delay counterplan the neg pretty much limits
its options down to the CP and the  D/A for substantive issues (of course
there will always be T--especially in an Air Force Round!)  Therefore the aff
may spend a substantial amount of time answering the disad and counterplan. 

This is the framework from which I argue delay counterplans.  I am interested
to hear any objections, comments, or suggestions.  Thanks for taking the time
to wade through this and I look forward to your ideas.

Ryan Davis
Air Force Debate
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page