[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page
Re: Artificial Counterplans - Definitions from the respondants
The way I understood the concept of artificial competition in my
extensive one year of debate in high school was that a counterplan that
was 'artificially competitive' did something like 'Do the CP but use the
Aff funding, now they can't perm because we steal their funding source'.
That seemed awfully silly in high school and no one ran it against Amiri
Barksdale and I so I didn't think about it again until we both went off
to college to debate.
At that point I was introduced to counterplan and permutation theory, so
now I'd say the easy answer to the counterplan is the exclusionary
permutation, exclude the funding part of the counterplan, thus
eliminating the portion of the counterplan which exists to artificially
create mutual exclusivity. The affirmatives perms all parts of the
counterplan except the portion which specifies the funding source.
The 'artificially competitive' counterplan only seems to work if the
affirmative team can't argue that they don't have to permutate the
entirety of the negative counterplan. If you can exclude things from the
permutation like 'use the same funding source' or 'use the same staff'
or 'use the same paper to write the bill on HA! bills can't be two
sided!' or some other condition or 'extra plank' thrown into the cp
which isn't intrinsic to solvency of the counterplan or achievement of
the net benefit then you should be able to beat the counterplan.
Joey Boyle
Assistant Van Driver
Fort Hays State University
References:
Archive created by Jonathan Stanton (jonathan@cs.jhu.edu)
Return to main CEDA-L Archive Page