Advocacies / Responses Flashcards
Disadvantage Template
(Start with signposted name of DA)
1. Uniqueness (What about SQ is not getting worse / getting better in the context of the DA - can also include instability of SQ and how Plan would disrupt that)
2. Link - What Aff plan does, and how it affects Status Quo (Can also be a perceptual link - how does somebody’s perception of the plan cause action)
3. Internal Link - Because plan passes, __ Happens. Because of that, __ Happens (Create connections between links and impacts)
4. Impacts - TERMINALIZE large impacts that connect to Internal links. Ex: Nuclear War, Environmental Destruction, Poverty, Dehumanization, Global Warming, loss of Democracy, etc.
Advantage Template
(Start with signposted name of ADV)
1. Uniqueness - What is going on in the SQ in the context of the topic, and how it is bad or getting worse - mention Harms (Problem with SQ) and explain why Plan is the only Solution
2. Links - Actions the plan takes - Solvency that makes the SQ better
3. Internal Links - Scenario if SQ continues (and why thats bad)
4. Impacts - 1-3 reasons why the plan needs to happen. TERMINALIZED explanations of what will happen without the plan (Nuclear War, Dehumanization, loss of Democracy, Global Warming)
Condo Bad Structure (MG)
(Context - When the Aff does a ‘conditional’ advocacy after you ask them the status of their advocacy during CX)
1. Interpretation - Neg team is entitled to either an Unconditional Advocacy or the SQ
2. Violation - The Neg team introduces a conditional advocacy
3. Standards - Kills Ground, Education, Multiple Worlds, K Advocacy Links
4. Voters - A priori issue because it challenges competitive equity / Education. Eval on competing interpretations (net benefits)
Condo Good Structure (MO)
- Counterinterp - Neg team is entitled to one competitive conditional counterplan
- We Meet - We read a single competitive CP
- Standards - Policy Education, Err Neg on MG Theory, It’s Equitable, no Brightline
- Voters - Eval on reasonability. Even if we win or lose this argument, don’t vote anybody down. Condo is not a voter, so at most reject the argument
PICS Bad Structure (MG)
- Interp - Neg team is not entitled to a plan-inclusive-counterplan
- Violation - Neg team reads a PICP
- Standards - Steals Aff Ground, Kills Clash, Doesn’t meet Burden of Rejoinder, Predictable limits
- Voters - a priori issue because it challenges competitive equity and education. Eval on competing interpretations because it promotes fairest assessment based on net benefits of PICs.
PICS Good Structure (MO)
- No Violation - We are not a PIC, because they do not provide an interpretation for what a PIC is so we can’t determine what constitutes abuse
- Counterinterp - On this resolution, the neg is entitled to a plan-inclusive counterplan
- We Meet Counterinterpretation
- Standards - Field Context, Depth over Breadth Education, Critical Education
- Voters - Eval on reasonability - nothing in the rules about evaluating pics. Good is Good enough, we are focusing on a topic-specific discussion which increases education
Topicality Structure (LOC)
- Interpretation - Plan must include/consider this specific part of the resolution in order to remain topical
- Violation - The Plan does not meet the interpretation
- Standards - Limits, Field Context, Resolutional Integrity
- Voters - a priori issue because it challenges fairness, education, and the rules of the game. Eval on competing interpretations because it is the most fair way to decide which definition is the most topical.
Topicality Response (MG)
- We meet - we meet the Neg interpretation
- Counterinterp - in order to stay topical, plan must include this specific part of the resolution in order to remain topical
- We Meet Counterinterp - Aff Plan is topical
- Counterstandard - Limits
- Rebuttal of Neg Standards - why your Counterinterp captures Standards
- Voters - Don’t vote on potential abuse because it is arbitrary and regressive. Neg team must prove abuse from LOC args. Eval on reasonability - good is good enough.
Extratopicality Response (MG)
- We meet - Aff plan does not go beyond the topicality of the resolution
- Counterinterp - Aff may claim to solve for a logical extension of their advocacy (results of advocacy)
- We Meet Counterinterp - Aff Plan is a logical extension of advocacy because __
- Counterstandard - Limits (Unique from Neg Standards)
- Extratopicality is inevitable - Without extratopicality, we are only arguing words on a page. We need to examine fiated results of this plan in order to promote education and fairness of this debate.
- Capture Neg Standards (Explain how Aff Interp is best for their standards)
- Voters - Don’t vote on potential abuse because it is arbitrary and regressive. Neg team must prove abuse from LOC args. Eval on reasonability - good is good enough. If we win a reason to prefer our interp, don’t vote us down on extratopicality.
Counterplan Template (LOC)
- Text - Word-for-word action of what the CP Does (Actor and Action)
- Solvency - how it solves the resolution / SQ better than the plan (why CP is key to solving problem)
- Competitiveness - Why aff plan cannot happen alongside CP. Textual or Functional competition on why the CP is competitive and can be debated versus the Aff plan (“Aff is entitled to one non-intrinsic non-severance perm”)
- Net Benefit - Why CP doesn’t link to your DA (reason to prefer CP bc it doesn’t have that DA as a problem)
Agent CP
Advocates for same action as plan, with a different Actor (UN rather than US)
Delay CP
Same action, delays implementation until a significant change / time period has happened.
Consult CP
Advocates for action, only after consulting with important body. (Has to be a significant reason why important body should be involved in making the decision to act)
Plan-Inclusive CP
Advocates for plan advocacy except for a part of the action (Pass bill except section 5)
Plan-Plus CP
Same action as plan, with an additional step (Pass bill and resolution 5)
