advanced cp theory]

The plan says “United States”. The CP replaces
that with the word “global” and the net benefit
is a critique of ethno-centrism.
 2AC says “perm: do both.”
 2NC says “1) It is functionally competitive—the
K proves that the two phrases have very
different meanings, 2) The perm links to the K.”
 Write a long version of the 1AR on the perm.
“Extend the permutation, the US is a subset of
“global.” The CP is not functionally or textually
competitive because it is plan plus. The US +
Canada + India etc. If CPs that added to the plan
were allowed, then debate would cease to be a
clash of ideas as the negative would just have to
think of friendly amendments to the plan.
Counterplans only compete if they are better than
both the plan and the permutation. Also, the perm
solves all of their links. We will answer the K
separately in case they kick the CP but the
permutation is just as global as the CP text.”
The plan lifts the embargo on Cuba.
The counterplan excludes X corporation from trading.
There is a politics net benefit because X corporation is
very controversial.
2AC says “perm: do both.”
2NC says: 1) Normal means for government contracting
is for the cheapest bid to win out and X corporation
would put in the lowest bid (ev) 2) PICs are awesome—
we did super specific research to the aff plan and
should be rewarded for in depth plan focus.”
Write a long version of the 1AR on the perm.
“Extend the permutation, the plan does not mandate that X
corporation gets the bid so the counterplan is not textually or
functionally competitive. It is a friendly amendment to the
plan. Competition based of normal means is terrible: 1)
normal means is a myth—there is no standard way of passing
all plans, the neg just found some random contextual
evidence that is not predictable, 2) if our aff is inherent then
it passed by abnormal means, 3) normal means CPs justify
condition or consult CPs + they could PIC out of the color of
ink used to sign the legislation, various treatments offered
by the insurance companies, etc. It would be impossible to
be aff. Our counter-interpretation of a legitimate PIC is one
that PICs out of a mandate of the plan. That solves their
plan focus argument better because we are actually
debating about the aff policy, not normal means.”
The plan says the DOD.
The CP says the Army, Marines, Navy, and Coast Guard. The
net benefit is that extending the plan to the Air Force would
kill heg.
The 2AC says “perm: do both.”
The 2NC says: “1) The CP is plan minus, the DOD includes
the Air Force (ev). 2) We are a PIC out of a word in the plan
text. This is justified because the aff gets to choose exactly
what goes into the plan. They could have chosen to leave
out the Air Force but by using the phrase DOD, it should be
open to debate. Reward in depth research.”
Write a long version of the 1AR on the perm.
“Extend the permutation. Do both. The CP is a clarification of what
is meant by the plan and so it is not severance. The DOD has
policies all of the time that only impact some of the branches. Using
the phrase “DOD” does not imply that every single person under DOD
jurisdiction will be impacted. It is the same as a plan that says the
USFG—the neg does not have a right to PIC out of the courts.
Allowing these types of CPs opens us up to a list of 49 of the 50
states or excluding a particular person from the plan. Our counterinterpretation is that they do have the right to PIC out of words or
mandates in the plan text but NOT to define those words and PIC out
of a portion of the definition. This solves all of their PICs good
arguments but protects the aff against unpredictable interpretations
of the plan. And, an Air Force DA can solve their education without
giving them defense on 4/5ths of the plan.“
Plan lifts the embargo on cuba
 Neg says do the plan but consult brazil over the
plan. Brazil will say yes.
 Neg says the permutation is severance
because it severs immediacy and certainty.

similar documents