You are on page 1of 2

COUNTERPLAN COMPETITION

Speaker: Antonucci

• Functional competition
o Post-plan function
o Different function of CP
• Textual competition
o Derived from a word or some aspect of the plan text
o Certain words will be changed in the CP text
o
• Common competition debates
o We either get functional or textual competition
o Neither team should defend
o Should defend statements that endorse either or both of those
o Textuality is a higher standard – competes on level of function as well
o CP should be either functional or textual competition
o
• Competition should be textually derived – more than dropping a single plan out of plan text or
o Most obvious way to generate CPs if aff use USFG – change out “actor”
o Hooch water to the poor aff – CP give schmita filters
o “nearly all” CPs
 Contact nucc for cites
o Artificial competition
 Take out unnecessary words “the” and
 find synonyms
 Reverse bi-conditional: do plan but only if x does y
 Opposite of plan if and only if opposite of condition
• We will stay in Iraq if and only if (double negative)
 General aff response to XO v. USFG
• Aff has the right to define where the plan comes from
o Allows aff to requalify words later on
• Aff has right to define
• Language happens because people make it up
o Both teams have right to advance reasonable interpretation of what words mean
o Talk about different words, smart evaluation of evidence
o Set theory is ridiculous because the distinction of a noun category does not define
 Set qualifier like all or every
 Vagueness
 In absence of quantifier any absence of noun identification
 Whether or not there is an implied quantifier doesn’t make a difference
• Cp only one variation of plan
• Debate vagueness separately, don’t do it covertly
 Have right to pick elements of a given noun category
• Language is a socially determined construct
o Biographical to formal literary criticism
o Language determines how people think
• Perm pull out of Iran – legalistic rambling
• Perm do cp: call them out
• Difference between textual competition and actual
o Legitimacy of word PICs
 Given word has a rhetorical effect – word way of explaining an action
 Not functionally competitive
 Focus on what the word’s actions denote
 Different connotation of a given word
 Difficult to sort out difference between both
• Difficult defense – revolves around a particular view of what the plan is

 All PICs are word PICs – all have to look at plan text to see what aff is
 Define rhetorical choice
 Aff: plan is a blueprint, not a public statement
• Competitive to do both : pass blueprint, but choose rhetoric of PIC in public statement
• All PICs are word PICs, PICs good – process of melding substance and theory
• Generate genuine topic relevance
• Not difficult to defend the words of your plan text
• Whether or not rhetoric is a question best answered with specific evidence
• Teams not good about floating pics
• Bad impact of reps

o

You might also like