Scribd
Upload
43 views13 pages

Textual Competition

The document discusses the necessity for counterplans in debate to be both textually and functionally competitive, arguing that this standard prevents arbitrary net benefits and promotes educational engagement. It presents statistics on affirmative and negative wins, emphasizing the structural biases that disadvantage the affirmative side. The authors contend that the current model incentivizes unproductive counterplans that undermine the quality of debate and education.

Uploaded by

muehlingsam
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
43 views13 pages

Textual Competition

The document discusses the necessity for counterplans in debate to be both textually and functionally competitive, arguing that this standard prevents arbitrary net benefits and promotes educational engagement. It presents statistics on affirmative and negative wins, emphasizing the structural biases that disadvantage the affirmative side. The authors contend that the current model incentivizes unproductive counterplans that undermine the quality of debate and education.

Uploaded by

muehlingsam
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 13

2AC

TP---TL---2AC
Counterplans must be functionally and textually competitive – avoids arbitrary net
benefits like penny less or delay and is a reasonable standard of competition that
ensures aff ground and germane net benefits
1AR
TP---Overview---1AR
Counterplans must be textually and functionally competitive – prefer –
[1] Aff Flex – impossible to predict or beat the garbage they justify like penny-less –
they steal the whole aff, compete off random words, and have an unpredictable net
benefit – unworkable.
[2] Germaneness – incentivizes unspecific counterplans that trade-off with nuanced
engagement with the case, which is uniquely educational – education’s the only thing
we get out of debate.
TP---AT: Neg Flex---1AR
Aff Flex Outweighs – neg block outweighs all other structural biases AND time skew
turns – speaking last can’t overcome 13-5 skew. Aff defends expensive, unpopular
plans – they get all disads and most counterplans.
General Statistics:

Aff Wins Total: 1528

Neg Wins Total: 1744

Aff Elim Wins: 133

Neg Elim Wins: 184

3-0 aff votes: 80

2-1 aff votes: 53

2-1 neg votes: 80

3-0 neg votes: 104

Aff Wins 46.7% of the time

Aff wins in elim rounds 41.96% of the time


Elo predicted the correct winner 94.44% of the time

That’s
Peng '11-3 [Marina and Eli Hatton; 2023; Debaters at Rowland Hall; "The Kleinline - October 2023,"
offtimeroadmap731634130.wordpress.com/2023/11/03/the-kleinline-october-2023/]
TP---AT: Process CPs---1AR
We’ve impact turned them. That was above.
TP---AT: Logical CPs---1AR
Smart text writing solves – that’s net better – encourages critical thinking.
TP---AT: Word Games---1AR
[1] Aff Flex Outweighs.
[2] Normative Textual Comp Solves – prevents proliferation of unpredictable perms.
[3] Tradeoffs – fiating an add-on means you can’t fiat the counterplan – deters.
[4] PICs solve.
TP---AT: Logic---1AR
It’s logical – limits out non-germane CPs AND no impact.
2AR---Textual Perm
TP---Overview---Flex---2AR
Our interpretation is counterplans must be both textually and functionally competitive
– we’re going for aff flex.
We’re winning a couple key questions that means it’s GG –
[1] Uniqueness – we’re already saddled with statistically proven topic and structural
biases working against us – the block is OP and can’t be overcome by trivial things like
speaking last because debate is a technical game where the negative already gains an
insurmountable advantage because of 1AR time-skew – means we’re behind by the
final rebuttals. Secondly, the content of the topic is also neg biased – massively
expensive plans are politically and economically unpopular and force the aff to defend
unorthodox economics, meaning the neg is guaranteed politics, econ, and case turns
against every aff – that’s more than enough. Even if you don’t buy this, the proof is in
the pudding – the 1AR KleinLine card cites thousands of national circuit rounds that
display the aff has a 42.5% winrate – that means when we walk into the room, we
already have a 15% lower chance of winning – that’s absurd. This means even if they
win that process counterplans and the stuff their model justifies is fair in a vacuum,
you should go ahead and reject it because you overcorrect to make the game more
fair on net – uniqueness is both an impact turn and terminal defense to their neg flex
standard.
[2] Content – even if we don’t win uniqueness, you’re still voting aff because the
content their model justifies is horrible. Functional competition alone allows the worst
counterplans possible – penny-less, the recycled paper counterplan, consult, NGA, etc.
For each counterplan I named, assume that there are thousands more because
process counterplans reach the bare minimum for specificity and evidentiary quality,
meaning there are tons more vile counterplans waiting to be discovered that OUR
MODEL solves. These are all completely unworkable for the aff – they steal the entire
1AC which deletes deficits, compete off of random, meaningless resolutional words or
“functions” that WE never specified, and have net-benefits with the most obscure
scenarios ever to prevent add-ons or impact D. There’s literally NOTHING we can do
against these counterplans. Our fairness disad outweighs theirs – neg teams can
ALWAYS go for a process counterplan, so their model reduces aff winrate to zero, but
there are obviously OTHER off-case positions THEY can go for, meaning the neg still
can win under our model.
Even if you don’t buy that – germaneness is a tiebreaker – their model deletes case
debating because the neg is strategically incentivized to steal it instead of engaging
with it. Think about it, when was the last time you saw an educationally enriching
NEPA round?
TP---Overview---Germaneness---2AR
Our interpretation is counterplans must be both textually and functionally competitive
– we’re going for germaneness.
We’re winning a couple key questions that means it’s GG –
[1] Impact Calc – CONCEDED – the 1AR did explicit impact calc in the overview which
was DROPPED by the 2NR. Education outweighs – it’s the only thing we get out of
debate – in 10 years, wins and losses will be irrelevant but the knowledge and skills
we learned won’t be – it’s the only exportable part of debate that has long-lasting
impacts. This means its completely UNWINNABLE for the neg –

You might also like