Status:: #🟥 Tags:: #🎓 Links:: [[My Lectures]] Course:: [[ILRLR 3300 Advocacy And Debate]] ___ ## Summary ## Notes Your 1NC is directed against your 1AC. You must choose ONE of the options for argumentation below. You have a few options for argumentation against it: - Direct refutation: Piece of evidence that says evidence in 1AC is incorrect, inferior, or flawed in some way. You can have multiple pieces of evidence against one point (Needs 10 pieces of evidence separately refuting the argument, the easiest one to write because the evidence doesn't have to be connected). - Disadvantage: An unforeseen bad consequence of the affirmative plan. Something way worse than the good thing that might happen from doing it. The ultimate goal of a disadvantage is to outweigh the advantage of the affirmative (Needs 3-5 pieces of evidence). - Critique: philosophical objection to underpinnings of the affirmative plan. The idea of a critique is not to say things will be better or worse with the mindset rejection. It's to reject that way of thinking simply because it's wrong (Most people do the critique wrong so don't do it simply thinking it's the one with the least piece's of evidence.) (Needs two piece's of evidence). - Counterplan: posing a mutually exclusive (the counterplan must be a reason not to do the affirmative. Even if it's a different argument) better new plan different from the affirmative plan. (not a option for writing negative assignment) ## Two Ways Of Doing Disadvantage ### Sam's Way Of Doing A Disadvantage: - Link: explain what affirmative plan does and what happens as a result. - Brink: shows how the status quo right now is tolerable. A situation you wouldn't want to alter. Ideally it's on the brink and requires constant diligence. - Impact: what occurs and why is it bad? ### Armanz's Way Of Doing A Disadvantage: - Uniqueness/brink: shows how the status quo right now is tolerable. A situation you wouldn't want to alter. Ideally it's on the brink and requires constant diligence. - Link: explain what affirmative plan does and what happens as a result. Sometimes you can include an internal link which brings further dominoes into action about what would happen as an impact. The more links the worse. - Impact: what occurs and why is it bad? ## Two Ways Of Doing A Critique ### Sam's Way Of Structuring Critique: - Link: Point out assumption affirmative is based on - Mindset Rejection: Explain how this assumption is morally wrong ### Armanz's Way Of Critique: - Link: Point out assumption affirmative is based on - Mindset Rejection: Explain how this assumption is morally wrong - Propose Alternative Mindset: Pose a new mindset ## Two Ways Of Doing Counterplans ### Sam's Way Of Counterplan: - In old speech and debate the judges vote for if the affirmative or negative wins, not which team wins. Therefore the counterplan can't be topical. It can't be for a plan arguing for a different part of the same resolution, just not same as affirmative. The judges focus on the resolution, not as much the plan. - Counterplans must be mutually exclusive (the counterplan must be a reason not to do the affirmative). - Counterplans must solve all the affirmative advantages. Essentially doesn't have to be better then the affirmative in every way. - Must be net beneficial. The counterplan must be relatively better than the affirmative plan, not the same. Ties go to the affirmative. ### Armanz's Way Of Counterplan: - **The major difference in the new way of doing a counterplan is your counterplan can be topical or not topical. That means it can be a counterplan for a different part of a resolution just not the same part of the resolution as the affirmative.** This is because in modern speech and debate the judges vote for which team wins, not if the affirmative or negative wins. The judges focus on the plan, not the resolution. - The new way of doing counterplans can be mutually exclusive OR undesirable. That means doing both plans is possible but the negative must argue it would be worse doing both than just the negative. - Counterplans must solve SOME of the affirmative advantages. Essentially doesn't have to be better then the affirmative in every way. - Must be net beneficial. The counterplan must be relatively better than the affirmative plan, not the same. Ties go to the affirmative. ### Types of Counterplans: - Agent: counterplan says we should do the affirmative plan but change the agent it's done through to avoid some disadvantage. - Mechanism: counterplan says we should do the affirmative plan but change a mechanism in the plan to avoid some disadvantage. - Plan Inclusive Counterplan: counterplan says we should do everything the affirmative plan does except this one thing. - Advantage: counterplan target a advantage of the affirmative by posing a completely different plan that fulfills that advantage as well. - Process: - Delay: counterplan says we should do the affirmative plan but delay it for some reason. - Consult: Counterplan says we should do the affirmative plan but consult with someone first. The affirmative is a surprise action, the counterplan is a consult action. - QPQ (Quid Qo Pro): Offer to do something in exchange for some net benefit. The affirmative plan says they would do a plan without any net benefit. The counterplan says we should do the affirmative plan but only if some other party does something first. ### Test Question: why doesn't Sam Assign a counterplan as an option for a negative? The counterplan alone isn't sufficient. In order for a counterplan to work, you have to do a disadvantage, direct refutation, or critique. That's because the counterplan must have a net benefit. It can't be a tie. Affirmative wins ties.