Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bfi CP Theory
Bfi CP Theory
Bfi CP Theory
CP Theory
Contents
Contents .............................................................................................................................. 1 Neg Theory Arguments....................................................................................................... 2 PICs Good ........................................................................................................................... 3 Advocating Perms Bad ....................................................................................................... 4 Intrinsic Perms Bad ............................................................................................................. 5 Severance Perms Bad .......................................................................................................... 6 Multiple Perms Bad ............................................................................................................ 7 Aff Theory Arguments ........................................................................................................ 8 PICs Bad ............................................................................................................................. 9 Advocating Perms Good ................................................................................................... 10 Intrinsic Perms Good ........................................................................................................ 11 Severance Perms Good ..................................................................................................... 12 Multiple Perms Good ........................................................................................................ 13
BFI 2012
CP Theory
BFI 2012
CP Theory
PICs Good
Offense: 1. Forces the affirmative to defend all parts of plan by testing the opportunity cost of individual plan mandates. 2. Depth over breadth: Plan focus makes better debate on key issues implementation and enforcement of transportation infrastructure policy. 3. PICs are check extra-topical planks of plan by isolating elements of the plan outside the resolution. 4. Forces better plan writing- PICS force the aff to write their plan to avoid PICS. Punish them for lazy plan writing. 5. Education- Our literature proves that this is a legitimate option to learn about transportation infrastructure and its most real world. This is how congressmen propose policy. a. Real world argumentation is key to education because its the only thing that gets taken beyond each round and b. Education outweighs fairness because the rules were made to maximize education, if we find a way to increase education, we should restructure the rules Defense: 1. All counterplans are PICS: either the cp accepts the USFG as the agent of action or they use the plans implementation and enforcement mechanism. 2. Net benefits check abuse: part of the plan has a disadvantage to itdefend it, turn the net benefit 3. Aff chooses the ground for debate- They get the plan we get everything else. This is key to reciprocal fairness. PICs are neg ground and are most fair. 4. Not a reason we should lose: reject the counterplan, not the team. Well defend the status quo.
BFI 2012
CP Theory
BFI 2012
CP Theory
BFI 2012
CP Theory
BFI 2012
CP Theory
BFI 2012
CP Theory
BFI 2012
CP Theory
PICs Bad
1. Steals aff ground- arguing against a PIC forces us to argue against our own case, hurts our ability to offensively attack the CP, this ground is key to fairness. 2. Breadth is better that Depth- focusing on a portion of the plan is not as educational as evaluating it as a whole. 3. Encourages vague plan writing- allowing PICs allows affirmatives to write plans that force generic strategies, that hurts education and leads to a race to the bottom. 4. PICs are regressive- allowing the neg to PIC out of one part of the plan justifies them doing the same in the block, this ruins debate by making it about PICs that get out of aff offense rather than the topic. The impact here is that it destroys education. 5. Clash- PICs limit aff arguments ruining clash within the debate decreasing debatability and quality of argumentation. 6. Aff Predictability- the negative can PIC out of any small country or amendment or part of plan. 7. Reciprocity- There is no affirmative equal to PICs, they justify abusive perms like severance and intrinsic perms which makes debate unfair. 8. Unpredictable Net Benefits- means we never have the pre-round preparation to garner offense against the CP voter for ground loss, fairness and education 9. There is in-round abuse- The damage has been done- strategy is dependent on the first speech, even if you dont buy this potential abuse is a voter a. In round abuse is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention ruining fairness b. If we win our interpretation is best it proves why what the other team has done deserves to be rejected 10. Argumentative Responsibility- reject the team, time skew proves the unique abuse of PICs, it limits the aff in the round, the affirmative must defend all of the plan so should the negative voter for fairness. 11. PICs are not real world- Bills are amended, not rejected based on a singular flaw. 12. Disads check neg ground loss- if there is one portion of our plan they think is bad they can run a disad on it.
BFI 2012
CP Theory
10
BFI 2012
CP Theory
11
BFI 2012
CP Theory
12
BFI 2012
CP Theory
Reject the arguments not the team- perms are just a test of competition, not an advocacy, so we shouldnt be voted down.
13