Skip to content
November 26, 2012 / compassioninpolitics

Negative strategy reflections about the Glenbrook North Elevators Affirmative

I wonder if you could get away with changing the funding method counterplan–which would compete with normal means or perhaps some other wording in the plan text. (I haven’t gone back to see what their funding & enforcement line says or if they even have one).

Deciding if you want DoT funding or Nasa funding or some third method of funding (each one of the former sets you up for a trade-off disad)–but you have to prove solvency would be the same–arguably you could probably use the same implementation. Particularly if you make funding source an issue of topicality–so they are semi-forced to take a stand on the issue.

The perm (or at least any legitimate perm) is probably even worse than the plan actually–it would link to your disad….and probably link to whatever disad they were reading versus your counterplan. The impact to at least one of those……is SPACE–which access their core impact.

I don’t know what justifies funding spec–except more precise debate. But its actually a potentially interesting debate.

The other option might be more advantage counterplan style SPACE exploration. For instance, SPS or colonization–or just a space ex. aff without much “offense” against it…..or with a high level of scenario specificity & timeframe. Not sure what the net benefit would be…..because the counterplan probably links to spending (unless its budget specific….ie DoT tradeoff assuming they still link).

The former seems far, far, far more strategic than the later. The end game seems far more predictable.

ALSO: DA turns the case. Each and everything you run against this aff should hopefully have a way to access the space impact (ie economy or technology or hegemony or short term space attack/war/terror–or other stuff about the norms in space or relations in space). Ideally its both a short impact….but one thats systemic in nature (rather than just 1 shot). Don’t reveal that till the block….because link turns on those positions could be incredibly difficult to deal with. Also, that puts them in the position of needing to link turn….so if they’ve impact turned–you still access their case impact which is probably bigger than their impact turns PLUS….other impacts they will talk about will likely have problems with their impact overview……at least potentially (aka the no war–which they will say is specific to specific scenarios probably–but at least something to think about). You might cross ex the aff to explain what types of war those cards are talking about…..and what they aren’t talking about.

My earlier post on the thread relating to this aff is the following–its not as helpful strategy wise as the funding counterplan–but perhaps could add to that strategy overall perhaps–but only minimally:
That kind of thing seems to beg the need for a counter-plan or a critique……..or maybe topicality.

Also, it seems vulnerable to timeframe claims a bit. I realize they can read each second or each day of delay cards in the 2ac.

I don’t know why someone on the floor of congress or in a public policy journal would hold back impacts–if they knew they have to present the full case (ie couldn’t present more of it at a later date).

The only question may be……how long it is until LD is awash in this type of impact-over-inflation too with 2 to 4 extinction stories.

Update:
After reading it, it seems pretty reasonable. I didn’t attempt to see how long each scenario was word-wise. I’m sure in the heat of the moment, it seems more collassal and epic.

Interesting K cards in terms of predictions & other issues. They go well beyond Rorty, realism good, and realism inevitable. (Not sure which Ks they run this against….perhaps securitization, threat con, and realism Ks…..but maybe more predictive Ks)

Plus you get to debate aliens & nano if you want to.

This made me chuckle. I don’t know much about LNG (liquid natural gas), but my guess is it has to be empirically denied–presumably in the SQ:
LNG explosions are the equivalent of global nuclear war

Advertisements

2 Comments

Leave a Comment
  1. John / Jan 9 2013 4:47 am

    What is the net benefit to the colonization CP?

  2. compassioninpolitics / Jan 10 2013 9:34 pm

    I hadn’t really thought about it since I wrote this about 5 or so weeks ago.

    USFG transportation policy bad. It does seem that this arguably could link to the counterplan.

    I think I would make it a Department of Transportation versus NASA debate perhaps. Although, I think the NASA bad part is pretty challenging for the neg. team.

    The other way might be running it dispositionally…..and sticking the aff with their disads & solvency presses.

    Its possible that this part of the post isn’t a very good strategy. I was brainstorming options–and included it for others to both brainstorm & scenario plan about……and potentially criticize as well.

    So what could beat this team?
    What has beat this team?
    What has been run against this aff semi-successfully?
    What could be run against this aff that has a chance?

    Three other basic options:
    I think a K option is semi-viable….they are obviously going to leverage their impacts as an impact turn to the alternative. I’m curious if a K like norm or nietzche or the like might work.

    You have the ability to run 2 types of Ks against the aff (Transportation & Space) as I seem to recall.

    Advantage counterplan + short term economy disad might work. This could be politics with a hege or economy net benefit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: