Skip to content
December 27, 2015 / compassioninpolitics

Reflections on Inherent Affirmatives and Counterplanning for Uniqueness

I’m not sure you have a right to a DA thats unique.  But…fairness and debatability would at least suggest that.

 

Running inherent affs = boring debates.

 

You might want to demonstrate the kinds of affs that this would justify (this helps provide the absurdity of the aff).

For instance, doing something that was already done somewhere between 2001 and 2015 (sorry I don’t have examples, but you should know what these are).

 

But….I would say:

1) Counterplan means uniqueness is less important.

2) Kritik if you understand it and your judge will buy it

3) You can also counterplan move in the opposite direction of the aff or the uniqueness/inherency issue.  You can ban to overturn that law.  That kind of strictly makes it a debate between the aff and the opposite of the aff.  This is commonly known as counterplanning for uniqueness OR counterplanning with the status quo.  (the concepts aren’t exactly the same–but the principle is pretty much the same.)

4) Or impact turn or some other kind of Backflile check. (aka wipeout, nuclear malthus, etc..)

 

An example of counterplanning for uniqueness might be if the aff said “obama will pass X privacy policy in 6 months” you just counterplan to ban that action or you counterplan for obama not to do that.

 

One common way to do this with spending disads is to ban future increases in the budget.

Advertisements

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: