Home
Does a counterplan need to have a section dedicated entirely to solvency? Usually people seem to say that text/competition/impacts are enough to do the job.
3 posters
CP Solvency?
JohnnyFontane- Elimination Rounds
- Posts : 107
Reputation : -1
Join date : 2009-02-05
poneill- Elimination Rounds
- Posts : 104
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2009-02-07
Location : Murderapolis
Depends on the CP. For a PIC or something that where the solvency is clear, an analytic is generally sufficient. However, if the CP is something that doesn't clearly solve (like TRC or ATCA on jan/feb), you need to explain why you solve.
JohnnyFontane- Elimination Rounds
- Posts : 107
Reputation : -1
Join date : 2009-02-05
Why would a PIC not require solvency?
arurra- Dedicated Minion
- Posts : 36
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-03-24
Age : 32
I think Phelan means that a Plan Inclusive Counterplan includes the majority of Plan mandates. This allows Neg to use the pieces of Aff evidence which refer to the shared mandates.
This isn't always true though. If the change to the Plan could cause a solvency deficit due to some necessary interaction between Plan planks, or if the PIC arguably doesn't solve for unique harms (the ones that it solves in addition to solving all Aff harms), then preemptive solvency evidence would be advisable for the neg.
This isn't always true though. If the change to the Plan could cause a solvency deficit due to some necessary interaction between Plan planks, or if the PIC arguably doesn't solve for unique harms (the ones that it solves in addition to solving all Aff harms), then preemptive solvency evidence would be advisable for the neg.
poneill- Elimination Rounds
- Posts : 104
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2009-02-07
Location : Murderapolis
arurra wrote:I think Phelan means that a Plan Inclusive Counterplan includes the majority of Plan mandates. This allows Neg to use the pieces of Aff evidence which refer to the shared mandates.
This isn't always true though. If the change to the Plan could cause a solvency deficit due to some necessary interaction between Plan planks, or if the PIC arguably doesn't solve for unique harms (the ones that it solves in addition to solving all Aff harms), then preemptive solvency evidence would be advisable for the neg.
I mean the solvency deficit on a PIC is fairly clear. You prolly wont win that pic solves 100% but they probably can't argue that you get no solvency (if you do then you definitely pic'd out of the wrong part of their advocacy).
|
|
|