8/14/2019 Observations.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/observationsdocx 1/1

Observation 1: negative must give only a single counterproposal. This means that theneg must provide a counter plan to the affs case. The reason that the Neg must do thiscan be seen in the national forensics association rulebook

The negative may present one counterproposal specific to the affirmativeproblem area. Bythis,wemean that the counterproposal mustdeal withtheproblem area definedbytheaffirmative,a nd not theformof government, economic system,or needfor further study (UNLESSSPECIFICALLYIDENTIFIED ASAKEYISSUE IN THERESOLUTION). Counterproposals should be used to

demonstrate that a reasonable alternative plan would be better policy than eitherthe status quo or the affirmative plan .Counterproposals should belogicallyconsistentwith all other negativearguments constructedduring the debate.Ifin consistencies ariseandtheaffirmative points themout, thejudgeshould reject the arguments inconsistent with the counterproposal.Counterpr oposals must benon-topical andare subject to the sameburdens ofsolvency as arerequired for affirmativeplans .If the negative does not give a CP then you must vote affSo now the neg has a necessary but insuffient burden to provide a cp meaning

that they will lose the round if they do not have one but yet they cannot win off onealone

Observation 2: The negatives plan cannot be a kritik Again look to the national forensics association rulebook:

The negative may present onecounterproposal specifictotheaffirmative problemarea. Bythis,we mean that the counterproposal must deal with the problem area defined bythe affirmative, and not the form of government, economic system, or need forfurther study (UNLESSSPECIFICALLYIDENTIFIED ASA KEYISSUEIN THERESOLUTION). Counterproposals shouldbeusedto demonstrate thatareasonablealtern ativeplanwould bebetter policythan either thestatus quo or theaffirmativeplan.Counterproposals shouldbelogicallyconsistent withall other negative arguments constructed during thedebate.If inconsistencies ariseandtheaffirmative points themout,thejudge should rejectthearguments inconsistentwiththecounterpr oposal. Counterproposals mustbe non-topical andaresubjectto thesameburdens of solvencyas arerequiredfor affirmative plans.

This means that any K argument should be completely disregarded

Observation 3: Topicality arguments have no weight and should not be valued at all inthis round one last time let’s look to the national forensics association rulebook:

The negative may present onecounterproposal specifictotheaffirmative problemarea. Bythis,we mean that the counterproposal mustdeal withtheproblem area definedby theaffirmative,and notthe formof government,economic system,or needfor further study (UNLESSSPECIFICALLYID ENTIFIED ASAKEYISSUEIN THER ESOLUTION). Counterproposals should beused to demonstratethat a reasonablealternativeplan wouldbe better policythaneither the status quoor theaffirmative plan.Counterproposals shouldbe logically consistentwithall other negativearguments constructedduring thedebate. Ifinconsistencies arise andthe affirmative points themout,thejudge should rejectthearguments inconsistentwiththe counterproposal.

Counterproposals must be non-topical and are subject to the same burdens ofsolvency as are required for affirmative plans .

"LD Rules." « National Forensic Association . NFA, n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2013