CP Competition---8/14 By Dhruv

Competition: the premise that was invented to determine the scope of what the neg advocacy can include. When does the CP become too close to the plan such that PDCP wins?

The idea is that the negative advocacy must exclude some part of the aff and a nb predicated off of that exclusion.

Two Main Types Functional competition: the gold standard. Most intuitive and logical. Functional comp says the neg advocacy must exclude some function of the plan and have a nb off of that exclusion. Some Ex:

States exclude the federal function. The nb is an impact turn to fed action relative to state action.

ESR excludes enact action.

A process cp competes off should compete off of certainty and immediacy. The nb is predicated off of the distinction of doing it uncertainty/later is better. Many NB are artificially competitive: When a cp has a NB that’s not a DA to the aff (such as NB to consult). The NB to these process CPs aren’t that the aff is binding and that’s bad, but that the process CP is good. If you master competition it’s really easy to beat cps with artificial NBs. if they fiat through a NB such as consult or offsets, it’s easy to win.

Ex. offsets cp. For every arm sale the aff decreased, it would sell another arm to a different country. Maintain arm sales to japan, selling one f35 for every f22 ended. It does not reduce arm sales. The aff sales PDB. neg says this is severance because it severs out of reduction. This is a silly sight of hand trick. This arg is really dumb. The CP introduced the option of offsetting sales. This was not an option available to the judge when the plan was the only advocacy. PDB still decreases, which is the whole topical mandate so it definitively cannot sever. And the CP does the thing on the side which the CP fiated. Perms do not have to be topical because they are not the aff advocacy. For any perm to sever, it has to not include the full mandate/text of the plan.

Function of the plan includes anything (plan text? Definitely. Normal means? Maybe. Enact is courts? To be debated). Functional is the gold standard, but alone not the best

Textual competition: the neg advocacy must exclude some text of the plan and have a NB predicated off of that exclusion. Meanings and context doesn’t matter, all that matters is letters on the page. This is a worse standard. It was an arbitrary way to make competition theory args when theories was not capable of beating word PICs. We’re in this phase right now where we think theory is arbitrary. So we need to rely on theories of competition that are functional theory args, but rely on model of com. So it’s important to explain why textual competition alone is bad. Standards:

Makes it able for neg to pic out of words. I.e. pic out of should and replace with ought. Should is violent and the smallest risk outweighs.

The words on the page are not all that matters. Textual competition technically means PDB is an illegitimate because do and perm are not on the text. That proves how dumb it is.

Best 2AC standard is that CPs have to be textually and functionally competitive. Say this on relevant CPs (process CPs) right after pdb.

Functional alone and textual alone are bad. Neg will never defend no model of comp, so just indict the alt.

Word pic and logic are the best indicts for textual: declare do both intrinsic. Words on the page have meaning beyond words on the page.

Functional alone is bad because it allows them to randomly define what normal means does to generate competition. When textual competition is introduced, then normal means doesn’t generate competition.

Garbage Forms of Competitions Philosophical competition

Aff defended philosophical thought, neg can impact turn this

That’s clearly wrong. Nothing says they should be able to force the aff to defend one philosophical thought.

This is just artificially giving them a link

Positional competition: if they defended something in CX, they should defend it as part of the plan

There’s no clear coherent interp. Even though it’s good in the abstract, there’s too much ambiguity in CX.

CX abbreviate things, we don’t use correct language, we don’t answer with much thought, 1 slip up means we lose

Neg: it’s the only way to avoid vague plans, just think harder for CX, it enables aff condo

It’s a debate to be had. If debated equally, they would decide based on how definitive CX is.

The reason they’ve said the courts is the most likely actor is because it is most reasonable. That means we should get courts cp

The only reason this was created because Brett Bricker thought it was logical

If debated equally, most would err on the side of not creating arbitrary models for competition

Legit Perms 2 things can make them illegitimate

Severance: must defend full topical advocacy. PDCP must not sever (do not think about this in the context of PDB):

Being topical

Any function of the plan either specified or potentially

Ex. end arm sales to saudi. CP increases arm sales. Pdb would actually sever because it does not end in this case. If they say reduce, they could have said PDB because the perm is still a reduction and then an increase. This kills UQ CP unless they read a card about reduce has to be a permanent reduction without reversal.

Intrinsicness: you can’t add random stuff to perm to resolve neg DAs. it comes from theory that the judge is the USFG. and DA about the USFG means they can resolve the DAs, so there is no opportunity cost. PDA and elect Biden These have phased out over time.

It’s intrinsic if it includes something that’s neither part of the plan text or CP text or plan function or CP text/function

A textually intrinsic example is pdb: adds “and” (or if you use , maybe not)

Textually legitimate: Take words of cp text, you can delete any words, you just cannot shift them around.

Ex. consult CP. perm do aff and consult. Deletes words “over arm sales to saudi”. This perm still solves NB.

Aff permutation

The gold standard is functionally intrinsic, but textually legit. It has a whole plan text so by that alone you have established you are not functionally or textually severance. It has portions of the CP text in order. You can scramble it, but then you will have a debate about intrinsicness.

Plan has to be separate from the CP.

Aff interp is functional and textual comp. The perm is functionally intrinsic. The neg says this alone is enough to prove competition. It’s enough to prove functional competition alone. But if you won both, they haven’t proven it to be textually competitive. The neg has not proven it to be functionally competitive yet.

Saying the CP has to be both means allowing means perm do the aff and do the process over another issue. That forces them to have a process over the aff is key which means they need a solvency advocate.

It’s a good idea to put full permutation texts in the 2AC (write it out before the tournament). Have the shorthand for the perm. Then put the text of the perm below that. This isn’t a priority.

It’s more difficult to find perms that are functionally legitimate and textually illegitimate.

The neg will say that some of the words you picked are different which means it’s not functionally the same.

Determining textual legitimacy is easier and more cut and dry.

Watch out for synonyms. GBN invented the way to replace should with ought. Get around this depends on arg. PDB: the sentence that is the plan you copy paste. For neg sentence, you say usfg ought. THAT'S JUST PDB!!! They will say it makes it competitive. It just means cp and plan are different. But they need a nb off of that exclusion. There is not a nb for that word, so it is not competitive.

They might say do both isn’t in cp or plan. Do both is just a shorthand (it doesn't add and because it’s just 2 sentences)

Otherwise they will lengthen the cp text to very long so can’t do pdb.

1AR args

The only definition that the aff needs to win is should. If they define resolved, then also do that, but most times they don’t. It’s the most important because it’s the first word the neg defines in the resolution standard. They will define should substantially enact. And maybe resolved. If the word should implies certainty and immediacy, it’s the most important because it precedes those words. Even if enact means in the future, should shapes the meaning of the words after it. This is capital T true. There is nothing the neg can do to make substantial and enact matter. The only way to get out of this is to define a word before should (resolved).

What to say on the neg

Ideally it’s functionally and textually competitive

If it’s a process cp, set the standard at functional only (maybe change later on depending on what happens). It should always be functionally competitive.

If and Only If Supposed to read cards that Russia will nuke Russia now.

Perm do the aff and not nuke Russia. That is functionally legitimate because it’s a function of CP.

Sum of many functions. Don’t think of it as one function.

The Whitney CP seems like 1 function.

But you have to create math formula, get funding to one place, give them the money, invest in a space elevator. You can permute any subsets of the CPs functions.

Neg will say it’s intrinsic because it adds another world where we do the plan and we don’t nuke russia

The usfg should not nuke russia if the plan does not happen.

The usfg should nuke russia if the plan does pass.

Don’t say world because that’s your neg arg.

They have just obscured that it actually has 2 functions.

Yes it is intrinsic, but the policy decision to not nuke russia if the plan doesn't p

The better neg arg is that it is functionally intrinsic because perm says we won’t nuke under all circumstances, but we didn’t say that. We said don’t nuke russia if the plan doesn’t pass. The permute is a bigger action than the cp.

Aff says: Adding conditions under instances is functionally more than we can just nuke russia.

This subtracts the function of the cp that specifies that the ban on launching nukes is contingent on the plan.

Space Elevator Because aff reduced arm sales. It would get negative.

They want you to think it is one function.

But it is not

You can break down the formula that keeps text in order, but creates a new function

The anchor space elevator funding to replace the monetary value number minus the number to 2 million.

The neg might say that it’s severance between the monetary value of FMS over two years is a variable, and the aff makes it a fixed number.

Another perm is aff and fund 2 trillion. Because fund 2 trillion is one of the functions of the CP.

The neg will characterize it as just a formula between two bank accounts which makes it competitive. The aff’s answer is that Congress appropriates after being asked to do so.

Function of the cp is that after it runs the numbers, it takes 2 trillion and gives to the people.

Impeachment Perm do the plan the US congress ought to pass a statute limiting reelection prospects of the 45th president of the US

It also might not be functionally intrinsic because the CP passes a statute restricting the president’s election opportunities.

After the perm, say they must be functionally and textually competitive.

That sentence is there for solvency. Congress never impeach trump because they are their buddies. But if they tie reelection, then it’s a solvency thing.

Perm plan

Do the first sentence of the cp.

The second is that trump does it less than the cp.

Do aff, president increase sales by an amount smaller than net reduction. They fixed that by putting increase arm sales to an extend greater than the total number of arms sold.

PDB - it doesn’t reduce.

Durably fiated so offsets second plank

For it reduces arm sales which is severance.

Some Conclusion Notes They both prove the CP doesn’t meet one of the competition standards.

The reason why he said textual legit better is because it’s easier.

The goal of a perm is to solve the nb.

No strategic difference between functionally intrinsic and textually legit. And textually intrinsic and functionally legit. Actually, if you can, functional legit is way better. Because it allows you to say only functional good and forces them to say textual good.

Having textual in addition to function is just an extra level of defense to defend against weird normal means.

Perms take advantage of bad CP writing.

Perms say a cp doesn’t disprove the desirability of the aff.