Throwdown #2: Consultation Counterplans – The Challenge

Throwdown with Scott Phillips

Throwdown with Scott Phillips

The Consult CP is now the official black sheep of the debate family, hating on it is so hot right now. To try and stem the tides of arrogant unilateralism, this Throwdown will be defending the Consult CP and will have a guest appearance by US-Japan relations expert Cyrus Ghavi. So post your objections here- you can copy and paste your 2AC block or write out a more long winded rant but this will be limited exclusively to non permutation issues- so you can argue that the CP competes artificially for example, but this will not be a response to all the various consult permutations.

4 thoughts on “Throwdown #2: Consultation Counterplans – The Challenge

  1. Ryan

    “Binding Consultation” is a fantasy of debate world and is (nearly) always a misrepresentation of the intent of negative authors.

    Having an author that advocates “binding consultation” is a critical component of a consult CP, otherwise the aff would win “perm ask and do plan anyway” every round. The negative interprets binding consultation (or “genuine consultation” or whatever) as asking agent X whether or not we should do plan Y.

    That doesn’t happen. The US federal government has never come up with a complete policy, presented it to a foreign power, and done exactly what said foreign power told them to do. Never. No sane and qualified author would ever and has ever advocated that.

    Or, if there is a magic consult card that actually does advocate the above, I’ve never seen it.

  2. Brad

    Most consult CPs place an impossible burden on the affirmative. The aff is expected to have case-specific say no evidence, but the neg only has to read evidence that has a tangential relationship at best with the resolution. On the ag topic last year I hit a team whose “say yes” evidence boiled down to “Japan cares about food.” It seems like even theoretically there is no argument the aff could make that would qualify as offense or even absolute defense, particularly given the issue Ryan brought up above about the unrealistic nature of the CP to begin with.

  3. Rajesh Inder Jegadeesh

    CP’s that allow the possibility of doing the entirety of the plans mandate should be rejected
    a. Anti-educational—consult gives negatives an incentive to not work on the topic because they can always just change the process of the plan and claim arbitrary advantages—this prevents an in-depth examination of the topic literature and causes negatives to leave debate only knowing how to cheat and not how to research or strategize.

    b. Kills affirmative ground—the debate is massively rigged in the negative’s favor because they get to choose an agent of consultation where the literature is on their side—even if we can get offense it relies on us reading it new in the 2AC that gives them a 13 minute block to answer vs a 5 minute 1AR. [Also, its infinitely regressive they can consult any institution or individual—the net benefit is always a rigged game for the negative because they get to pick.]—In the context of our aff is uniquely worse since if we make a say no arg we lose since our aff would just be rejected

  4. Bill Batterman

    I would be interested in reading your response to the arguments that Phil Kerpen makes in “The Problem of Plan-Contingent Counterplans,” Scott. I would characterize his arguments as “not textually competitive,” “not functionally/ mechanically competitive,” “not fair to the affirmative (moots the 1AC and not predictable),” and “supergenerics bad (elitism).” I can copy-and-paste the relevant paragraphs if necessary, but it’s probably easier to just read the article in its original context.

Comments are closed.