The Use of a 2NC CP to Respond to a Straight Turned DA: A Hypothetical

Consider the following hypothetical:

1AC: Increase food stamps, solves hunger.

1NC: Politics (plan is unpopular and prevents a climate bill from passing—that causes runaway warming), Military Recruitment DA (reducing poverty weakens the recruiting base, tanking hegemony), Case Defense.

2AC: Straight Turns Politics (climate bill will not pass in the status quo, plan is crucial to passage), Answers Military Recruitment DA, Answers Case Defense.

2NC: New Counterplan: Pass Climate Bill. Extends Military Recruitment DA.

1NR: Extends Case Defense / Military Recruitment DA Outweighs The Case.

Three questions:

  1. Is the 2NC counterplan—to pass the Climate Bill—legitimate? If yes, why? If not, why not?

  2. Is it legitimate for the 1AR to impact turn the Climate Bill (by arguing that the Climate Bill is bad)? If yes, why? If not, why not?

  3. If the 1AR impact turns the Climate Bill, is it legitimate for the 2NR to:

    • extend the 2AC’s “non-unique” and “link turn” arguments (proving that the plan would uniquely cause the Climate Bill to pass)? If yes, why? If not, why not?

    • extend the 1NC impact (Climate Bill solves warming) and weigh it against the 1AR’s impact turn? If yes, why? If not, why not? And is it legitimate for the 2NR to read more evidence to support this argument?

26 thoughts on “The Use of a 2NC CP to Respond to a Straight Turned DA: A Hypothetical

  1. JZ

    1. Is the 2NC counterplan—to pass the Climate Bill—legitimate? If yes, why? If not, why not?

    so legitimate and delicious at the same time. why would it not be legitimate? its a constructive.

    2. Is it legitimate for the 1AR to impact turn the Climate Bill (by arguing that the Climate Bill is bad)? If yes, why? If not, why not?

    not if they said ( i assume, climate bill good) in the 2ac. they can't contradict themselves, only make new arguments. the cp in the 2nc doesn't contradict rest of debate. also, if answer to question 1 is "yes" (2nc cps are legitimate), then there is no reason it justifies these 1ar tricks — ie, is it legitimate for 1ar to contradict themselves if there wasn't a 2nc cp?

  2. Layne Kirshon

    Idk how it's dif to any 2NC CP or CP amendment. it's no dif to CPing out of an addon. it arguably justifies 1AR intrinsicness args are recruitment like do the plan and ROTC or something.

  3. Rishee Batra

    I think it's legit for the 1AR to impact turn climate if the n/u and link turn args weren't extended in the 2nc
    and yeah the cp isn't really different from any other 2nc cp

  4. Bill Batterman Post author

    I think there is a relatively strong consensus regarding the answer to question #1. I'm more interested in (a) deviations from that consensus and especially (b) answers to the subsequent questions, #2 and #3a and b.

    A 1AR impact turn "feels" wrong but it doesn't conflict with anything the affirmative has argued previously in the debate.

    If it is decided that the 1AR impact turn is legitimate, I'm unsure how to resolve the issue posed by #3a/#3b. This is part of a larger meta question, I think: Do arguments need to be explicitly extended in each speech even if they are not refuted by the opposing team?

  5. Rajesh Inder Jegadee

    I don't think it's legitimate at all. The 2NC CP in this instance is not justified because it changes the nature of the 2A's strategy which irrevocably skews the rest of the debate since it's the last chance for the aff to get offnese. There are two main reasons I think so–

    first, it makes all DA's conditional, not dispositional (in the common sense of the word) — it's a no cost option for the negative to through out all the garbage they have because as soon as anything goes awry, i.e. them not being on their game and cutting answers to link turns, they just 2NC CP out of it. Even if the aff straight impact turns, they can CP the other way. This leads to awful research incentives for the neg, where it's more a question of volume of random assertions than quality.

    worse yet, what if there are two net benefits to a CP, and the aff straight turns one of them, spending 4 minutes reading everything they've got and the 2NC CP's, they are boned. How could any aff team win unless they've got great answers to everything?

    second, it's not reciprocal. maybe it's the 2A in me speaking, but I don't see the difference between the neg CP'ing out of a straight-turned DA and the aff kicking a straight turned advantage. I mean, the 2AC is a constructive, and they can still prove the rez a good idea IF something else happened. I understand plan focus, blah blah, infinite prep, wah, but i think it's BS given the amount of CP ground the neg's get (ex. a team read a Consult Japan CP with evidence about Deep Cuts vs NFU, and with a card thats tangentially related to our aff they could have neutralized 9 minutes of the 1AC) to say they need the ability to get more CP ground.

    I think 2NC CP's could only legit to CP out of add-ons, because those couldn't be predicted by the 1NC. But i'm on the fence on that one…

    Answering others–

    JZ — "it's a constructive"
    Taken to a logical extreme, justifies the neg always reading a CP in the 2NC, leading to shallow debates. or a conditional K. or four…

    "it's OK for the negative to change the debate, but not the AFF"

    I think that claim answers itself.

    Layne —
    I think it is different from counterplanning out of an add-on because that was something the negative could not have predicted from the 1NC. that form of 2NC cp leads to better debate, because it discourages shoddy research in the form of add-ons (cough, ITER..) and makes sure the aff doesn't just sandbag would-be advantages till the 2AC. This form destroys strategic thinking and offers perverse incentives.

    I also think if there are a bunch of new impact turns in the 2NC or 1NR the 1AR can read new add ons…

    as far as the other questions in the debate, i think the AFF COULD read new impact turns, but it gets them nowhere. The negative has altered the status quo in the same way the AFF, as of the 2AC, has. Regardless of whether the judge votes aff or neg, climate will pass, meaning it's not net beneficial to establish that it's bad. it's analogous to say Sun Good/Bad.

    I do think the 1AR can get new args on the recruitment tradeoff DA, though, to make up for the change of strategy of the negative.

  6. Hunter Brooks

    Caveat that I haven't judged debates for a while. It turns out that I am aff biased.

    1. I don't think the counterplan is legitimate. I disagree on a philosophical level with the argument that add-ons and turned disadvantages are the same thing. To me, add-ons justify 2NC counterplans because they are inherently unpredictable before the 1NC. Turns to a disadvantage obviously don't fit this criterion. "It's a constructive" doesn't seem like an argument to me. The 2N shouldn't be allowed to wish away bad 1NC arguments with a sentence. Bad 1NC arguments that are straight-turnable should be punished.

    2. The 1AR impact turn is undebateably OK. It doesn't even feel dirty to me. The negative has made a new argument that changes the strategic calculus of the debate. The aff gets any new answer that isn't logically contradictory to something the aff has already said.

    3a. If the 2N reads the counterplan without extending the 2AC'S uniqueness argument, then a 2NR extension of that uniqueness argument is illegitimate. Analogy: if the negative forgets to kick out of a disad that had both a link turn and impact defense on it, everybody agrees that the affirmative gets to extend only the link turn and not the impact defense. The 2NR has no right to extend 2AC arguments.

    3b. Same on the nose. In practice, the 1AR has probably read new impact SCENARIOS (economy, CO2 good) that the 2N gets to answer since they are new.

  7. Layne Kirshon

    before i respond to rajesh – where do the impact turns get the aff? they have link turned – they link to the aff and the cp.


    “I don’t think it’s legitimate at all. The 2NC CP in this instance is not justified because it changes the nature of the 2A’s strategy”

    the 2ac doesn’t have a right to that strategy—the aff may have specific link turns the neg doesn’t have answers to and the neg burden for predicting every weird senator or interest group that could like the plan is overwhelming

    “first, it makes all DA’s conditional, not dispositional”

    and? No policymaker would endorse a bad policy based on opportunity costs that are within their decision to control—this is no different from reading an advantage CP.

    “I don’t see the difference between the neg CP’ing out of a straight-turned DA and the aff kicking a straight turned advantage”

    one’s an advocacy and one is not.

    “I think 2NC CP’s could only legit to CP out of add-ons, because those couldn’t be predicted by the 1NC. But i’m on the fence on that one”

    no dif btwn and add on and an evan bayh link turn

  8. John Smith

    Ans to "add-ons justify 2NC Cps"-
    Add-ons are the only check to internal link counterplans in the 1NC. Whatever the Neg is changing from the plan, the add-ons test the germainess(?) of that part-i.e. 1NC is states CP, 2AC reads add-on off of federal action, key question of whether federal or state action is more desirable. If the neg reads a 343434 plank adv. CP, add-ons are key to getting back to even ground.
    This begs the question-what happens if they counterplan out of the add-on premeptively in the 1NC?
    This is a different scenario, because the germainess of the counterplan now assumes whatever extra plank was used to preemptively CP out of a potential add-on. In English, b/c that plank is part of the 1NC CP, it is different than reading it as a 2NC CP out of an add-on b/c that is destroying any chance for an aff to get a solvency deficit- by reading it in the 1NC, THAT PLANK is part of the CP, thus solvency deficits have to be predicated off of that. This might be somewhat circular.

  9. Jason Wright

    Interesting discussion. The initial reason that popped into my head why this would be illegitimate is because it's basically making the argument that the DA is non-intrinsic under the guise of applying it to the impact turn, which contradicts the 1NC. Can you also answer a straight-turn by reading a new internal link/impact takeout – like "political capital = fake" or "global warming inevitable" or something like that? Obviously illegitimate.

    I tend to agree with rajesh's arguments also with the caveat that I think generally 2NC cp'ing out of non-intrinsic impact turns is OK – e.g. if the turn is (was) "climate key to healthcare which is bad" and the CP is to not pass healthcare. Doesn't contradict the 1NC.

  10. Ellis

    Haven't heard any good justifications for 2nc cps yet (it's a constructive…neg flex…) but I think the discussion of #3 is a little more interesting.

    Impact turning climate bill only makes sense in a particular instance. If the situation is aff link turns still apply (voting aff causes climate bill to pass) plus 2nc cp applies (voting neg causes climate bill to pass), then there's no point. Gravity good/bad.

    However, if the only argument in the 2nc was just "CP: pass climate bill", then it becomes more interesting. I think Bill was getting at the question of whether the judge believes the 2ac straight turn still applies if the 2nc didn't explicitly concede "aff causes climate bill to pass." If they don't, then it makes sense to impact turn because it's not established that the aff makes climate bill pass whereas it is established that the neg does. So I guess the question is: if the 2nc doesn't explicitly concede an argument when kicking out of a disad, does the judge assume that argument is true? I'm not sure how to answer this question but I guess the norm for judges is that the neg has to explicitly concede the argument. For example, if the neg forgets to kick out of a disad where the aff had a unique link turn but also impact defense, most judges will vote aff when the 1ar extends just the unique link turn. They won't also assume the impact defense is true. However, a lot of people contradict this rule in other contexts i.e. if the neg drops an advantage completely in the 1nc, the 2ac usually doesn't have to extend it for it to be considered true. I think I'm starting to confuse myself but what I'm getting at is for disads, judges tend to expect specific concessions for an argument to be true, but for other areas, every arg the neg drops is true.

  11. JZ

    @ Ellis — why aren't those good justifications…they seem logical reasons why a 2nc cp is justified. likewise… i haven't heard a good reason why its arbitrary or abusive.

    @ rajesh – "Taken to a logical extreme, justifies the neg always reading a CP in the 2NC, leading to shallow debates. or a conditional K. or four…"
    yeah, i think the 2nc can read a cp, a t, a k, kick out of the 1nc. but what you've just stated – shallow debate – is a reason why its not strategic for the negative rather than abusive for the affirmative.

    @John Smith –
    you seem to have answered yourself? your distinction between 1nc cp which preempts the 2a addons and a 2nc cp seems…arbitrary. 1ac reads advantage. 1nc reads cp to contest the germaness of advantage to plan. 2ac reads addons (more advantages). why doesnt the 2nc get to contest the germaness of the new advantages to the plan?

  12. Rajesh Inder Jegadee

    I don't really think you've provided a reason why these CP's are good.. just reasons for why they aren't really what i've said. i'm usually a sucker for reasonability, but i mean, this is kinda stretching it. also, usually neg side bias args suck, but in this case i think it's pretty compelling to say the neg does not need MORE CP ground.

    "AFF doesn't have a right to strategy"
    this entire discussion doesn't really answer why it gives the negative perverse research incentives. if they don't have to worry about the straight turn, there is no cost to running a bad DA and going for it if the aff messes up. bad research and bad debate is, well, bad for debate.

    second, i understand the aff doesn't have a right to strategy, in the same sense the negative doesn't either. this argument boils down to, theory debates bad, judge. if you made this argument as a theory justification in the 2NC, i'd concede it and read 15 new answers on the t/o DA and an add-on. aside from that, debate has limits on it based upon fairness, and if one team skews the other's strategy in a manner that's so overwhelmingly bad, they should be protected.

    "neg can't predict stupid link turns"

    pot, kettle, black. we at least have to have evidence about the aff. neg's don't. also, if you couldn't predict credible link turns then that seems to prove my research argument. if they aren't credible, beat them on a generic link…

    "No policymaker would endorse a bad policy based on opportunity costs that are within their decision to control—this is no different from reading an advantage CP."

    Call me old-fashioned, but I think it's performative contradiction to advance a nonintrinsic DA then say intrinsicness. since the negative has already implicitly established this argument in the 1NC, i don't think it's fair to make this as a theory claim in the 2NC. second, i would concede this too, and just say perm do the plan and offer a 100K to anyone super smart who joins the military… it's within "the ability of the decision maker."

    i also don't really see the similarities between CP'ing out of a DA in the 2NC and challenging and internal link in the 1NC where the aff still has the 2AC to get offense…

    "one’s an advocacy and one is not."
    i'm actually confused to which one is changing advocacies. we still always say the plan is a good idea.

    "no dif btwn and add on and an evan bayh link turn"

    you introduced the ability for that link turn. deal.

    JZ – If you think the negative can read a conditions CP and a K in the 2NC, both conditionally, then I think you need to seriously reconsider options how debate would function as the aff.

  13. JZ

    @ Rajesh "If you think the negative can read a conditions CP and a K in the 2NC, both conditionally, then I think you need to seriously reconsider options how debate would function as the aff."

    woah hold on a sec –first, im the 2a. im all about the aff.

    second, you are seriously putting words into my mouth. i didn't say conditional arguments. nor did i say a conditions cp. i said 2nc can introduce new arguments. obviously if they make 2 completely new conditional advocacies, thats bad – its a reason why condo is bad. and if they read a conditions cp in 2nc, thats bad — because its a conditions cp. what you said aren't reasons why new advocacies are bad, they are why conditions and conditionality are bad.

  14. John Smith

    If the neg reads the 2NC CP in the block, 1AR Answers it, and then the neg kicks it in the 2NR, is that a reason to reject the team or the argument? I think it is dependent upon who wins the conditionality debate. If the aff concedes that conditioanlity is good, it probably is legit to kick the CP whenever.

  15. Layne Kirshon

    @ Rajesh

    1. It's YOUR burden to prove this CP is worse than any other CP in debate, not my burden to prove they are uniquely good

    You already conceded in your first post that 2NC CPs out of add-ons are legit. There is no difference between reading an out-of-the-blue add-on that solves the impact to the DA i.e. it's a cap and trade DA and u read the aff key to green jobs solves warming, and the 2NC CP'ing something to solve green jobs, and CP'ing out of a straight turned DA

    2. The only answer to the logical policy-maker argument is that it's "perf con" to say a DA is intrinsic and then not intrinsic. the neg gets non-topical fiat and the aff doesn't. We read a warming aff and i've debated both the cap and trade cp and the cap and trade DA.

    3. I'm not saying theory bad – i'm saying everyone thinks there's an enormous neg side bias when in fact there's an enormous aff side bias – take your ITER aff last year – over the course of 3 tournaments you broke 5 or 6 new advs and you had 10-15 add ons – no offense, but the i/ls to a lot of those were relatively shakey and no 2n could have kept up with other work, and predicted those add ons/advs, and predict all the possible link turns you could read b/c literally every moderate in congress could have an opinion about the plan

    4. "i’m actually confused to which one is changing advocacies. we still always say the plan is a good idea." – we say it's not? CP'ing out of a striaght turned DA and kicking a straight turend adv are dif b/c the DA is not an advocacy unlike the plan and the neg gets non-topical fiat

    5. no neg team would fill up a 1NC with just arguments that were poorly researched – if they did they'd lose. an example: you and anshu would purposely read obscure, not-too-hot ptx DAs that the aff couldn't straight turn, but also really well thought out specific strategies – like ya, teams put args in the 1NC they have no intention of going for – whether it's a ptx da or case args is irrelevant

    i want to introduce a side Q for everyone – this CP really only applies to ptx DAs – what about lets say the neg reads recruitment, the aff link turns, and the neg CP's to do ROTC or something to boost recruitment – is that legit?

  16. Scott Phillips

    The args in here are pretty sloppy on both sides.

    Layne dismisses the "perf con" argument by saying the neg gets non topical fiat, which is a nonsequator. The point is that it hurts the affirmatives ability to debate when the negative can make an argument, and then argue the opposite in response to the affirmative's strategy. It's similar to impact turning the 1NC economy advantage, and then reading DA turns the case because it effects the economy when the aff spends a ton of time defending their advantage-some notion of argumentative consistency is necessary to have a good debate, otherwise there will be too much sidestepping of clash for strategic purposes.

    Layne's recruitment example is a different issue, the CP doesn't contradict the 1NC arguments, its just a uniqueness CP. The argument there would seem to be, if the uniqueness cp had been read in the 1NC, perhaps the aff would have decided to not link turn.

  17. Hunter Brooks

    Scott's post brings up an interesting issue. Can the neg insulate themselves from a link turn strategy on politics as follows?

    the 1NC reads the counterplan to pass the climate bill conditionally and the climate bill good DA. If the 2AC link turns, the 2N has the option of just going for the counterplan (of course the aff will permute it, but it still kicks the disad for free.) (The counterplan doesn't take away the aff's ability to impact turn.) If the 2AC impact turns, the neg just kicks the counterplan and beats the impact turns.

    I don't think the neg should be able to do this (out of a general philosophy of no free lunch), but have no argument other than "conditionality bad" on my side.

  18. JZ

    @Hunter Brooks

    well i imagine in most rounds the negative team will also have a different counterplan — such as states etc. i think the neg would have to have the "pass climate bill" be a plank of the other cp…then politics isnt a nb to your cp. the only advantage of the "pass x bill" cp seems to be a world where you only go for case and da.

  19. Holden Choi

    I guess it depends on if the planks on the counterplan are conditional because if so then you could take advantage of them not link turning politics by just kicking that plank, but that seems to be a conditionality debate.

  20. Layne Kirshon

    @Hunter Brooks

    I don't see any reason why it's not legitimate, but i think it definitely yields a lot of credence to the aff making an intrinsicness argument

    I think the most interesting thing to do would be to CP out of a double turn in the 1NC, i.e. both link and impact turn the aff but read a CP that links to the impact turns i.e. aff reads an econ adv you read de dev and plans kills the economy, but also a CP that collapses the economy

  21. Rajesh Inder Jegadee


    "your burden to prove it's bad"
    I did, and there is no responsive reason for why it's good.

    "there is no difference b/t an add-on and a straight turn"
    yes, because it's predictable for a 2AC read, say, a non-unique and link turn argument based upon the 1NC DA. an add-on can't be predicted from the 1AC. it's also worse because, once again, encourages argumentative irresponsibility, which, i don't think, you have made a reason to the contrary.

    "neg get's non-topical fiat"
    granted. i think certain types, i.e. multi-actor, utopian, etc., can still be bad though. in this case it's bad because it's a contradiction in arguments to say that non-intrinsic effects should be considered/not considered.

    "neg's can't win debates"
    read a counterplan or impact defense. if the internal links are shaky (i'm offended) beat it on an advantage counterplan. i mean, come on, we read a biotech good advantage and an add-on based upon chinese aquaculture.. if you can't find logical holes in that or a CP to solve either maybe you should lose the debate.

    "we can't predict link turns"
    i'm going to go ahead and say i don't think i've ever won a link turn thats not winners win/conceded. ever. or even lost on a link turn w/ those same exceptions, ever. but this seems to be kind aside from the entire discussion about whether or not there should be a strategic cost to introducing a DA when there is a strategic cost to introduce an advantage.

    if there are some random moderate groups, chances are good generic research would function as a catchall.. probably improving research skills/topic discussions.

    "we aren't changing the advocacy"
    i think you are taking this notion of non-topical fiat to an extreme. the negative is not bound by the resolution, true, but that doesn't mean you can have this extravagant sense of negation theory. the advocacy in the 1NC is the status quo, and that is the one in which the aff says they are better than–not the world of the 2NC CP which negates a large portion of the 2AC. the 2NC CP is still not topical, but is bad because it screws the AFF.

    also, you still haven't really answered my question about whether the aff gets new arguments against the other DA because of this.

    "no neg team would do what you said"
    didn't they say this about reading multiple cp's a few years ago? think of debate in a world of either interpretation, not in a world of now.

    "you and anshu read bad politics DA's"
    our thoughts for putting a 1NC together were, if you can't go for it, it shouldn't be in the 1NC. we did read bad da's, insofar as all politics da's are bad…

    could the affirmative make a topical intrinsicness argument in the 1AR given this 2NC block? like do the plan and edgemont's aff? we're just proving the rez a good idea.

  22. Mitch Hagney

    @Rajesh Inder Jegadeesh

    Layne, if it's impossible to predict link turns on the negative, that either proves that all politics DAs are based off of poor speculative and obscure link scenarios that have little to do with the topic (don't run them), or that the neg didn't do a good enough job researching.

    Counterplans that have no specific intent to solve an aff advantage or add-on (i.e. Uniqueness or neg ass-saving) should be in the 1NC to ensure the aff has a full constructive to produce offense regardless. Any offensive answers to this interpretation will rely on the assumption that the 2AC was unpredictable in responding to a neg argument. An argument the NEG chooses to introduce into the debate. Rajesh is right about everything he said. Except for the bad politics disads, that might be true. Specifically, he's right that every advantage can be impact turned. Strategic cost to argument introduction – just make sure you have a backfile, or at least a disad that links.

    As to whether or not the 1AR can impact turn, it seems that regardless of whether or not the 2NC specifically extended the non-unique and link, then the aff was still the last speech to produce arguments describing the direction of the disad, which means that the impact turns would link just as hard to the aff. The perm still links, so it doesn't solve the problem. Eliminating counterplans of this nature from the 2NC would solve this problem.

    Also – the word constructive isn't justification for new arguments. The aff already lost their last chance to produce offense on the neg's advocacy.

  23. Sahan

    a2 q1: If you cant win a 2NC PEC counterplan is illegit you dont deserve to win theory(the best theory debater(s) get away with anything, the worst must be straight-up and will still loose on theory).
    a2 q2: sure its letigimate, but its a double turn, you read a link turn then impact turned it (see below for how this plays out)
    a2 q3: the aff double turned itself(they causes something to happen and that something is bad, the neg should put that in the overview then case defense, hopefully with some case turns), therefore with everything on the flow (assuming the neg then conceeds the link turn) aff causes something bad to happen

    the 1AR should go for a perm + theory + link turns on the DA

    if you can defend (in the 2NR, where these args have to be made from scratch, unless your smart enough to put them as pre-empts in the 2NC) 2NC CP PECs legit AND extend your link arg's to show that aff link turn is not 100% probable AND have an answer to the permutation, AND win DA > case, then the judge should vote you up because the CP captures all 1AC offense and has a higher probability of avoiding the net benefit.

  24. Liam Hancock

    1. No, I don't think the new 2NC CP is legitamate. Sure its a constructive and you should be allowed to make new arguments, however you should not be allowed to make new advocacies, especially new advocacies that spike out of 2AC arguments.
    2. Yes, the 1 AR has full rights to answer new advocacies how it likes. The 1 AR should say 2NC CP's bad just in case the neg claims that this new offense is abusive, so you can even the scale in your 2 AR. I think that they shouldn't impact turn it because its not strategic, but if they want to, they can. If you want to impact turn the new CP, then you should kick out of your link turn first.
    3. a. The arguments are on the table, yes its legitimate. They aren't doing anything abusive, they are just exploiting the strategic mistake of the affirmative.
    b. Well it depends, if they extended the warming impacts in the block, then sure its legitamage, if they didn't extend that impact in the block, they shouldn't be reading evidence now in the 2NR, its too late.

Comments are closed.