Tag Archives: hypotheticals

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?

Conditionality Gone Wild: A Judging Hypothetical

In the quarterfinals of this past weekend’s New Trier Season Opener, a negative team extended two counterplans with contradictory net-benefits in the 2NR and justified doing so because the affirmative “conceded the thesis of conditionality.” Having already discussed this hypothetical with several debaters and judges, it is clear that it is both interesting and confounding. Read the blow-by-blow below the fold and chime in with your thoughts.

Continue reading

The Layne Kirshon Hypothetical: Resolving Un(der)-discussed Impacts

I was first introduced to this hypothetical scenario at NFL Nationals by Will Thibeau of Glenbrook South. Originally proposed by Layne Kirshon of the Kinkaid School (although probably not for the first time), it provides an interesting litmus test for an individual’s judging philosophy.

The Hypothetical:

The affirmative reads a topical plan and argues that its adoption will trigger nuclear conflict. The 1AC isolates several internal links but does not articulate a terminal impact — their only contention is that the plan will trigger nuclear conflict. The 1NC “link turns” the case for eight minutes, answering the affirmative’s internal links and advancing several internal links of their own contending that the adoption of the plan will prevent nuclear conflict. The rest of the debate is narrowly focused on this nexus question: does the plan cause or prevent nuclear conflict? At the conclusion of the debate, the judge determines (based on the arguments advanced by both teams) that the plan’s adoption will in fact cause nuclear conflict (and thereby sides with the affirmative). Should s/he vote affirmative or negative?

Post your answer in the comments along with the reasoning that brought you to it. Many people have already spent hours discussing and debating this hypothetical, so it seems like a perfect way to kick-off the return of The 3NR after a much-needed vacation. Ready set go.