PICs GOOD

DDI PAST

2NC Overview/Offense........................................................................................................................................... 2 AT: promotes vague plan writing............................................................................................................................ 3 AT: PIC is plagurism............................................................................................................................................... 4 AT: steals affirmative ground.................................................................................................................................. 5 AT: topical counterplans illegitimate.......................................................................................................................6 AT: sever extra-competitive parts of the CP............................................................................................................8 AT: could have just run the DA...............................................................................................................................9 AT: not textually competitive................................................................................................................................ 10 AT: trivial counterplans (e.g., penny saved, penny earned)................................................................................. 11

Last printed 7/31/2011 08:59:00 PM

PICs GOOD

DDI PAST

2NC Overview/Offense
1. PICs promote best policy choice
PICs can test whether EACH part of the plan should be done. They are the only way the debate can FOCUS on the mer ts of spec f c act ons. They test whether the whole plan s the best opt on.

2. PICs promote responsible affirmative advocacy

PICs force the aff rmat !e to defend EACH part of the plan. They force respons b l ty for each spec f c chan"e the plan ma#es. They deter the aff rmat !e from support n" bad parts of the plan $ust because they are outwe "hed by the "ood parts.

3. PICs provide viable negative gro nd

%e should not ha!e to defend "enoc de and war are "ood. PICs pro! de ne"at !e "round by " ! n" the ne"at !e the opt on of how best to sol!e these problems n d fferent ways. Often there s not a &uest ons about whether there should be chan"e' but the real ssue s %HICH chan"e should be made. PICs pro! de the ne"at !e the "round of more ! able chan"e

!. Competition is the best standard for co nterplans

The le" t macy of any counterplan should be $ud"ed by compet t on. Other standards are too !a"ue and arb trary Compet t on s far more ob$ect !e. It should be the sole standard. Our counterplan s compet t !e( that should be enou"h.

". PICs chec# e$tra%topical advantages

Top cal ty s really hard to w n and ta#es lots of t me. The poss b l ty of a PIC s the best way to stop the abuse of e)tra* top cal ad!anta"e cla ms.

&. PICs are real world arg ments

Con"ress debates amendments.( pol cy ma#ers f ne tune pol cy. The PIC opt on patterned after these real world debates ma#es tournament debat n" a more educat onal e)per ence.

'. No plan incl siveness destroys all co nterplans

All counterplans are plan nclus !e to some de"ree+ they use the same a"ent' the same fund n"' the same enforcement. ,e$ect on of PICS # lls all counterplan "round and that-s unfa r.

(. PICs chec# affirmative bias.

.ebate s b ased for the aff rmat !e. The aff w ns far more often( almost e!eryone ta#es aff when they w n the fl p. PICs " !e the ne"at !e an opt on that ma#e debate fa rer.

). PICs are reciprocal with perm tations

Permutat ons ta#e part of the counterplan. %e should be able to run PICs wh ch ta#e part of the plan. There-s no $ust f able d fference

Last printed 7/31/2011 08:59:00 PM

PICs GOOD

DDI PAST

*+, promotes vag e plan writing

1. +he negative sho ld not be p nished for aff ab se
/ote a"a nst !a"ue plans. .on0t reward them by e)clud n" counterplans. If the plan s !a"ue' assume the counterplan s compet t t!e.

2. No difference from other arg ments

A poss ble aff rmat !e strate"y a"a nst all ne"at !e ar"uments s a !a"ue plan. 1 n#s to Top cal ty' .As' and 2r t #s could be a!o ded w th a !a"ue plan and re nterpret n" what the plan really does. That-s not a reason to re$ect all the ne"at !e-s ar"uments.

3. + rn, PICs can enco rage plan specificity

%hen the aff rmat !e s forced to defend each act on ta#en by the plan' they are more l #ely to only endorse spec f c act ons wh ch they can $ust fy and defend' and they are more l #ely to a!o d PICs w th spec f c ty

!. C- chec#s vag eness

3 nd n" answers n C4 el m nate any strate" c !alue to !a"ueness. Spec f c ty of the plan s therefore the best aff rmat !e strate"y a"a nst PICs. To"ether PICs and C4 promote respons ble ad!ocacy.

Last printed 7/31/2011 08:59:00 PM

PICs GOOD

DDI PAST

*+, PIC is plag rism

1. +hey have no e$cl sive right to these ideas
There s no bas s for the r cla m. Th s nformat on s n the publ c doma n. %e ha!e $ust as much r "ht to t as they do. The o!er! ew pro!es why th s should not be an e)clus !ely aff rmat !e r "ht.

2. Competition proves o rs is a different idea

The !ery fact that the counterplan s compet t !e means that we d sa"ree w th them. Ours deas are d fferent . %e pro! de a reason to re$ect the aff rmat !e plan.

3. +hey plagiari.e with affirmative evidence

They &uote all of these sources to support the ent re plan. If there s any pla" ar sm of deas' that s. They ta#e deas from the r sources

!. +his notion wo ld precl de t rn arg ments.

1 n# turns pla" ar 5e mpacts' or mpact turns pla" ar 5e l n#s. Th s pro!es how s lly th s ar"ument s.

". +hey plagiari.e s

%e "et the status &uo. They use status &uo mechan sms l #e the federal "o!ernment' fund n"' enforcement' etc.

&. Perm tations plagiari.e

Permutat ons ta#e part of the counterplan. A"a n' th s pro!es how s lly the r cla m s.

'. Intellect al property rights have to be / stified in each instance0 they can be bad
For e)ample' they promote mper al st e)plo tat on and en! ronmental destruct on throu"h b o*prospect n". They ha!e to pro!e a benef t to the aff rmat !e property r "hts cla m n th s nstance. Our o!er! ew $ust f es re$ect on of ntellectual property n th s nstance

Last printed 7/31/2011 08:59:00 PM

PICs GOOD

DDI PAST

*+, steals affirmative gro nd

1. No reason why this is 1-C234I51 affirmative gro nd
There s no warrant for the r cla m. %hy are they the O617 ones who can cla m th s "round8 The o!er! ew reasons why PICS are "ood pro!e why th s should not be e)clus !e "round.

2. Perm tations prove gro nd not e$cl sive

%hene!er the aff rmat !e permutes' they ta#e part of the counterplan wh ch s ne"at !e "round. The PIC s essent ally the same th n".

3. Competition g arantees them gro nd

The burden of counterplan compet t on "uarantees the aff rmat !e can defend the "round of the d fference between the plan and the counterplan pol c es. Th s s the most ob$ect !e standard for what s aff and ne" "round. They should ha!e to defend all of the r "round.

!. +hey steal o r gro nd

%e "et the status &uo. They use status &uo mechan sms l #e the federal "o!ernment' fund n"' enforcement' etc.

". 6o ld #ill *22 co nterplans

All counterplans use the same a"ents' enforcement and fund n" or they ta#e s m lar act ons. If A11 o!erlap s precluded' no counterplan could e!er be run.

Last printed 7/31/2011 08:59:00 PM

PICs GOOD

DDI PAST

*+, topical co nterplans illegitimate

1. +he p rpose of topicality is ON27 to limit the affirmative
T s necessary to pro! de the ne"at !e w th warn n"' w th some dea of what w ll be debated. The aff rmat !e doesn-t need T to constra n the ne"at !e. The aff rmat !e #nows what to e)pect because of compet t on and other factors l #e cho ce of the case' lots of prep t me' etc.

2. Competition is a s fficient chec# on co nterplans

The burden of counterplan compet t on s all that s needed for the aff rmat !e to prepare to debate. They should be prepared to answer all compet t !e pol cy opt ons.

3. 1$cl ding topical co nterplans h rts good policy

A counterplan that s compet t !e should be cons dered e!en f t s top cal f the best pol cy cho ce s to be made. To e)clude compet t !e' but top cal opt ons art f c ally l m ts the full ran"e of deas to test the plan.

!. 6e sho ld debate plans8 not the resol tion

.ebat n" the resolut on le" t m 5es bad theory l #e whole re5 and counter warrants.

". topics witho t direction / stify topical co nterplans

,esolut ons that only call for 9chan"e9 n pol cy would mean that do n" the oppos te of the plan s also top cal. Certa nly' do n" the oppos te of the plan should be an a!a lable ne"at !e opt on. Th s e)ample pro!es the aff theory a bad dea.

9NO+1, if at all possible8 in the INC arg e the CP is not topical. 7o can ma#e that the first answer here8 and it won:t stop yo from ma#ing the above arg ments as + impact ta#e o ts. ;O4+ I;PO<+*N+278 it will help yo as a limit on trivial PICs. =or e$ample8 the PIC might ma#e the the red ction not s bstantial. >It?s a material @ alification0 see Alac#?s 2aw )BC D

Last printed 7/31/2011 08:59:00 PM

PICs GOOD

DDI PAST

AT: makes the 1AC irrelevant

1. 4ho ldn:t p nish a good strategy
If the PIC ma#e the :AC rrele!ant' that ma#es t a "ood ar"ument. It pro!es much of the :AC IS I,,E1E/A6T . %e shouldn-t be penal 5ed for that.

2. It:s their fa lt
The aff rmat !e should ha!e been more respons ble n the r ad!ocacy. They shouldn-t ha!e ncluded n the plan act ons that are not $ust f ed by the :AC

3. ;ost negative arg ments ma#e the 1*C irrelevant

2r t #s' .As that outwe "h the case' and Top cal ty ma#e most of the :AC rrele!ant' That ob! ously s not a reason to re$ect such ar"uments

!. Competition proves relevance

The burden of compet t on re&u res the ne"at !e to pro!e the counterplan s rele!ant to the aff rmat !e ** that s a reason to re$ect the plan.

". +he PIC doesn:t ma#e the 1*C irrelevant

The part of the plan that s done by the PIC s pro!en rele!ant by the fact that t s the PA,T of the pol cy a"reed upon by both s des. A"reement does mean rrele!ance. For e)ample' f we a"reed on the nherency content on that doesn-t ma#e t rrele!ant. If anyth n"' a"reement pro!es rele!ance.

Last printed 7/31/2011 08:59:00 PM

PICs GOOD

DDI PAST

*+, sever e$tra%competitive parts of the CP

1. +he PIC is competitive by net benefit
The part of the counterplan that does part of the plan s compet t !e. The o!erlap between the plan and counterplan s not mutually e)clus !e' but t s net benef c al n that t s better to do the counterplan alone.

2. +he sever analogy to e$tra%topicality is wrong

Top cal ty s a $ur sd ct onal ssue. So se!er n" out parts of the plan that are not top cal could be $ust f ed as be n" beyond the $ur sd ct on of top cal act on. 3ut' compet t on s a PO1IC7 ssue. The $ur sd ct onal bas s for se!er n" non*top cal plan#s does not apply.

3. This would kill ALL counterplans

The counterplan couldn-t use the federal "o!ernment and enforcement because those are not mutually e)clus !e w th the r use n the plan. To se!er out of counterplans the aspects n common w th the plan would "ut counterplans ** there could be no federal act on' no enforcement' etc.

!. 4evering is bad in general

E)tra*top cal plan plan#s should not be se!ered. That ma#es the plan a mo! n" tar"et. 7ou could $ust "nore the e)tra* top cal ad!anta"es.

9NO+1, Ae caref l with this one0 they co ld say OE8 e$tra%competition is a voterD

Last printed 7/31/2011 08:59:00 PM

PICs GOOD

DDI PAST

*+, co ld have / st r n the F*

1. +he PIC is necessary to foc s on the iss e
If the net benef t .A had been run w thout the counterplan' the focus s lost because the .A has to be we "hed a"a nst all the other ssues n the round. So' we m "ht w n the .A but lose the round because the benef ts of the other act ons ta#en by the plan outwe "h. The counterplan s the only way to solate the part cular ssue.

2. +he PIC promotes best policy

,unn n" the .A as a net benef t of the counterplan focuses the debate on the spec f c pro! s ons of the plan that are d fferent from the counterplan. Th s pro!es the plan s not the opt mal pol cy.

3. +he PIC promotes responsible advocacy

% thout the counterplan' the aff rmat !e s not forced to defend the spec f c pro! s ons of the plan. They can rrespons bly ad!ocate bad spec f c act ons because the benef ts of other parts of the plan outwe "h.

!. +his #ills *22 co nterplans

The net benef t of any counterplan could be run as a .A. 3y th s lo" c' no counterplan would e!er be le" t mate.

". Necessary to chec# affirmative bias

.As that outwe "h the whole case are really hard to w n. That-s why debate s b ased aff rmat !e. The PIC frames the .A n a way that ma#es th n"s fa rer.

Last printed 7/31/2011 08:59:00 PM

PICs GOOD

DDI PAST

10

*+, not te$t ally competitive

1. O r co nterplan is f nctionally competitive
Funct onal compet t on s based on what the plan and counterplan actually do. %e pro!e t s better to do the counterplan alone. That-s net benef c al. That should be suff c ent. ;eeting one standard of competition sho ld be eno gh.

2. Nothing is te$t ally competitive

7ou could always wr te both the plan and the counterplan on the same sheet of paper. Any answer to th s w ll pro!e you ha!e to rely on funct onal compet t on s the best standard( what the pol c es actually do.

3. Permits advocacy shift % this ma#es te$t al competition is a bad standard.

In :AC' they ad!ocated do n" the whole plan( now they support do n" less than the ent re plan . A theory that perm ts the plan to become a mo! n" tar"et should be re$ected because t places an unfa r burden on the ne"at !e.

!. +he te$t al standard ma#es the opposite of the plan not competitive
A counterplan bann n" the plan by add n" the word 9not9 sn-t te)tually compet t !e. That absurd ty pro!es the standard bad.

". +riviali.es competition

Te)tual compet t on ma#es m nor chan"es n word order' punctuat on' etc. compet t !e. Ima" ne a debate o!er the colon !ersus the sem *colon.

6. Makes all permutation intrinsic

E!ery perm to do both adds words l #e 9and9 wh ch are n ne ther the plan or counterplan. standard bad. That absurd ty pro!es the

9NO+14, 1. try to write the co nterplan to confo nd this iss e8 and arg e this ma#es it te$t ally competitive. =or e$ample, *. rather than saying Gall e$ceptG leave o t the GallG and list what wo ld be done rather than what will not be done A. at the very least8 play with word order and p nct ation, instead of G34=H8G G=H of the 340G leave o t a comma8 change a period to a semi%colon8 etc. 2. <emember that Gdirty wordG PICs are te$t ally competitive. 4o8 *. yo sho ld not indict the standard in that instance A. yo can defend te$t al competition in that sit ation8 b t yo don:t have to0 yo can defend that co nterplan at a level of what the co nterplan does disc rsivelyD

Last printed 7/31/2011 08:59:00 PM

10

PICs GOOD

DDI PAST

11

*+, trivial co nterplans >e.g.8 penny saved8 penny earnedC

1. Not a reason to re/ect all PICs.
All theory s sub$ect to potent al abuse. That $ust means there should be l m ts on PICs( not that all should be re$ected. The o!er! ew pro!es many PICs are "ood for debate. ,e$ect n" all PICs because some could be bad s l #e throw n" the baby out w th the bath water.

2. 4tandards can avoid ab sive8 triviali.ing PICs

For e)ample ;p c# and choose<+

= 6on*top cal PICs aren-t tr ! al. The resolut on def nes what s rele!ant for debate. So a non*top cal PIC could ne!er be a tr ! al d st nct on. = PICs of plan pro! s ons are not tr ! al. The aff rmat !e made them rele!ant when they spec f ed the act on the plan ta#es. = PICs based on plan word n" are not tr ! al. The aff rmat !e ma#es them rele!ant by the r cho ce of word n".

= PICs based on the core l terature are not tr ! al. E! dence a!a lable to E/E,7O6E wh ch opposes the spec f c act on that s PICed out s pro!en rele!ant by the !ery fact that t s n the l terature. Pol cy analysts don-t th n# these are tr ! al ssues.

3. O r PIC is not trivial.

The reasons we " !e for the d st nct on n pol cy are pro!en mportant by our ar"uments and the e! dence we read.

9Note, also reference other of the arg ments in 2 that might applyD

Last printed 7/31/2011 08:59:00 PM

11