View in EDS

Counterplans: The Evolution of Negative Burdens as CEDA Makes the Transition from Value to Policy Debate.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Counterplans: The Evolution of Negative Burdens as CEDA Makes the Transition from Value to Policy Debate.
Language: English
Authors: Stanfield, Susan, West, Isaac
Peer Reviewed: N
Page Count: 22
Publication Date: 1995
Document Type: Opinion Papers
Speeches/Meeting Papers
Descriptors: Debate, Debate Format, Higher Education, Persuasive Discourse
Abstract: In 1995, the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) voted for the first time to debate a policy-based resolution. As CEDA embraces policy-based resolutions, it changes the focus of both affirmative and negative strategies. Affirmatives must now necessarily implement a plan while negatives have more freedom to advocate counterplans. Counterplans raise many issues about topicality, conditionality, and fiat, all of which are greatly influenced by policy burdens. Controversy over counterplans will probably erupt. As long as the community assumes that the affirmative plan is the focus of the round, it seems that any counterplan that is beyond the replication of the affirmative plan is worth consideration. The rejection of the counterplan on the basis of its topicality would allow the affirmative to advocate ideas that are polar opposites, to justify the resolution. Also, the affirmative should have to defend his or her plan, not the resolution as a whole, since the negative can suggest his or her own plan. Finally, the use of counterplans shifts the focus of debate. The resolution exists as a framework for the affirmative to advance a proposal while providing an expected area of debate for the negative. (Contains 23 notes and 18 references.) (TB)
Entry Date: 1996
Accession Number: ED395343
Database: ERIC
FullText Text:
  Availability: 0
CustomLinks:
  – Url: https://eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED395343
    Name: ERIC Full Text
    Category: fullText
    Text: Full Text from ERIC
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: ED395343
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Editorial & Opinion
PubTypeId: editorialOpinion
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Counterplans: The Evolution of Negative Burdens as CEDA Makes the Transition from Value to Policy Debate.
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stanfield%2C+Susan%22">Stanfield, Susan</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22West%2C+Isaac%22">West, Isaac</searchLink>
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: N
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 22
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 1995
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Opinion Papers<br />Speeches/Meeting Papers
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Debate%22">Debate</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Debate+Format%22">Debate Format</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Persuasive+Discourse%22">Persuasive Discourse</searchLink>
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In 1995, the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) voted for the first time to debate a policy-based resolution. As CEDA embraces policy-based resolutions, it changes the focus of both affirmative and negative strategies. Affirmatives must now necessarily implement a plan while negatives have more freedom to advocate counterplans. Counterplans raise many issues about topicality, conditionality, and fiat, all of which are greatly influenced by policy burdens. Controversy over counterplans will probably erupt. As long as the community assumes that the affirmative plan is the focus of the round, it seems that any counterplan that is beyond the replication of the affirmative plan is worth consideration. The rejection of the counterplan on the basis of its topicality would allow the affirmative to advocate ideas that are polar opposites, to justify the resolution. Also, the affirmative should have to defend his or her plan, not the resolution as a whole, since the negative can suggest his or her own plan. Finally, the use of counterplans shifts the focus of debate. The resolution exists as a framework for the affirmative to advance a proposal while providing an expected area of debate for the negative. (Contains 23 notes and 18 references.) (TB)
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 1996
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: ED395343
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=ED395343
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 22
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Debate
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Debate Format
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Higher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Persuasive Discourse
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Counterplans: The Evolution of Negative Burdens as CEDA Makes the Transition from Value to Policy Debate.
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stanfield, Susan
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: West, Isaac
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 20
              M: 11
              Type: published
              Y: 1995
ResultId 1