Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Status
Conditionality Good
C/I: ____
This is best:
Neg flex aff gets to pick focus of debate, we need options to compensate
for reactionary and concessionary ground
Info processing multiple options forces 2AC efficiency and narrowing to
their best answers which focuses the debate and increases critical
thinking
Logicproving the CP is bad doesnt mean the plan is good logic is key
to make any skill portable
Ideological flexibility conditionality is the only way to read 1 k and 1 CP,
any alternative results in community schisms.
Skews are inevitable T violations and case defense are no-risk options
and its the negs job to generate time imbalances
They should have to defend opportunity costs any other interpretation
artificially insulates the aff from testing
Theory interpretations are arbitrary and self-serving they move the goal
post to generate cheap wins divorced from substance.
Straight turns check they can stick us with a disad thats not a net
benefit or read offense we cant solve, functionally deciding what we do.
They dont specify their agent---thats a voting issue
They should lose because we lose disad and counterplan ground based on
implementation and dont know how the plan is enacted-voting issue.
Uncondo Good
Fairness
It is easier to predict
Aff can pick best 2AC strat without risk of skewing.
Education - Forces the neg to fully research both sides of the argument
before entering the debate.
Most Real World Policy makers have to defend the notions of plans
proposed.
Depth is better than breath Education is not gained through number of
arguments but through in depth analysis on few.
Reject the arg not the team.
Err Neg: Theory is a zero sum game for the aff
Interpretation The neg gets ____ Unconditional advocacies.
Creates coherent strats that can be prepared outside of the round
Disincentives shady strategies
Dispo Good
Education
Best policy option real policy makers are never confined to just one
solution to a problem or forced to pass it no matter the consequences.
Forces strategic 2AC answers promotes critical, in-round thinking from
the affirmative.
Ground -Neg flex Our only burden is to disprove the plan. Arguing from multiple
levels is vital to negative strategy which outweighs because its key to
checking aff bias and we have a right to make strategic 2NR decisions.
Non-unique -- All other negative arguments are dispo.
Time skew is inevitable for the aff with 13 minutes in the block.
Aff choice -- the aff literally decides whether or not the neg can kick the
cp.
Err neg on theory aff gets first and last speeches and unlimited prep.
Not a voter -- Reject the argument not the team.
Fiat
CP
Lopez CP Good
Multi-actor fiat is default the aff automatically fiats 500 congressman,
the president, and the courts alone. No reason why one more actor is any
worse.
Increases aff ground they can read a courts disad.
Increases education we can learn about how the judicial branch and the
constitution interact with federal policy.
Err neg on theory - aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep.
Not a voter - Reject the argument not the team.
Other Theory
Vagueness Bad
Vagueness kills ground
Moving target: Vagueness can make the aff a moving target which kills
predictability they can spike out of disads or change plan planks vital to
the function of the counterplan.
Time and strat skew all our arguments are predicated upon the plan text
as per the 1AC. Later clarifying actual implementation is completely
abusive.
It slays education
Sketchiness -- If the plan is unclear, we cant learn about the specific
results of the plan because the details of actual implementation are murky
at best and which kills education about real world policies.
Generics Unclear specification means stuck with running generic
arguments to just guarantee a link.
Err neg on theory aff gets first and last speech plus unlimited prep.
Voter for fairness and education.
Perms
Aff
CP Status
Conditionality Bad
Conditionality is a reason to reject the team
First, crushes 2AC strategythey can cross apply our offense to other
flows to use against us or kick positions we invest vital 2AC time inthats
irrecoveralbe
Second, kills informed decision-makingflips their logic arguments
because it creates structural incentives against depth of argument testing
no matter the number of debates we never conclusively vet arguments
Counter interpretation [___] condo solves their offensefair middle
ground that preserves neg flex and avoids our offense
Their counter interpretation is arbitrary and links to their logic arguments
Dispo Bad
Kills Education
Conditionality in disguise the neg knows it puts us at a strategic
disadvantage to straight turn the cp/k so they can just kick them later.
Not real world policy makers have to deal with the consequences of
proposing an action. They cant just pretend they didnt read it if someone
questions them about it.
Ground
Strategy and time skew the neg can just read a bunch of dipso
counterplans and moot 2AC answers by kicking almost all of them in the
block because the aff cant fairly turn all the different counterplans.
Race to the bottom Forcing the aff win offense on the counterplan by
straight turning vs. the negs net benefits leads to a race to the bottom.
Perms key to aff ground checks back non-competitive and artificially
competitive counterplans
Straight turns dont check its suicide not to perm in most instances, it
puts the neg into a strategic advantage.
Reciprocity the aff is forced to stick with one advocacy, so should the
neg.
Err aff on theory debate has changed, statistically neg wins more rounds.
When was the last time you wanted to be aff in an outround?
Voter for fairness, ground and education
Uncondo Bad
Education Breath is better than depth The more arguments presented the easier it
is to achieve education on a variety of flows.
Strategic Thinking Strategically choosing a 2NR strategy is part of the
education gained in debate.
Diversity Debate will stagnate if strategic block choices are limited to
unconditional advocacies.
Defense
Real World Education Policy makers dont stick to one plan of action,
they change to improve conditions.
Limits The neg over limits debate by forcing negatives to choose only
one option.
Interpretation
Dispositionality good
Solves diverse strategies by allowing negative choice.
Sets the best limits because the neg can strategically pick dispositional
advocacies with the ability to kick from them.
Fiat
Specific CP
PICs Bad
Bad for education
Unfair: makes the aff debate themselves.
Resolutional shift: concentrates the debate on insignificant aspects of the
counterplan
Encourages vague plan writing to avoid PICs.
Ground explodes neg ground because there is an infinite amount of
things that they can pic out of.
Err aff on theory neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the
debate by strategically picking certain arguments.
Voter for fairness, ground, and education.
Lopez CP Bad
Justifies multi-actor fiat the cp uses multi actors which jacks
predictability and allows the neg to selectively pick actors to out solve the
aff.
No literature there is zero evidence on a Supreme Court ruling to devolve
power to the states and then have complete uniformity. Lit is crucial for
predictability and aff offense.
No test case they cant fiat a test case occurring otherwise its object fiat
which is an independent voter because it means they can essentially fiat
anything.
Artificial competition the counterplan is only artificially competitive by
banning the plan, which destroys fairness and doesnt test opportunity
costs of the plan.
Err aff on theory neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the
debate by strategically picking certain arguments.
Voter for fairness and ground.
1.
Offense
1. Explodes Neg Ground Get the ability to read any number of planks
2.
2. Predictability we cant predict all the mechanisms they could use to
solve the aff
3.
3. Depth over breadth they explode the amount of subjects in the debate
depth gives us better research skills we have to find a lot evidence and
various warrants
4.
4. Time skew- neg can just read the planks and the aff has to come up with
answers to each plank in the 2AC
5.
Defense
1. Multiple CPs check they can run all of their CPs, they just have to be
separate
6.
2. Err Aff on theory conditionality and win percentage prove bias
Other Theory
AT: ASPEC
Counter-interpretation: normal means solves issues stemming from agent
specification
Solves offense, the negative can read evidence that says the plan will be
done in certain way and then link to it
Normal means solves the Elmore evidence, under normal means policies
dont lack direction or implementation.
Offense
Forcing specification gives the negative the right to agent and process
counterplans. This creates bad, un-educational debate- there is never any
discussion of the aff we just talk about their narrow net benefit and
whether or not the perm solves.
Infinitely regressive- There is no reason why specifying funding or
personnel is less relevant than ASPEC
Encourages over specifying- This kills limits and predictability because
there are thousands of case combinations.
Defense
No Resolution mandate- The resolution says the USFG, it doesnt mandate
that we have to specify a single branch.
No in round abuse- If you were to run a specific DA link to one agent, we
would not no link your disad.
Cross-x checks- You couldve asked us but you just wanted to run ASPEC
Disclosure checks abuse- They had our plan text before the round to root
it out for DA links and CPs
Wrong remedy- This is an argument why the negative should get their
ground- its never a reason to reject the aff
Vagueness Good
No link -- The plan is not vague ___________________
Increases education
Breadth over depth -- it forces a discussion about more of the resolution
which is the best way to evaluate the topic because we have a wider grasp
of poverty and applicable social services.
Increases neg ground A vague plan allows the neg to run more disads or
kritiks because we link to more arguments and we wont spike out of their
specific links.
C-x checks you had three minutes to clarify anything you didnt
understand after the 1AC, its not our fault you think were vague.
Not a bill it is just a plan text with resolved intent, we dont have to
specify ever minute detail.
Err neg on theory -- aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep.
Not a voter - Reject the argument not the team.
Perms