DDI

Theory CO LAB

Theory DDI Tournament CP

Theory DDI Tournament CP................................................................................................................................................................................................................1 Err Negative on Theory Questions.............................................................................................................................................................................................................2 Agent Specification 1NC............................................................................................................................................................................................................................3 Agent Specification 2NC............................................................................................................................................................................................................................4 ASPEC - AT: Topic Only Requires Federal Government..........................................................................................................................................................................5 ASPEC - AT: Infinite Regress....................................................................................................................................................................................................................6 ASPEC - AT: Cross-Examination Checks.................................................................................................................................................................................................7 ASPEC - AT: Agent Counterplans Bad......................................................................................................................................................................................................8 ASPEC - AT: Normal Means.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................9 ASPEC - AT: Pick One and Well Defend It...........................................................................................................................................................................................10 ASPEC 2NC Must Read- Agent Counterplans Good............................................................................................................................................................................11 Extra Topicality Bad.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................12 Extra Topicality Bad - AT: Severance......................................................................................................................................................................................................13 Extra Topicality Bad - AT: Increases NEG Ground.................................................................................................................................................................................14 Extra Topicality Bad - AT: Counterplans Check.....................................................................................................................................................................................15 PICs Good.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................16 Agent Counterplans Good........................................................................................................................................................................................................................17 A2 No Neg Fiat.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................18 International Fiat Good.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................20 Dispositionality Good...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................21 Dispositionality Good...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................22 Conditionality Good.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................23 Conditionality Good.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................24 Extra Topicality Good..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................25 Agent Specification Bad...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................26 International Fiat Bad...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................27 Agent CPs Bad..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................28 PICs Bad...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................29 Conditionality Bad....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................30 Dispositionality Bad.................................................................................................................................................................................................................................31

DDI

Theory CO LAB

Err Negative on Theory Questions

Err Negative on Theory: Structural Side Bias The Affirmative Speaks first, last and has infinite prep time Imbalance - affirmatives won the majority of debates before the advent of liberal negative theory such as PICs and Conditionality C. Literature -- literature advocating change is always more explicit and prominent when compared to defense of the status quo

DDI

Theory CO LAB

Agent Specification 1NC

A. Interpretation the affirmative must specify the process by which the branches of the federal government establish the plan B. Standards Ground the affirmative is an incomplete policy without an agent specific case, DA, CP, and Critique ground is predicated on the agent and agent issues color the entire debate Real World no policy can be established with an agent, since the Federal Government isnt a single entity this is a 100% solvency takeout vote negative on presumption Plan Text Key the nature of textual competition, lack of precise and binding cross-ex, and the fact that the negative loses 1NC and pre round prep time are all reasons why the agent must be in the plan C. Voting Issue for reasons of fairness and education

DDI

Theory CO LAB

Agent Specification 2NC

Debating the agent of the plan is critical to education and fairness Lack of specification denies core negative ground such as agent counterplans, politics/spending disadvantages, and the role of agent questions in solvency agent ground is a core literature question We have a right to this predictable and intrinsic ground given the word federal in the topic, their interpretation allows the affirmative to claim benefits of federal action, without defending its full meaning Implementation means substance alone is insufficient policies are always advocated within the context of particular agents, meaning agent issues are intrinsically topic specific education agents affect the way links are generated, how the affirmative solves, and negative ground as a whole

DDI

Theory CO LAB

ASPEC - AT: Topic Only Requires Federal Government

1. The resolution isnt the end-all determination of ground it doesnt determine counterplan status nor that you shouldnt have vague plans 2. The Federal Government doesnt exist as one entity specific branches implement the plan and that affects ground and solvency questions 3. The resolution doesnt specify so that they can choose its the same as other parts of the resolution

DDI

Theory CO LAB

ASPEC - AT: Infinite Regress

1. Non-Responsive there are only 3 branches, unless of course, higher level math is too confusing for <insert team> 2. Any specification the affirmative chooses will be within the three branches even agencies are executive agencies and therefore link to all executive ground 3. Agent-less plans are more infinitely regressive they justify cases with no funding, enforcement, or mandates they could just simply read the resolution

DDI

Theory CO LAB

ASPEC - AT: Cross-Examination Checks

1. Negative Time Skew given the fact that agent issues affect the entirety of negative ground and the affirmative has case selection, it is only reasonable that the negative have the agent in the plan to ensure no loss of pre-round, 1AC, and cross-ex time 2. CP Ground plan text is key to securing competition for counterplans cross apply agent CPs good 3. Cross Ex is the Wrong Place even if binding, cross-ex gives the affirmative the ability to be vague and ambiguous, create arbitrary distinctions, and spending cross-ex on agent questions detracts from in-depth topic analysis a net turn to their topic specific education argument 4. Concedes They Could Defend an Agent the post facto nature of their response means they could have easily specified in the plan no risk of offense for the negative

DDI

Theory CO LAB

ASPEC - AT: Agent Counterplans Bad

1. They can never win this argument if agent counterplans are bad, then agent counterplans would always lose on theory; however, negative disad and case ground would still be preserved essentially, we can permute this argument 2. Agent CPs are good Education agent debates are paramount policy questions because certain agents are better suited for particular policies and the process is often the central issue regarding effectiveness Ground agent ground is vital on a diverse and large topic with no predictable limit as well as the ability to offset literature biased impacts such as racism and sexism Lobbying knowing about substance only matters if you can create change this vastly expands the impact of debate education Limits agent counterplans provide a natural limiting function on the topic size by weeding out insignificant cases Not Hard to Debate a predictable, balanced, and large debate exists over the process of agent questions Not Generic agent debates always center on solvency questions, very few other teams or argument styles are punished for being generic, and not defending their agent makes the affirmative infinitely more generic Not Trivial our net benefit proves substance, Congress versus the executive is far from trivial, and debate turns on small but important distinctions

DDI

Theory CO LAB

ASPEC - AT: Normal Means

1. Normal Means Isnt Exclusive No Standards what determines normal means? Is it the number of times an agent has acted, the preponderance of cards, or the specificity of the evidence? The mandates of the plan should never be conditioned on evidence standards that are determined until the end of the debate This is the essence of moving target not until the end of the round, we will definitively know what the agent is Gives the affirmative too much ground case selection means they have a head start on winning the agent of their plan, allowing them to essentially bait the negative and change their agent depending on what the negative says 2. Creates an unfair burden requiring the negative to spend time just to get to ground zero 3. No offense choosing the agent is no different than them choosing their case, the negative can simply prepare for the agent decisions

DDI

Theory CO LAB

ASPEC - AT: Pick One and Well Defend It

1. Strategic Skew we dont get to pick until the negative block, wasting our entire prep time before that point if this was a genuine position, they should have let us pick before the debate 2. Magnifies Affirmative Research Advantage if we pick the agent, then we lose ground to say its unconstitutional, unrealistic, or non-topical 3. Counterplan Competition even if we get to pick the agent, that doesnt provide textual competition 4. Fine, Have it Your Way if you win this standard is good for debate, then Your agent is the paid intern for House of Representatives, 11th District, Georgia Vote Negative the powers of the intern are surprisingly limited and therefore none of your plan mandates will achieve anything AND we have a federal government crisis DA and job loss DA

10

DDI

Theory CO LAB

ASPEC 2NC Must Read- Agent Counterplans Good

Policy making education is found at the agency and implementation level Schuck 1999 [Peter H. Schuck, Professor, Yale Law School, and Visiting Professor, New York Law School,Spring(Delegation and Democracy
Cardozo Law Review) http://www.constitution.org/ad_state/schuck.htm]

God and the devil are in the details of policymaking, as they are in most other important thingsand the details are to be found at the agency level. This would remain true, moreover, even if the nondelegation doctrine were revived and statutes were written with somewhat greater
specificity, for many of the most significant impacts on members of the public would still be indeterminate until the agency grappled with and defined them. Finally, the agency is often the site in which public participation is most effective. This is not only because the details of the regulatory impacts are hammered out there. It is also because the agency is where the public can best educate the government about the true nature of the problem that Congress has tried to address. Only the interested parties, reacting to specific agency proposals for rules or other actions, possess (or have the incentives to ac-quire) the information necessary to identify, explicate, quantify, and evaluate the real-world consequences of these and alternative

first-order effects of policies usually are less significant than the aggregate of more remote effects that ripple through a complex, interrelated, opaque society. When policies fail, it is usually not because the congressional purpose was misunderstood. More commonly, they fail because Congress did not fully appreciate how the details of policy implementation would confound its purpose. Often, however, this knowledge can only be gained through active public participation in the policymaking process at the agency level where these implementation issues are most clearly focused and the stakes in their correct resolution are highest.
proposals. Even when Congress can identify the first-order effects of the laws that it enacts, these direct impacts seldom exhaust the laws policy consequences. Indeed,

11

DDI

Theory CO LAB

Extra Topicality Bad

Extra Topicality is a voting issue: A. De-justifies the Resolution something more is needed to solve, proving the resolution insufficient B. Ground the topic is written to provide negative ground isolated from the affirmative extra T allows the affirmative to co-opt resolution ground, even solvency arguments radically disrupt the balance of ground C. Limits justifies any topical plan plus anything extra topical parts allow the affirmative to destroy negative ground

12

DDI

Theory CO LAB

Extra Topicality Bad - AT: Severance

1. Strategic Skew The entire 1NC strategy is skewed by extra topical parts in terms of time and choice Shouldnt have to run arguments just to get back to ground zero this encourages more egregious affirmative abuse because they can simply jettison abusive parts 2. Unconditional affirmative advocacy key to debate severance allows them to destroy all negative ground and prevents a stable position to attack

13

DDI

Theory CO LAB

Extra Topicality Bad - AT: Increases NEG Ground

1. Allows the affirmative to frame the debate they control the ground and have better prep time to predict arguments 2. Negative Cant Access the Ground were only prepared to debate resolution ground we cant be prepared to access anything else 3. Trades off with predictable ground the affirmative gets to use extra-topical parts of the plan to offset critical negative solvency and DA ground

14

DDI

Theory CO LAB

Extra Topicality Bad - AT: Counterplans Check

1. Forcing the negative to counterplan further spirals the abuse we then have to justify all theory issues regarding the CP 2. Hurts negative Ground counterplans hurt politics link ground and other necessary counterplan ground 3. Shouldnt have to run arguments just to get back to ground zero this encourages more egregious affirmative abuse because they can simply jettison abusive parts

15

DDI

Theory CO LAB

PICs Good
Offense 1. Fair side balance PICs offset advantage of case selection, literature biased advantages, and the inherent problems with the status quo 2. Depth of Education focusing on intricacies highlights comparative argument quality as well as moving past a vague good/bad focus 3. Strategic Research PICs encourage innovative research that avoids stale debates and bridges different parts of the literature 4. Effective Policy Analysis differences between similar options is an inherent part of policy decisions and the academic literature 5. Intelligent Plan Writing and AFF Research AFFs are forced to defend and research every part of the plan through in-depth analysis 6. Key to CP Ground virtually every CP could be classified as a PIC; this undermines core negative ground Defense 1. Not a PIC Our CP engages in a different process; it is not a penny-less. At worst, its a non-topical PIC, which establishes a fair and predictable division of ground 2. Doesnt Skew Ground the AFF can turn our net benefits or defend the entirety of their plan

16

DDI
3. No Infinite Regress competition is an adequate standard and the AFF literature predictably defines what we can run

Theory CO LAB

4. No right to case harms debate is about policy making, not about who finds the best impact arguments 5. Not a Voting Issue reject the argument, not the negative 6. DAs arent enough A. CPs are needed to deal with entrenched status quo trends as well as understand different processes B. CPs are a critical part of reciprocity, while DAs alone create unfairness

Agent Counterplans Good

Offense 1. Education agent debates are paramount policy questions because certain agents are better suited for particular policies and the process is often more relevant than the substance in real politics 2. Side Balance agent ground is vital on a diverse and large topic with no predictable limit as well as the ability to offset literature biased impacts such as racism and sexism 3. Lobbying knowing about substance only matters if you can create change this vastly expands the impact of debate education 4. Limits agent CPs provide a natural limiting function on the topic size by weeding out insignificant cases this is especially important on a non-list topic

17

DDI

Theory CO LAB

5. Counterplan Ground agent CPs constitute a substantial portion of negative counterplan ground, excluding agent CPs functionally erodes the CP as a negative option devastating side balance and fairness Defense 1. Predictable the affirmative choice of agent provides a predictable set of agent debates and ground for both sides 2. Not Hard to Debate a predictable, balanced, and large debate exists over the process of agent questions 3. Not Trivial our net benefits prove substance, congress versus the executive is far from trivial, and debate turns on small but important distinctions 4. Not Generic agent debates always center on solvency questions, very few other teams or argument styles are punished for being generic, and not defending their agent makes the AFF more generic 5. DAs Arent Enough A. Comparative necessity - backlash DAs dont help decide which branch is better suited in foreign policy B. CPs are needed to deal with entrenched status quo trends as well as understand different processes, instead of simply debating DAs every round that never get the heart of agent debates

A2 No Neg Fiat
1. Reciprocal they fiat a should action, its only reciprocal that the NEG gets to fiat a should not action topicality limits them, while competition limits us

18

DDI

Theory CO LAB

2. Fair Side Balance CPs are a critical part of NEG ground simply defending the status quo leaves the NEG unable to deal with try-or-die scenarios and entrenched status quo trends 3. Fiat is a Normative Tool it is simply a way for the judge to endorse or reject policy options, no team controls it 4. One-sided Harms absent CPs the negative would be forced to impact turn everything, ignoring the middle ground of debate and encouraging AFFs to run racism and genocide impacts all the time 5. Real World policy makers are never forced to simply negate with the status quo the AFF argument constitutes an extreme departure from policymaking 6. Limits CPs are the only way to prevent a topic explosion an endless number of cases are possible if there is no CP ground 7. Tests the Plan the CP offers the only real way to determine that plan is both necessary and sufficient to solve the harms

19

DDI

Theory CO LAB

International Fiat Good

Offense 1. Education international actors are at the heart of foreign policy debates and the CP avoids dogmatic adherence to US policy 2. Fair side balance international fiat checks the affirmative ability to exploit benefits of US action and one-sided harms 3. Circumvents the literature US action is always defined relative to other actions 4. Minority views in debate international fiat is balanced way to create inclusion for debaters with international life experience as well as avoiding a Eurocentric focus 5. Critical test of the topic avoiding international agents ignores the necessity of United States policy towards China disads arent comparative, can never overcome AFF inevitability arguments, and dont educate us on government processes 6. Resolutional ground AFF ability to circumvent resolutional ground undermines its predictability function 7. Real world Congress always seeks burden sharing and necessity of US action the AFF is calling for an extreme departure from US policymaking Defense 1. Competition checks credible net benefit means no risk of abuse and checks trivialization 2. US key arguments solve the literature is replete with justifications for why only the US can act this allows the AFF to be prepared against any CP 3. Fiat is only a normative tool its no more far fetched to pretend to be US policy maker than an international actor AND as a US policymaker you can choose to defer/encourage another actor 4. No Literature Problems constraints exist for both sides, virtually every country has major publications in English, and this is only a reason to debate CP, not outlaw it 5. Justification The affirmative must justify the USFG in the resolution otherwise the aff always wins and proves that the resolution is neither necessary nor sufficient

20

DDI

Theory CO LAB

Dispositionality Good
Offense 1. Fair side balance it balances against strategic advantage of case selection, AFF conditionality in the form of permutations, and many CPs would never be run without it 2. Policy Analysis hypothetical argumentation is the staple method of flexible questioning of policy and is best suited to debate 3. Puts the AFF in control they can determine the status of the CP just like a DA 4. Logical decision making not having the option of the status quo would constitute an extreme departure from natural decision making 5. Critical thinking it forces argument thought on the fly and understanding argument interactions 6. Multiple perms worse makes the AFF a moving target, creates strategy skew, and not reciprocal to our one CP Defense 1. No strategic skew CPs require time investment, arguments spillover to other issues even after the CP is gone, and time skews are inevitable 2. CPs arent unique most are less complex than major DAs or critiques, are susceptible to multiple attacks, and the 1AC is already an indict to the status quo 3. Doesnt reduce depth of education teams inevitably go for arguments with little coverage, justifies only runnig disads, and throwaway arguments are inevitable 4. No impact to multiple worlds permutations create the same problem and complexity isnt applied to critiques 5. No potential for abuse clear limits such as only one CP check and the status quo is a logical, limited, and consistent fallback

21

DDI

Theory CO LAB

Dispositionality Good
6. Doesnt justify AFF conditionality permutations are a reciprocal form of conditionality, the plan must be the focus in order to ensure debate, and case selection is enough advantage 7. Doesnt force the AFF to debate themselves they only have to defend the plan, straight turn checks, and its counterintuitive to let them vacate defense against the status quo 8. Perms arent just tests judges vote for them, this standard justifies intrinsicness, and the CP is also just a test of plans necessity 9. Doesnt hurt advocacy giving limited flexibility compared to the AFF produces the best balance of policy analysis and we are always rejecting the plan 10. No argument irresponsibility straight turn checks, natural disincentives ensure no repugnant arguments, and other arguments dont entail same responsibility 11. Not a voting issue just stick us to the CP

22

DDI

Theory CO LAB

Conditionality Good
Offense 1. Fair side balance it balances against strategic advantage of case selection, AFF conditionality in the form of permutations, and many CPs would never be run without it 2. Policy Analysis hypothetical argumentation is the staple method of flexible questioning of policy and is best suited to debate 3. Puts the AFF in control they can determine the status of the CP just like a DA 4. Logical decision making not having the option of the status quo would constitute an extreme departure from natural decision making 5. Critical thinking it forces argument thought on the fly and understanding argument interactions 6. Multiple perms worse makes the AFF a moving target, creates strategy skew, and not reciprocal to our one CP Defense 1. No strategic skew CPs require time investment, arguments spillover to other issues even after the CP is gone, and time skews are inevitable 2. CPs arent unique most are less complex than major DAs or critiques, are susceptible to multiple attacks, and the 1AC is already an indict to the status quo 3. Doesnt reduce depth of education teams inevitably go for arguments with little coverage, justifies only runnig disads, and throwaway arguments are inevitable 4. No impact to multiple worlds permutations create the same problem and complexity isnt applied to critiques 5. No potential for abuse clear limits such as only one CP check and the status quo is a logical, limited, and consistent fallback

23

DDI

Theory CO LAB

Conditionality Good
6. Doesnt justify AFF conditionality permutations are a reciprocal form of conditionality, the plan must be the focus in order to ensure debate, and case selection is enough advantage 7. Doesnt force the AFF to debate themselves they only have to defend the plan, and its counterintuitive to let them vacate defense against the status quo 8. Perms arent just tests judges vote for them, this standard justifies intrinsicness, and the CP is also just a test of plans necessity 9. Doesnt hurt advocacy giving limited flexibility compared to the AFF produces the best balance of policy analysis and we are always rejecting the plan 10. No argument irresponsibility natural disincentives ensure no repugnant arguments, and other arguments dont entail same responsibility 11. Not a voting issue reject the argument not the team

24

DDI

Theory CO LAB

Extra Topicality Good

Extra Topicality isnt a voting issue A. Increases NEG ground through DA links B. They can always CP out or simply sever extra-topical parts C. Increases policy analysis and education every plan includes some extra topical part

25

DDI

Theory CO LAB

Agent Specification Bad

1. Cross-Ex Checks A. It only takes a few seconds and if the AFF is vague, then go for vagueness B. We would have specified ________. Not asking simply means you dont Agent ground you were going to run. C. Textual competition isnt needed and cross-ex is always binding when the AFF specifies their agent 2. Infinite regressive A. There are infinite number of agent questions the NEG can propose funding, implementation, delegation versus non-delegation, vote count, etc this is net worse for education and devastates AFF ground B. Even if specification is not infinitely regressive, the plan requirement IS infinitely regressive this would force the AFF to have onerous plan texts that devastate AFF ground 3. FG ground they can access States/Federalism, International Relations, International Fiat, and Politics ground simply through FG action further specification isnt needed 4. Err AFF non-resolutional based theory arguments mean you should err for the AFF especially when its as simple as them asking a cross-ex question 5. Agent ground is bad for debate A. Eliminates Focus on Substantive Issues instead of topic specific education, we debate politics and SOP every year B. Trivializes Debate their net benefits rely on minute distinctions in process rather than the heart of policy substance which forms the basis for different topics C. Overly Generic agent CPs can be run every year and against every case decreasing the amount of clash and in-depth analysis

26

DDI

Theory CO LAB

International Fiat Bad

International fiat is a voting issue A. Infinitely Regressive there are hundreds of different countries that the AFF would have to be prepared for, decreasing depth of education and ground B. Education literature is limited by language and resource barriers ensuring Intl CPs distort policymaking and create shallow education C. Object fiat energy policy defines supply from other countries they allow the NEG to fiat out of these concerns D. No Offense - DAs and solvency arguments solve any education or ground loss, without unfairly damaging the AFF

27

DDI

Theory CO LAB

Agent CPs Bad

Agent CPs are a voting issue A. Eliminates Focus on Substantive Issues instead of topic specific education, we debate politics and SOP every year B. Trivializes Debate their net benefits rely on minute distinctions in process rather than the heart of policy substance which forms the basis for different topics C. Overly Generic agent CPs can be run every year and against every case decreasing the amount of clash and in-depth analysis D. No Offense agent DAs, Federal Government ground, and years of agent debates check any ground or education loss

28

DDI

Theory CO LAB

PICs Bad
PICs are a voting issue A. Reciprocal Ground we defend the entirety of the plan, they should attack PICs steal critical affirmative ground B. Time Skew PICs constitute a time skew from the 1AC our entire harms contention is lost C. Infinitely regressive they justify trivial CPs that undermine education and any number of infinite methods, including penny-less CPs, to do the plan D. No Offense they can always run DAs and solvency arguments to test the plan and use micro-advantage CPs

29

DDI

Theory CO LAB

Conditionality Bad
Conditionality is a voting issue A. Education the NEG only goes for what has the least coverage and analysis, preventing indepth discussion B. Strategic Skew conditionality undermines AFF ability to generate offense and skews time allocation undermining AFF ability to hedge against the block C. Advocacy conditionality prevents the NEG from learning consistent advocacy and encourages argument irresponsibility D. No Offense pre-tournament research and dispositional CPs capture all NEG offense, while still preserving side balance

30

DDI

Theory CO LAB

Dispositionality Bad
Dispositionality is a voting issue A. Education the NEG only goes for what has the least coverage and analysis, preventing indepth discussion B. Strategic Skew dispo undermines AFF ability to generate offense and skews time allocation undermining AFF ability to hedge against the block C. Advocacy dispo prevents the NEG from learning consistent advocacy and encourages argument irresponsibility D. No Offense pre-tournament research capture all NEG offense and straight turn option is hollow, since the NEG has the block and permutations are essential AFF defense

31