Theory File **Status Theory**Conditionality BadConditionality is a voter:1. Advocacy Skills force them to defend one position throughout the entire debate, its reciporical2. Bad Neg Research shouldnt be rewarded for lazy neg research, force them to find the best answer to the aff 3. Forces Contradictory Answers prevents the 2AC from reading its best offense, could be crossapplied to another flow4. Time Skew overspread us in the 2AC and create a shallow debate and preventing clash and depth of education5. Strat skew prevent us from reading our best offense out of fear of contradictions6. Depth over breadth it is more important to learn about things in detail than learn little about a variety of things only debate provides this education.7. Neg side bias the negative gets the block and pre-round disclosure 8. Its not what you do its what you justify view the debate as the interp against the counter interp9. Interp 1 Conditional world, prevents contradicting truth claims. Their interp is arbitrary and self serving.Conditionality Good

Conditionality is not a voter:1. Decision making education forces both sides to make strategic decisions 2. Topic Specific Education key to learning about more aspects of the topic3. 2AC critical thinking forces them to make strategic decisions to avoid contradictions4. Real World policy experts can have multiple idea and abandon them if they are proven wrong5. Best Policy Option key to test the aff from multiple angles and create a variety of education6. Neg flex gives the neg the ability to run different types of arguments, attacking the affirmative and exposing more arguments7. Skew Inevitable disads and T not covered by their interp8. Perms check takes two seconds to make and two minutes to answer9. Breadth over depth it is more important to learn about a variety of things in order to create a stable grounding of knowledge.10. Aff side bias first and last speech and infinite prep11. No in round abuse dont make us defend every meaning of our interpretation 12. Counterinterp 1 conditional Counterplan and 1 Kritik solves their offense and allows us to attack the aff from multiple angles. Dispositionality BadDispositionality is a voting issue. It is bad for the following reasons: 1. Moving Target The Neg can change the definition of disposition to suit their needs any time during the debate, there is no predictable definition.2. Unfair Aff sticks with the 1AC the entire debate, dont let the Neg kick out arguments3. Strat Skew- Forces the Aff to alter their 2ac to answer arguments that will be dropped. Neg gets to kick out whenever they want, but we cant check back by making perms. Key to Fairness4. Depth over Breadth the Neg doesnt fully develop their arguments because they can drop them at any time, preventing the Aff from learning fully. A strong depth argumentation is better than quick overview on many advocacies. Prevents education5. Time Skew More important arguments get less time to be answered and the time goes to off-cases the Neg will drop in the end. Alters time allocation. 6. Dispositionality is conditionality in disguise. Has the same limits as conditionality and is therefore abusive to the aff.

Reject the team, not the argument; it is key to education in the debate.Dispositionality Good

The negative team should be allowed to run Dispositionality.1.Ground-Dispositionality allows the negative to pick what it wants to drop if the affirmative strait turns the counterplan giving more ground to the negative. 2.Fair- As the affirmative is allowed to run a plan we should be allowed to have a counterplan. Dispositionality allows for the negative to run counterplan. 3.Middle ground- it is in the middle of conditionality and unconditionally giving the affirmative a choice whether to strait turn the counterplan, but also giving it ground to work on. 4.No abuse- dispositional counterplans are the same as case turns and can be dropped at any time.5.Competition- the negative team can pick what is not winning them the debate and drop allowing for the strong affirmatives arguments to go directly against the strong negative arguments.6.Negative flexibility- allows for time to be spent on better arguments because it allows the negative to kick arguments that arent goodDispositionality is not a voter; reject the argument not the team.

Yes Neg Fiat

1. Counter interpretation yes neg fiat2. Prefera. If they get to prove fiat is true, the neg should have reciprocal reasons to prove them wrong. No aff resolution, no aff fiat.b. Education comparing policies is what happens in real policy making Congress checksc. Fairness some things like patriarchy are indefensible and the Neg is bound to the status quo d. Checks small, strange affs counterplans are the only strat Neg hase. Infinite prep checks abuse - the aff gets the first and last speech, near infinite prep, and 2AR persuasiveness allowing conditional options gives the neg the ground to keep up with the afff. Reject the argument not the teamNo Neg Fiat

The Negative Should Not Get Fiat:

Theres no negative resolution. The neg side is supposed to negate the resolution, not create one for themselves.

1. Theres no counter-resolution to justify neg fiat neg fiat creates three problems for the entire debate: A. First: the aff must come up with a solution to a problem the neg causes B. Second: the negative must prove that solution wrong- taking away focus from the real debate and centering it on something that the neg created only makes it worse for the neg AND aff C. Third: moots the 1ac by stealing offense and integrating it into a counterplan

2. This has three impacts:A. first: fairness: Unpredictable it justifies infinite counter plans all with obscure net benefits to beat the case takes necessary aff ground, creates unnecessary research, and therefore kills educationB. second: Ground: Creates shallow case debate neg fiat means the negative doesnt have to spend as much time on case we have an 8 minute 1AC for a reason make them dedicate more than a minute to itC.Third: education: Critical thinking plan focus good focusing on obscure net benefits to obscure counterplans only makes it less educational to debate- depth over breadth

EVEN IF this isnt persuasive enough for you to decide neg fiat is abusive, neg fiat creates an aff vs aff debate. This would create an arbitrary race to the bottom with endless perms and obscure counterplans. Therefore Its a voter for fairness, education, and ground it creates an aff vs aff debate, kills education through obscure counterplans and net benefits the aff can in no way be prepared for, and steals not only 1ac ground but aff ground in general during the debate. **Counterplan Theory**Agent CPs Bad

Interpretation: Agent CPs are only legitimate if they have a corporate specific solvency advocate. 1. voter for fairness and educationkills education because were focused on specifying the agent and we dont get to have a debate about why the plan is good or bad. Kills fairness because the CP steals the affs offense in the round and the aff has nothing to fight for. 2. moots the 1ACthe CP takes away our offense. The affirmative team should be able to talk about why our aff is good and weigh it against Neg offense. Without offense the aff has a large disadvantage in the round.3. Unpredictablethe CP can use any agent it wants, and theres no way for the affirmative to be able to predict and prepare for all of them. 4. Infinitely regressivejustifies ASPEC which progresses to having to specify more and more things which kills the debate because we arent talking about policy, were talking how to specify something further and further. Agent CPs Bad - 1ARExtend our Interp: their CP has to have a corporate specific solvency advocate. This is better for education because it forces the neg to have a real counter plan thats distinct from the aff to discuss and advocate for against the 1AC.1. Extend our voter, debating about Agent CPs doesnt actually result in more education, because we just talk about an agent and we dont learn anything about the actual policy or how that policy affects the world around us. And it kills fairness for the aff because it steals aff offense. Agent CPs Bad - AT: Politics DebateWe can still have a politics debate without Agent CPs, Agent CPs just allow the neg to steal the 1AC and force the aff to debate it. You can still run a politics DA, you dont have to have an Agent CP to do that. Agent CPs Bad - AT: Time SpecThe Neg still gets ground, we can still have time specific debates with Delay CPs, Agent CPs arent key. Agent CPs GoodWe have a solvency advocate and therefore meet their interpretation. 1. Education allows discussion about which agent is best suited to do the plan. Agent CPs increase knowledge about government and the complex parts. By naming a specific agent it increases education about that agent. 2. Politics debate they allow for discussion about whether traditional fiat is the best option and also allow for the politics disad to be read as a net benefit. 3. Time specific makes net benefits time specific which makes the aff defend the actor of their plan in immediacy, thus leading to more neg ground. Agent CPs Good AT: Education

The affirmative team must be able to defend the actor of their plan since they use traditional fiat in order to pass their plan. This is key to neg ground because if their actors cannot be questions it takes away key disads, for example the politics DA.Agent CPs Good AT: Education We dont kill plan specific education we decide who the best actor is to do the plan. This discussion does not kill discussion of outcomes of the plan.Agent CPs Good AT: UnpredictableNot unpredictable all the aff has to do is prove that their actor Congress is better than the agent the CP specified. Agent CPs Good AT: Infinitely RegressiveNot infinitely regressive only a certain number of answers can solve for their plan therefore no over specification can occur.

Conditions CPs Good

Conditions counterplans are legitimate

Counter-interpretation- Conditions CPs allow for better discussions to occur

Standards

1. Key to neg ground It holds the aff to governmental action and immediacy of plan. If the conditions counterplans were absent, the debate would be one-sided. 2. Real world: The real world uses conditions. Internal link counterplans are good because they allow for more real world thinking about these specific topics. 3. Helps the aff: it allows them to add the condition into their plan after the round and debate better because of it. 4. Impact: theres no impact, so even if its unfair theres no reason the debate will be unbalanced. Conditions CPs Bad

Condition Counterplans are illegitimate-

Interpretation: Condition Counterplans are only fair if they contain a functionally comparative Solvency Advocate and if they are reasonable. 1) The Neg can use any number of absurd Condition Counter Plan texts. This is unfair for the Aff because it kills their offense. 2) Condition Counter Plans are infinitely regressive. The Aff has no way to prepare for the countless numbers of arguments the Neg has the capability to present.3) Condition Counter Plans dont focus on the outcome of the debate; only the conditions of it, so its non educational. 4) Because Condition Counter Plans are infinitely regressive, the Aff wastes time trying to answer the numerous amounts of arguments the Neg is able to produce.

PICs Good

Counter interpretation: The aff has to defend the entirety of their Plan text1. No Abuse: the aff checks abuse by perms 2. All counter plans are pics, not allowing them kills neg ground3. Real world: in real life policy making you have defend your entire bill not just the parts you want4. Infinite prep: since the aff has infinite prep time to make their aff they should be able defend their whole plan5. Topic specific education: by allowing the neg to test the aff, it allows for more discussion of the topic and therefore a better debate and discussion of the topic6. Critical thinking: Forces the aff to make stronger and higher quality plan text7. Fairness: the neg has the burden of the status quo, so the aff has the burden of defending the plan text8. Predictability: gives aff stable ground to debate on and not a moving target, the neg can only use functions of the plan.9. Reject the argument not the team: Pics are a voter PICS Bad

Interpretation: PICs prevent education and are abusive.

Voter: PICS are a voter for education, fairness, and predictability.

Destroys education: Prevents education because the aff cannot learn from debating against other plans and criticisms. There is no offense for the aff to fight against the neg because the neg has stolen the affs plan.

Destroys fairness: There is an unfair research burden because the neg does not need to research anything while the aff spends time to create a plan and results in the neg stealing it.

Not predictable: The neg can take out any section of the affs plan, preventing the aff from predicting the neg and prepping for it. Leads to time skew.

Time Skew: The aff needs time to find cards to attack its own plan

REJECT THE TEAM NOT THE ARGUMENT. >:)

Private Actor Fiat Good

Counter-Interpretation: The negative should be able to have private actors facilitate the plan; private actors encompass a huge part of the oceans topic

Provides specific education about private actors- by researching these companies debaters are able to get a wide variety of knowledge about the private actors in general; we access education better

Aff should be able to be tested with all actors to see which one is most efficient- this is real world, in the real world most plans are done by private actors. Seeing debate through a more real world lens is more productive

Only a few private actors with the capability to facilitate the plan therefore its reasonably predictableonly few companies have the resources and qualifications to pass the plan, so that leaves few enough that its researchable

Private companies are very important actors, and those that have the means might do the plan more efficiently they have more expertise and resources Allows Aff to explore their topic more- private actor fiat allows the affirmative to see different, more diverse, arguments made against their case, which actually helps them to make their case stronger

If the Aff gets fiat, its only fair the Neg should get fiat as well- we have to level the playing field of the affirmative and negative, the aff gets infinite prep time and the neg does not, the least we could do is give them both fiat

The oceans topic literally states non-military actors enact the plan and private entities are basically the entirety of the oceans topic

The doesnt have more ground than the affthe aff gets to read usfg add ons

Private Actor Fiat BadVoters

1)(education) - since the aff cannot be adequately prepared for the debate there will be no educational benefits. This is depriving the affirmative of an integral debate skill

2)(Limits)Loss of Aff ground-Private Actor Fiat steals the entirety of the Affirmative and its offense this leads to an unequal distribution of ground and leads to a one sided debate.

3)Fairness- Private actor fiat creates an unfair debate and that makes it impossible for the aff

4)Interpretation- negative must have resolutional actors, this allows for negative predictability

5)Not Competitive- Private Actors are not competitive with governmental ones, this means the CP Is not competitive with the aff

6)Private actor Fiat is infinitely regressive- Agent specification leads to infinite regresivity, this creates an unreasonable burden on the affirmative

7)Predictability- With private actors there are infinite options for the negative. There is no reasonable way that the affirmative can be adequately prepared.

8)No reciprocity- The Affirmative doesnt get to fiat private actors the negative shouldnt either

9)Private actor fiat discusses the process of the plan as opposed to the outcomeInternational Fiat Bad

International CPs are illegitimate

1. Shifts focus of debate from whether or not the plan should happen to arbitrary decisions on who should do the planthis destroys education. 2. No real world applicationspolicymakers cant just assume other countries will enact the plan in real life. 3. The CP artificially inflates the net benefitinternational DAs mean we can still talk about international actors.4. Moots the 1ACdisregards 8 minutes of affirmative speech timethe affs only offense is their case and the neg steals this.5. Unpredictabletheres an infinite number of international actorsits impossible to research all of them. 6. Kills aff grounddebating against the CP is debating against the affit forces the aff to debate against itself. 7. Interpretation: The neg can only have the USFG as an actor to provide reciprocity. International Fiat Good

International actor counterplans are legitimate --1. Tests the aff the resolution specifically says USFG. The CP makes sure the aff defends the actor of the resolution.2. Key to Neg ground restricting other countries severely limits the Negs available arguments, leaving us with only the US. The CP increases the quality of the debate.3. Increases education lets us debate about more than just the US. We can learn about other international actors. The judge is a hypothetical policymaker who isnt rooted in only the US. 4. Increases critical thinking forces the Aff to create a plan that has a US key warrant. Debating a specific part of the plan makes them think of more detailed and educated responses.5. Finds the best policy option key to test if the US is the most desirable actor. Since the ocean is global, its essential to talk about other countries.6. Predictability testing the actors solvency ability should be expected by the Aff.7. Reject the argument, not the team this isnt a voting issue.8. C/I International CPs have a comparable solvency advocate. The Neg only has one actor, just like the Aff.

2NC CPs Good

The negative should get to read 2NC counterplansA. Time Skew: Infinite prep: The counterplan is not a time skew because the aff needs to treat this like any other argument, the aff doesnt need new cards, the aff only needs to extend case, therefore it doesnt take time away from oncase arguments.B. Ground: The neg answered why this is not a time skew therefore ground is not limited C. Predictability: Counterplans are predictable in the debate and introducing them in the 2NC doesnt change the predictability of the argument itself.D. Education: Bringing up new arguments allows the debater to learn more about a diverse range of government politicsJustification: the CP is justified by the ethic that the aff can add add-ons to their first speech AND the 2NC is still a constructive, therefore, we can introduce new arguments2NC CPs Bad

A. Time Skew: If the cards in the first speech are insufficient this is not the negs fault, the aff has infinite prep to change thisB. Ground: the aff actually said that it gives aff more ground therefore cPs in the 2NC does not limit groundC. Predictability: Extend the argument which states that this does not require new cards, the first speech should be enough toD. Education: The affirmative limits the education in the debate by refusing to answer the CP2NC CPs Bad AT: Time Skew

Time skew turn: The affirmative bringing up this theory argument limits the amount of time spent debating the topic rather than so called abuse, the aff creates the time skew.

**Perms**Severance Bad1. Skew- Severance skews neg in 3 ways. First- steals all neg ground. Second- time skews the neg. It takes 2 seconds to sever out and completely waste the time of the 1NC. Third- skews all neg strats. Eliminates all possible DA's because the aff can simply sever out. Neg can't form effective strategy if aff can't just sever out every round. Kills fairness 2. No clash- Aff avoids any sort of clash in the debate and instead opts to lower the education of the debate by severance. Lack of clash kills education.

3. Aff Condo- Aff shouldn't be able to switch their plan at will. This makes their perm unpredictable as they can simply change a few words to form a diferent perm, meaning the aff has an infinite number of perms they can use. Unpredictability kills fairness.

4. Infinite Prep Time- The aff has a lot of time to before the round to choose which plan to go for. There is no need for a severance perm if they were truly content with the plan they chose.

Voting Issues1. Fairness- Fairness is voter. Aff skews neg in 3 different ways, is unpredictable, abusive and validates a vote against them.2. Education- Education is voter. Aff lowers level of education, vote against them.

AT: Real World- In the real world, members of congress can't just introduce a new plan and then immediately back out, which is what severance is. Severance Good1. Real World-Severance is the most real world. Policy makers make amendments to policies in order to arrive at the best one.2. Reciprocity PIC's-The neg is allowed to use a PIC (Plan Inclusive Counterplan) and potentially PIC out of any aff. The aff should be allowed to do the same and use severance perms to check the fairness.3. Reciprocity Condo-The neg can bring up multiple advocacies and kick out of them as necessary, hence allowing them to change positions. As such the aff should at least be allowed to change their plan.4. Perms Check Abuse-The neg is able to read any counterplan or K that have nothing to do with the resolution or plan besides an extra advantage or wording change. The aff should be allowed to adjust the plan and perm in order to check the competitiveness and abuse of the K/CP.Reject the Argument not the team-More educational for both sides.VotersEducation-Real world policymaking is key to education.Fairness-Reciprocity and checking abuse are key to Fairness.

AT:Skew-There is still ground for the Neg to argue, as in the part that was severed. Also, on strat skew the neg is still capable of kicking out of the CP and/or running a DA, T, K, or any combination of the three.

Intrinsicness Good A: Interpretation: The aff can make intrinsic permutationsB: We meetC: Standards: 1. Kills education - It simulates real life scenarios. Saying intrinsic permutations are bad is killing the education my partner and I are trying to gain in the debate. This does not kill negative ground. They can still argue that the supplement will not solve or its harms outweigh its benefits. 2. Research By allowing intrinsic permutations, my partner and I are forced to research more on the topic given at hand. Thus increasing the amount of education we receive from debate. 3. Predictability My advocacy is predictable because when they bring up a disadvantage, they should see that I will have an attempt at solving for the disadvantage. 4. Real world decision-making. When a potential action is proven undesirable in the real world, we do not reject it on face because we are bound to the exact text of our advocacy. Rather, we are able to add on extra things we will do to compensate for that disadvantage. Real-world decision-making is key to education because it is the only way we can learn analytical skills that will help us make decisions that will actually be relevant in real life.

D: VoterA. Fairness is the voter. If one side were to win because of an unfair advantage, then there would be point in the debate in the first place. Thus fairness is an inherent part of debate. If the round is inherently biased toward one debater, the judge cannot fulfill their role of deciding the winner because any issue a debater is winning on the flow couldnt be definitively attributed to their ability as a debater but could rather be an effect of a structural advantage. This is a voter even if they concede the interp because I had to invest speech time to preempt this abuse, which skewed my time and strategy.Intrinsicness Bad

Interpretation: The aff must not add to their advocacy when perming a neg position.

Standards:1. In Round Predictability: The aff gives no boundary to where the plan texts ends therefore allowing the AFF to add in or detach anything making them a moving target. Being bound is key to fairness.

2. Ground: This means when they are adding to their plan in the 1AR they are taking ground away from the neg. Equal division of ground is key to fairness because both debaters need to start on an equal playing field to have the same chances of winning.

3. Time skew - harms fairness because whichever debater has less relevant time will automatically be put at a disadvantage.

4. Real World: The aff simply fiats that something will happen to solve back the harms outlined In the real world. People dont base problem solving off the ideas that something will magically occur. Real world decisions are key to education because this allows us to make things we learn in debate applicable later in our lives.

**K Theory**Vague Alts Good

2NC Vague Alts Justified/Good1. No brightline: shouldnt be a voter, the aff can always argue that any alt is vague because vagueness cant be defined2. Interpretation: if we can prove that the alternative solves the kritik, then its not a reason to vote against us3. Education: vague alts encourage critical thinking which is a portable skill and outweighs, force more research, and allows more more avenues for discussion4. Reject plan text: if they claim that our alt text is vague, you should also reject the plan text because its equally vague5. Theory over substance bad: the aff values theory more than substance, leading to shallow theoretical debates, killing education6. Ground: cross-ex of the 1NC checks alt7. Reject the argument, not the team

Vague Alts Bad 1. No aff ground: they can reinterpret their alt after the 2AC; it makes them a moving target, and theres no stable offense; it makes it impossible to win on the aff since we dont even know what the alt is2. No clash: this is meant to be a debate not hide and go seek; we cant debate about the arguments if were forced to discuss what it actually is first; kills fairness3. Precision: specificity is necessary to education; a vague alt cant solve the kritik because it doesnt specify the methodology with which it solves4. Skews 1AR: The 1AR is already the most time-pressured speech of the round, the neg can reinterpret their alt in the block and read new solvency, forcing the 1AR to spend more time on the alt skewing 1AR time allocation, that forces shallow debating5. Interpretation: they have to be able to identify and specify a significant change in the status quo post the alternative6. Fairness: no clash, we arent able to debate about the efficacy of the alt because its vague7. Fairness outweighs education: you skew the 1ar and that forces shallow debating: theory allows both teams to come to a clear idea about what were debating8. Predictability- vague alts arent predictable

PIKs Good Negative Ground Strat: 1) Piks are the only opportunity the negative has to not just criticize the affirmative with an alt, but to give a way the plan could be put into action with the correct methodology.Education:1) It lets debate look a level deeper at the fundamental issues of the affirmatives ocean policy.Real World:1) In the real world policies go through this same kind of scrutiny over the content and presentation of plans.

Defensive Answers-

Predictability and Time: 1) The pik is in the 1NC meaning it is just as predictable as the K. If the affirmative listened to kritic, it is just as predictable as going for any part of the rest of the K and shouldnt affect the affirmative more than an additional offcase would.Fairness:1) Piks do not change the advocacy of the negative at all. It supports its claims on the K with the correct methodology.2) Piks can be answered with many of the same answers as any other CP. In order to be fair debate would need to exclude all CPs which would crush negative ground.PIK Interpretation:One floating pik is fine if it is competitive through a K that provides an explanation to how it solves the kritical methodology of the affirmative better than a perm.Not a voter, reject the Argument, not the Team.PIKs BadA. Interpretation: Floating PIKS are illegitimate.

B. Standards

Predictability 1) Allows the neg to be a moving target2) Let the neg shift the k debate which is unpredictable and skews what was answered in the 2ac FairnessVoting issue for fairness1) The negative team can just change their advocacy with a floating PIK in the neg block which is unfair for the aff. The 2ACs arguments become useless and the most time pressed speech 1AR gets even more pressured which is unfair2) Impossible for the AFF to answer a floating PIK fairly GroundVoting issues for ground1) Floating PIKS steal Aff ground. They cant advocate against the K if it encompasses their entire case. This destroys the aff ground for offense. This means that the neg can just moot the 1ACEducation Voting issue for education1) This allows the neg to just prep an advocacy that steals the AFFs ideas which destroys education for both the neg and the aff. This makes it so that there is no education in roundC.You need to reject the team to prevent this abuse.