Theory - Scholars

8/3/2019 Theory - Scholars

1/37

Gonzaga Debate Institute 2008 1Scholars Lab Theory File

Theory Toolkit Index

Theory Toolkit Index ....................................................................................................................... 1

Dispositionality Bad .........................................................................................................................2

Dispositionality Good ......................................................................................................................3

Consult Good ................................................................................................................................... 4Consult Bad ......................................................................................................................................5

Consult CPs Bad A2: Most Real World ...................................................................................... 6Consult CPs Bad - A2: not infinitely regressive .............................................................................7

Consult CPs Bad - A2: Dont Steal Entirety ...................................................................................8

Consult CPs Bad - A2: Must Defend Immediacy ............................................................................9

Consult CPs Bad - A2: Aff Side Bias ............................................................................................10Consult CPs Bad - A2: Lit Checks ................................................................................................11

Consult CPs Bad A2: Best Policy Option ...................................................................................12

ASPEC Bad ....................................................................................................................................13ASPEC Good .................................................................................................................................14

ASPEC Good .................................................................................................................................15ASPEC Good .................................................................................................................................16Conditionality Bad .........................................................................................................................17

Conditionality Good Offense ......................................................................................................18

Conditionality Good Defense .....................................................................................................19

Intrinsicness Bad ............................................................................................................................20Intrinsicness Good .........................................................................................................................21

Intrinsicness Good AT Kills DA Ground ................................................................................... 22

Intrinsicness Good AT Makes Plan Not T ..................................................................................23Intrinsicness Good AT Moving Target .......................................................................................24

Intrinsicness Good AT Infinite Regression .................................................................................25

Intrinsicness Good AT No Risk / Irresponsible ..........................................................................26Floating PICs Bad ..........................................................................................................................28

Reject Alts Bad .............................................................................................................................. 29

Textual Competition Good ............................................................................................................30Textual Competition Bad ..............................................................................................................31

PICs Bad ........................................................................................................................................ 32

PICs Good ......................................................................................................................................33

International Actor Fiat Bad .......................................................................................................... 34International Actor Fiat Good ........................................................................................................35

Intrinsicness Perms Good ..............................................................................................................36

Intrinsicness Perms Bad .................................................................................................................37


2/37


Dispositionality Bad

1. Euphemizes conditionalityWe have to perm the CP or they can read add-ons that are non-competitive. Thisanswers their aff choice 2NC. Conditionality is bad Makes the neg a moving target, justifies multiplecontradictory CPs, and skews 2ac time.

2. Strategy skewThe only way we can prevent a time skew is by straight-turning the net benefit, which forces usto eliminate our best defense and causes the 2AC to reveal our strategy, allowing the block to exploit us. Letting

neg dictate aff strategy kills fairness and education.

3. Grounddispo discourages us from making perms, which are key to aff strategy; they serve as a shield against

non-competitive and artificially competitive CPs.

4. Multiple worlds badallowing them to establish a temporary world of argumentation muddles the debate.Debate is about policy option advocacy, which requires consistent arguments to evaluate. The potential for

contradictory arguments is a reason to reject the argument and the team.

5. Not real worldpolicymakers always have to deal with the consequences of any option they propose to thegovernment or public. Nobody says heres an amendment but Ill withdraw it if you make an argument I dontlike against it.

6. ReciprocityWe only get to advocate one policy and cant kick out of it; they should be held to the samestandard. The CP justifies severance and intrinsic perms.

7. Voters for the reasons above and competitive equity.


3/37


Dispositionality Good

1. Time and strategy skews are inevitableSome teams will always be faster, and theory and topicality argumentswill always produce a time and strategy tradeoff. The CP is preferable to these debates because it increaseseducation and equalizes time tradeoffs.

2. TurnWe put the strategic ball in their court. They can stick us with the CP simply by straight-turning it,which means they control where the debate goes. This turns all of their reasons why dispo is bad.

3. 2NR defines advocacywell always pinpoint our position and they get another speech. This is our worldviewon all theory questions and solves all abuse claims.

4. Non-uniqueAll negative arguments are dispositional. The affirmative isnt complaining about us potentiallykicking out of topicality or a disad thats not straight-turned.

5. Best balancewe increases education by allowing real debate to occur on the counterplan, whereas

conditionality discourages the affirmative to do so and skews their strategy, and unconditionality hinders the

search for the best policy option and unfairly restricts the neg.

6. Increases critical thinking by encouraging strategic 2ACs with good time allocation and encourages affs to think

more about the interaction of our arguments.

7. Promotes crystallizationgetting rid of dead arguments allows the round to narrow down to more developedones, maximizing depth-based education.

8. Offense checks abuseeven if we kick the CP, we cant retract any evidence read. That evidence can still formthe basis for a turn, and offense on the net benefit answers our strategy in both worlds.

9. Key to negative flexibilityOur only burden is to disprove the plan. Being able to test it at multiple levels is

essential to neg strategy and ground, which outweighs their voters because neg flex is key to balancing an aff

bias.

10. Err neg on theoryAff gets infinite prep time, the structural advantage of first and last speeches, gets to choosehow to interpret the resolution, and now presumption. Err neg to check this inherent affirmative bias in the

round.

11. Rejection is the wrong remedy. Theres no in-round abuse and voting on potential abuse is like voting on apotential disad. At worst you should drop the counterplan, not the team.


4/37


Consult Good

Offense:

1. Best Policy Option If we win that multilateral action is good then consultation is

the best policy option

2. Education Forces 2AC strategic thinking and increases knowledge of both

domestic and international issues via the net benefits.

3. Counter-Interpretation Only allow consultation with countries that the U.S. has a

formal consultation framework with solves all their offense because there are only

5 possible actors

4. Checks Aff Side Bias They speak first and last, have infinite prep time and have a

higher win percentage

5. Key to Test Resolution

Substantial: Capable of being treated as fact WordNet 03.

Resolved: To Make a Firm Decision About American Heritage Dictionary 00.

Only counterplans can effectively test each word of the resolution disads cant win

alone

6. Key to Check 2AC Add-Ons Only consultation CPs allow the negative to not get

beat by 2AC sandbagging

Defense:

1. Reject the argument not the team

2. Not Wholly Plan Inclusive We dont advocate unilateral action. They can get

offense to working with other institutions

3. Predictable Consultation CPs have been run since Jason Russell was debating - -

they should have blocks by now

4. Lit Checks - Our say yes evidence proves there is a direct correlation between the

country being consulted and the action of the plan - - this checks the Consult

Djibouti CP

5. No Artificial Competition We sever out of unilateral action and have a disad

predicated off of it


5/37


Consult Bad

1. they steal 1AC killing debatability because we cant leverage our 8 minutes against

anything

2. time frame counterplans are illegit they create uniqueness through consulting we

have to defend if the plan SHOULD pass, not WHEN future fiat is illegit because its

not reciprocal

3. Regressive we could never prepare for all possibilities crushing predictability

which is the gateway to fairness and education. 190 some countries, thousands of

international organizations, and billions of humans could all be consulted about the

plan. This is particularly dangerous for the aff given that the threshold for the negs

disad doesnt need to be large if the plan does the case, forcing affs to generate offensive

args against the net benefit when they ought to expect to outweigh these disads.

4. Reciprocity For the purposes of disads, the plan has no contingency, but the aff gets the

right to alter only the nature of the implementation of the plan only to match neg

counterplans.

a. Solves their moving target argument

b. Forces the aff to defend the plan

c. Maintains a balance of aff and neg ground

d. Generates aff predictability which is predicated on the plan.


6/37


Consult CPs Bad A2: Most Real World

1. The counterplan isnt real world politicians dont reject a policy because of the need to

consult someone else

2. Their real world standard is a bad a. its not reciprocal aff fiat is bound by the resolution forcing USFG action CP destroys

competition

b. anti-educational real world consultation is never binding


7/37


Consult CPs Bad - A2: not infinitely regressive

1. Even if whoever they consult is predictable they create the capacity for anyone or any

combination of agents to consult that potential abuse is voter for competitive equity

2. Competing interps is critical The standard that they apply is necessary to judge theallowable range of power of the neg. Only interpretations are not arbitrary, preventing the

only our case is topical view of T.


8/37


Consult CPs Bad - A2: Dont Steal Entirety

1. This is a LIE Consultation risk they say yes means they steal every aspect of the aff

they pass the plan exactly as we defend

2. They create their offense we cant even read uniqueness arguments which means that

the counterplan allows them to create unique offense while taking ALL of our offense

which proves it is unpredictable and unfair.


9/37


Consult CPs Bad - A2: Must Defend Immediacy

1. Either:

A) No part of the text says immediate proves the CP isnt competitive and the perm

solves

ORB) We defend the immediacy of the plan we dont spike out of ANY disads or

counterplans FIAT is the least means necessary - they dont negate the plan,

means that you vote aff because both sides say the plan SHOULD pass

2. This is arbitrary it isnt a reason why passing the plan now is bad it is a reason why

waiting to do something else is good proves that the CP is contrived with no strategic cost

against the negative killing reciprocity

3. this legitimizes DELAY counterplans which are uniquely abusive because they make

debate about absurdity we can never predict, research, or defend against them.

4. theres no offense they have zero reason why the aff defending immediacy in a world of

an artificial counterplan is good for debate


10/37


Consult CPs Bad - A2: Aff Side Bias

1. Consultation Counterplans go too far they eliminate the entirety of the 1ac and

ALL predictable 2ac offense PLUS they give the negative INFINITE PREP against

the aff by creating artificial offense

2. The side bias doesnt exist they block to check any structural aff bias


11/37


Consult CPs Bad - A2: Lit Checks

1. There is no literature yes they may have evidence about X_____ in Africa, but its not

in context of the plan and the CP

2. LITERATURE is a bad standard

A. literature is limitless hemorrhoids in Djibouti, Nietzsche, super-intelligent

dinosaurs proves its arbitrary and provides no fair check

B. not educational its a matter of what is best for topic-specific debate NOT what is

available


12/37


Consult CPs Bad A2: Best Policy Option

A Best policy arguments allows us to use private fiat or make run abusive strategies

if it resulted in a good policy.

B Even if we search for the best policy the search must be reciprocal. Our specific

abuse claim should be preferred over their general warrant.

C Justifies severance and intrinsic perms because those would be the best policy

option.


13/37


ASPEC Bad

First offense

1) Arbitrary. Their interp is always that we have to specify one more thing than is in plan. This

kills aff predictibility, so to meet we would need an 8 minute plan text and the neg wouldalways win on plan doing nothing.

2) Counter Interp: agent is normal means. This solves their offense by allowing debates aboutwhat normal means is, and is most predictable because its in the literature.

3) Neg ground. With thousands of USfg agencies, we could specify them into bad or

unpredictable ground.

4) Counter interp: we can specify status quo plan implementation in cross x. This gives the neglink ground to agent DAs.

5) Checks neg bias Topic.

a) No aff advantage areas.b) Generics. Ks, politics, and domestic agent cps link to everything.

c) Structural. The neg block puts the 1ar at a time disadvantage, preventing good argumentsfor the 1ar or good extensions for the 2ar.6) Justifies agent Counterplans. This is a voter

a) Utopian. No utopian decision maker means that counterplan isnt a test of opportunity

cost.

b) Limits. Real world decision framework is the only non-arbitrary way to limit CPs.c) Ground. No lit assumes a choice between two different agents.

d) Topic education. We already know about courts, were here to research Africa.

And, the defense

1) Potential abuse isn't a voter. There is potential that the neg runs a new counterplan in the 2nr.2) DAs solve their offense. We still learn about implementation.

3) Not 90% of solvency. Elmore is talking about solvency mechanism and implementation, not

just the agent.4) No impact to ground loss. They only lose bad ground.

5) Still resolved.

a) Resolved means we just have to be definite in affirming the resolution, not about the

agent. Their interp means that we are indefinite because we wrote Sub-Saharan Africainstead of listing all the countries.

b) Resolved is before the colon. That means that the USfg is resolved about passage. This is

best because theirs allows an infinite number of k frameworks.


14/37


ASPEC Good

A. Violation The aff should specify its agent within the USfg.

Government power is divided into 3 branches

Rotunda,professor of law at the University of Illinois, 2001 [Richard, 18 Const. Commentary

319, THE COMMERCE CLAUSE, THE POLITICAL QUESTION DOCTRINE, ANDMORRISON, l/n, (m7,06)]No one denies the importance of the Constitution's federalist principles. Its state/federal division of authority protects liberty - both by

restricting the burdens that government can impose from a distance and by facilitating citizen participation in government that is closer

to home. n8 Chief Justice Rehnquist, for the majority, agreed. The "Framers crafted the federal system of government so that thepeople's rights would be secured by the division of power." n9 The Framers of our Constitution anticipated that a self-interested "federal

majority" would consistently seek to impose more federal control over the people and the states. n10 Hence, they created a federal

structure designed to protect freedom by dispersing and limiting federal power. They instituted federalism [*321] chiefly to protect

individuals, that is, the people, not the "states qua states." n11 The Framers sought to protect liberty bycreating a central government of enumerated powers. They divided power between the

state and federal governments, and they further divided powerwithin the federal

government by splitting it among the three branches of government, and they furtherdivided the legislative power (the power that the Framers most feared) by splitting it

between two Houses of Congress. n12

B. Voters

1) Solvency Deficit: 90% of solvency is dependent on implementation

Elmore, Professor of public affairs at U Washington, 1980 [Political science quarterly, pg. 605,

(m7,06)]

Analysis of policy choices matters very littleif the mechanism for implementing those

choices is poorly understood. In answering the question, What percentage ofthe work

of achieving a desired governmental action is done when the preferred analytic

alternative has been identified? Allison estimated that in the normal case, it was about

10 percent, leaving the remaining 90 percent in the realm ofimplementation.

2) Ground: We cant run our specific DAs to USAID or congress, or have competitiveagent CPs.

3) Real world. Policy doesnt happen without an actor.

4) Education. Key to learn about government action and implementation.


15/37


ASPEC Good

Next, the defense:

1) Cant clarify.

a. Theyre a moving target. This skews predictability and ground because they couldclarify to get out of any 1nc arg.

b. Not resolved

American Heritage 2k [The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: FourthEdition, http://www.bartleby.com/61/87/R0178700.html, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin

Company, accessed 6-30-07]

Resolve TRANSITIVE VERB:1. To make a firm decision about

2) Cross-x doesnt check

a. Pre round prep. They dont have to answer questions before the round. This kills

clash because we cant prepare.

b. Not binding. The judge doesnt flow it.

c. Aff burden to specify in plan. We should get cross-x to get links and talk aboutevidence, not clarify plans.

d. Regressive. Affs could read the res as plan and we would have to spend 3 min of

cross-x to find out what they do.3) Aff bias

a. Structural. First and last speech, infinite prep, and 60% win skew

b. Broad Topic. 48 countries and no precise definition of public health assistance

means we cant get specific lit on their case.

c. Moral high ground. Aff gets to help people in Africa.


16/37


ASPEC Good

Agent spec is best for debate

First is education:

a. questions of the agent are critical to understanding implementation thats the onlyway to learn about policy

b. generates in-depth education debates become more focused and we learn more

about specific issues

Second is competition:

a. They justify aff conditionality - kills debatability because they can get out of any

links

b. specification is key to agent CP ground agent CPs are awesome

1. encourages plan focus debate by testing the merits of the actor

2. key to neg ground: lit indicates the plan is not a question of the advantages

but rather implementation3. neg flex is good aff structural bias justifies the CP

All affs take non-topical action Funding and enforcement are necessary for

implementation, but not sufficient to meet topic requirement. Their interp overlimits the

aff.

There are not an unlimited number of potential agents Solvency evidence and

mechanisms check. Only a limited number of people advocate actors for public health

assistance.

Proves the need for CP limits If too many agents are unfair to the neg, then they arereciprocally unfair for the aff. Reject agent CPs.


17/37


Conditionality Bad

Conditionality is bad; its a voter for the following reasons:

Offense:

1. Time/Strategy SkewThey could read 10 conditional counterplans in the 1NC and

kick out of all but the one with the least offense in the block

2. Moving targetWe dont know what the issues in the debate will be until the 2NR

so any offense we put on the counterplan is time wasted; this hurts fairness and

education and makes it impossible to win.

3. Counter-interpretationthey should read their K/CP dispositionally; it allows the

aff a change to straight-turn in the 2AC and checks any abuse. It solves all their

offense.

4. Not reciprocalJustifies the aff kicking case and reading a new one in the 2AC.

5. Justifies severance and intrinsicnessif the neg can change their advocacy

whenever they want, the aff should be able to do the same6. Promotes argumentative irresponsibilitythe neg isnt responsible for their

advocacy- they could run multiple contradictory arguments without any recourse

Defense:

1. Perms dont check abusetheyre a test of competition, advocated perms justify

intrinsicness

2. Neg flex is badThey have thousands of Ks, DAs, T violations, and whatever CPs

they read dispositionally.

3. Its not real worldpolicy makers cant propose competing pieces of legislation and

a senator never unrolls a list of 30 bills they might advocate that day

4. Negation theory doesnt checkthey could force us to double turn ourselvesanswering all of their positions

5. No aff side biasthey have the 13 minute block to the 5 minute 1AR and they have

issue choice

6. A conditional counterplan is different than any other conditional issueit changes

whether were defending our plan against the world of a counterplan or the world

of the status quo

7. There is legitimate abusethe 2AC has already happened; theyve already skewed

our time and strategy

8. Not key to find the best policy option/doesnt increase critical thinkingit doesnt

increase critical thinking or find the best policy option because whenever the neg is

put in a tough position theyll just kick the counterplan


18/37


Conditionality Good Offense

1. Breadth is better than depth

a. the plan was the focus of the debate, and neg. should be able to attack the

plan from multiple vantage points.

b. advocacy training is central to the educational mission of debatec. Its best to force each team to "scan"the available policy options, select one

and debate it to the max

2. Best policy option-many ideas must be compared to the aff in order to find the best

policy option, which is the point of the round

3. Reciprocity-if the aff gets a policy option, so should the neg. The fact that the aff can

perm and advocate multiple perms means that the neg can run multiple conditional

counterplans

4. Neg flex The aff has intrinsic advantages in terms of framing the debate, giving

both the first and last speeches, and win/loss percentages prove. The neg needs a

variety of approaches to answer the aff.

5. Neg theory- Either of the squo or the plan prove the aff is a bad idea. The negsresponsibility is to answer the aff by illustrating opportunity costs to the adoption of

the plan.

6. Real world-in the real world, legislators are allowed to propose and drop new bills

all the time

7. Harder debate is better for debate-forces us to work harder, learn more and make

debate a more productive activity. It doesnt matter if it is infinitely regressive or

not.

8. Best policy option-were here to see which is the best policy option, and that is best

found by having multiple policy options to weigh in the round. This should be our

found in the round, is thus justifies why we can advocate and then drop args.

9. Dispo doesnt solve Limits neg flex, undermines the discussion of policy options,and makes the aff capable of dictating the CP which undermines examination of

logical opportunity costs of the plans adoption, preventing the degree of difficulty

of debates from increasing. In effect, it bails out the aff.


19/37


Conditionality Good Defense

1. Time skew inevitable-if we hadnt run another policy option, we would have just

run another kick-able case arg, DA or K argument, or we could have just had more

arguments on another flow

2. We arent a moving target because we will have to pick one and because the statusquo is always an option

a. All arguments are conditional. The aff will kick advantages and we can

concede disads. All of their arguments prove the CP isnt competitive by

answering the net benefits.

b. If the negative claims that either of two policies is superior to the plan and

one of their policies is shown to be inferior, they can still logically win on the

other

3. Strat Skew is inevitable, and harder debate is better debate

a. The 1AC is stacked with advantages and the SQ is not a policy option, so we

have to have another policy option

b. Increased critical thinking on how to answer arguments is goodc. fewer arguments are not necessarily better

4. Aff bias first and last speech, frame the debate, infinite prep, and win/loss %.

5. Perms check the aff can advocate multiple worlds too. Our CPs simply test logical

opportunity costs of adopting the aff.

6. Debating the Squo isnt an additional burden The 1AC is stacked against the squo,

and typically includes some CP answers too.


20/37


Intrinsicness Bad

A. Ground Intrinsicness allows the aff to get out of any disad, case argument, or

counterplan. Even offense germaine to the plan become becomes moot the aff

would win every debate and kill the activity. Importantly, these moves are

unpredictable, and only predictable ground is useful.

B. Limits Permitting intrinsic permutations to disads permits a world where there

are 30 unpredictable advocacies in the 2AR that they can choose to go for.

C. Real World Education - Allowing the affirmative to dodge arguments directly

related to the plan ensures there is no discussion about relevant topics that would be

discussed when the plan is passed.

D. No checks Just because the aff only uses intrinsicness on one of our arguments doesntmean that the theory doesnt allow essentially washing away of all negative disad links,

especially those on critical topics like politics and economics. The intrinsicness argumentcould always be do the plan and dont raise rates or do the plan and have Hillary drop outof the race.

E. Voter - for fairness and ground


21/37


Intrinsicness Good

Intrinsicness is good. It tests the germaness of the link

1. Most real world no policy maker would ever be forced to choose between giving aid

and striking Iran

2. Better Disads

A. Forces clash and specific research on the topic

B. Checks regressive disads like spending


22/37


Intrinsicness Good AT Kills DA Ground

1. Intrinsicness forces more specific disads. Education is the terminal impact to all theory

args. As long as we win that specific disads are better for education, ground loss doesnt

matter

2. Good teams will always be able to generate specific links

3. No reason the neg gets generic disad ground

4. Its reciprocal to the fiat that the neg gets to CP out of advantages


23/37


Intrinsicness Good AT Makes Plan Not T

1. Intrinsicness is like a permutation to the disad. That means intrinsicness only tests

the direct cost of the Disad. Its not a net benefit to the plan.

2. Non Topical counter-plans mean the judge has jurisdiction over non-topical fiat as

well

3. C/I the resolution only exists as a starting point for the debate. This means the neg

can have all competitive alternatives to the plan, but we still get intrinsicness


24/37


Intrinsicness Good AT Moving Target

1. They get more ground. They can garner offense on the intrinsic disad perm

2. Key to check Advantage and 2NC counter plans which functionally do the something

3. The plan is STATIC. They can still read their case args and disads, as long as they are

good


25/37


Intrinsicness Good AT Infinite Regression

1. c/I The aff only gets intrinsic perms in the 2AC

2. Regression is inevitable. Perms prove. New perms to new disads to perms would resolve

in the 2ar.

3. Not possible. Infinite regression is too complicated to occur normally


26/37


Intrinsicness Good AT No Risk / Irresponsible

1. Counterinterp we one intrinsicness perm per disad. The neg gets one case specific

CP per advantage

2. Germane disad links solve

3. Debate over competition is inevitable. We fiat in disad takeouts that they would

have to address at some point anyway


27/37


K Alts Need a Text

1. Interpretation: The neg needs a written text to their advocacy.2. Reasons to Prefer:

a. Predictability: pinning the neg to a stable advocacy is key to predictable debate.

No ground is usable without predictability.b. Moving Target: Neg needs an alt text so they cant change their alt to avoid

arguments. The impact is time and strategy skew, which alter the nature of the

entire debate. Justifies new args.c. Reciprocity: The aff presents a plan text so the neg needs a written description of

the difference between the SQ and their approach.

3. Voter for fairness and education


28/37


Floating PICs Bad

1. The negative should only be able to pic actual words in plan text

a. plan focus good plan is the only stable ground

b. predictability its more reasonable for the affirmative to have to defend their plan not

any random representation an author may make within the evidence2. Moving target it allows the negative to shift their initial alternative to subsume the

affirmative which skews 2ac answers and is unpredictable3. Justifies no alternative text which is uniquely bad

a. destroys perm ground no way to test the competition of the link

b. justifies aff conditionality -

c. forces functional competition which is bad because its unpredictable. There are aninfinite number of alternative mechanisms to solve the impacts

4. Literature doesnt check abuse there is not reciprocal literature on all issues and the topic

forces us to defend certain things to be topical which establishes a side bias. This solves their affconditionality arguments.

5. Debateability floating pics essentially agree that the affirmative is a good idea, forcing theaffirmative to debate against themselves6. Including the plan within their advocacy justifies perm: do the affirmative because they agree

that the plan is a good idea and that the plan can be done without linking to the criticism

7. Voting issue


29/37


Reject Alts Bad

Their rejection alternative is illegitimate and a voting issue for the following reasons:

1. Ground trade-off They can find anything wrong with the affirmative as reasons to

reject it and generate uniqueness but we dont get to generate any offense which

means they will always control the direction of offense. Ground should always bereciprocal.

2. Education loss We dont get to discuss possible venues to solve the problems they

are indicting. If their criticism is so important, then we should be able to debate and

learn strategies that are compatible with it - instead they make debate a normative

activity where we do nothing which their authors would indict.

3. Double bind Either

a. Their evidence says nothing about rejection or rejection as a causal access to

solvency which means they cant solve and their impact is non-unique. OR

b. They will shift their alternative to do something more than just rejection

which makes their alternative a moving target which is abusive and shifts out

of all our offense affs can never win.4. Its utopian Fiat They can claim solvency and uniqueness by arbitrarily fiating the

ballot as their solvency mechanism.

5. Justifies Our Intrinsicness Perms

a. Their alternative is simply a non link scenario. We cant generate offense

against it or test the link which means the only way to test the germaneness

of their argument is through our intrinsicness perm.

b. Even if intrinsicness is bad their alt requires its usage which means rejection

alternatives are bad for debate and shouldnt be allowed.


30/37


Textual Competition Good

1. Most Objective: A text is the only unmovable way to determine competition, giving a clear

delineation.

2. Justifies delay counter-plans which are bad because they allow the negative to steal

affirmative ground and change when the plan gets implemented.3. Decreases judge intervention: comparing texts is removed from the flow and requires no

weighing of arguments, ensuring fairer decisions and debate.4. Prevents advocacy shifts: Holding a team to text prevents abusive shifts sustaining competitive

equity and ground.

5. Only true way to test competition: Without seeing what plan allows and precludes through

text, competition cant be ascertained.6. Disads solve their offense Its not that the aff doesnt defend their aff against normal means

disads, but that those disads dont deserve the added advantage of wiping away the aff case.

7. Aff predictability The neg isnt the only team that deserves it. Aff predictability is limited bythe wording of the plan text. Some CPs may have advantages theoretically but not meet the

need to make those CPs topical.8. Functional competitions justifies aff intrinsicness If the neg gets unlimited tests of the aff theaff gets unlimited tests of the opportunity costs of the plan which justifies a perm to do x on

another issue. Solves their net benefits while passing the plan, the best of both worlds.

Voting Issue


31/37


Textual Competition Bad

1. Kills Policy Making: debate as semantics turns the activity into who can write goodplans, not what the best policy option for the real world is.

2. Increases intervention: the critic still has to pull texts and compare, which is

removed from the flow and the actual arguments against the counterplan.3. Contextual analysis inevitable: its quite possible to pass conflicting legislation at

the same time. only a contextual lense of how they would interact on the books can show

competition, makig our method best.

4. Encourages shifty debate: adding reject plan to bottom of counterplan text makesany counterplan textually competitive.

5. Allows aff abuse: any do both permutation would win a round because they dontweigh whether the perm is net beneficial, destroying all negative counterplan ground

which is uniquely key on such a broad topic.

6. Encourages and rewards bad plans: Vague plans undermine neg ground and offerthe aff the advantage of clarifying later what the loose plan means. Both undermine

balanced competition.


32/37


PICs Bad

1. Steals aff ground- arguing against a PIC forces us to argue against our own case, hurts

our ability to offensively attack the CP, this ground is key to fairness

2. Breadth is better that Depth- focusing on a portion of the plan is not as educational as

evaluating it as a whole

3. Encourages vague plan writing- allowing PICs allows affirmatives to write plans that

force generic strategies, that hurts education

4. PICs are regressive- allowing the neg to PIC out of one part of the plan justifies them doing

the same in the block and the 2nr, this ruins debate as the debate is never about the topic but

instead PICs that get out of aff offense, this ruins education

5. Clash- PICs limit aff arguments ruining clash within the debate decreasing education

6. Aff Predictability- the negative can PIC out of any country of sub-saharan Africa

exploding the ground the aff has to defend, this ruins fairness

7. Reciprocity- There is no affirmative equal to PICs, they justify abusive perms like

severance and intrinsic perms which makes debate unfair

8. Unpredictable Net Benefits- means we never have the pre-round preparation to garner

offense against the CP voter for ground loss, fairness and education

9. There is in-round abuse- The damage has been done- the 2AC strategy is dependent onthe 1NC, even if you dont buy this Potential Abuse is a voter

A. In round abuse is arbitrary and encourages judge intervention ruining fairness

B. If we win our interpretation is best it proves why what the other team has done

deserves to be rejected

10. Argumentative Responsibility- reject the team, time skew proves the unique abuse of

PICs, it limits the aff in the round, the affirmative must defend all of the plan so should the

negative voter for fairness

11. PICs are not real world- Bills are amended, not rejected based on a singular flaw

12. Disads check neg ground loss- if there is one portion of our plan they think is bad they

can run a DA on it


33/37


PICs Good

1) Checks Inherit Aff advantages Aff picks the focus of the round, speaks first and last and

gets infinite prep.

2) Most real world Bills in congress must defend every word in them, the same should apply

to the Aff plan

3) Best Policy Option if we win that the counterplan is competitive and better than the plan

then it shouldn't matter how the CP works.

4) Competition checks abuse the net benefit must have links to the plan with real impacts

5) Neg Ground PICs are the only way the negative can generate offense against a racism badaff. Without them, the negative would have to defend fundamentally untrue arguments like

racism good.

6) Net benefits checks abuse net benefits are a unique reason not to do the plan, and the Aff

always has offense on the net benefit.

7) No potential abuse In round abuse arguments answer in round abuse, there is no reasonto abuse the negative for something that didnt happen

8) Not a voting issue at worst you reject the CP and evaluate the net benefit against theplan


34/37


International Actor Fiat Bad

International counterplans are a voter

1) Not germane to the resolution

a. Doesnt disprove aff. The reasons that the US should increase assistance are basedon the actions and inactions of others.

b. Not real world. No policymaker would be able to choose between the US andtheir actor. This kills clash and education because theres no comparative lit.

2) Justifies object fiat. Sudan stopping genocide would solve better, but neg would win

every round.

3) Reciprocity. Aff is limited to the US. International fiat gives them 200 actors.4) Regressive. Impossible for aff to prep if the neg can counterplan any agent.

5) Core Education. Their counterplan discusses the agent, which is the same every year,

rather than the merits of our action.6) Research burden. We cant get lit on 200 countries. This kills clash because we cant

engage their solvency or net benefits.7) Their interps arbitrary. Our interp is predictable because we limit to the resolutionsagent. Their interp would always just be ours plus their cp, so they dont limit out

anything.

8) Checks neg bias.

a. Topic. No aff advantage areas.b. Generics. Ks, politics, and domestic agent cps link to everything.

c. Structural. The neg block puts the 1ar at a time disadvantage, preventing good

arguments for the 1ar or good extensions for the 2ar.

And, the defense

1) Not a key limit. Domestic agents, different mechanisms, and topicality check unlimited

affs.

2) Not key ground. Neg gets any DA or K that links and any domestic counterplan.3) No international education. The net benefits solve if theyre germane to the aff.

4) Not ethnocentric. Other countries still act, we just cant fiat them.


35/37


International Actor Fiat Good

OUR INTERPRETATION-

The negative can read one competitive policy option which advocates the action of an

internationally recognized government or coalition of governments on the condition that

the counter plan does not use fiat to eliminate the harms of the affirmative.

DEFENSE

1. Predictable- There may be many international actors, but literature limits the number of

viable options for the neg.

2. Reasonable research burden- The aff doesnt have to find evidence indicating every

other country is bad, only that the US is the best.

3. Reciprocity- The aff can pick harms area, solvency mechanism, advantages and any of

their permutations. The neg should be able to pick any international actor to do the plan.

4. Preserves aff ground- The aff can use the risk of a solvency deficit to weigh advantages

against the CP just like they must win the risk of a no-link to weigh case against a DA-

turns case argument

5. Checks aff side bias- Infinite prep and first and last speech justify

OFFENSE

1. Key to test to test the resolution- International actor fiat tests the words United States

federal government.

2. Increases education- We learn about the USFG through comparative political analysis ofUS foreign policy as it compares to other nations policies. We learn about two nations,

doubling education

3. Real world- International and national actors both present viable actors to trans-

national issues. This is magnified by the foreign nature of the topic.

4. Promotes critical thinking through solvency focus- Solvency education is more important

than harms education because it allows us to evaluate single problems with multiple

approaches to solutions, increasing problem solving skills.


36/37


Intrinsicness Perms Good

First is our offense:

1. Key to checking abusive counterplans Keeping the equity of the debate.2. Force debate about the Aff checks neg from running generic arguments. Forcing

negative to research case specific strategies increasing education3. Improves research burden on the negative intrinsicness perms make the neg research all

possible ways their impacts can be solved. This improves clash and creates more actor

specific knowledge.

4. Increases critical thinking forces teams to think quickly and effectively to answerstrategic permutations.

Now the defense-

1. Potential abuse is not a voter we didn't do it and it's impossible to quantify. Since theballot doesn't set a precedent, in-round abuse is the fairest way to judge theory.2. Reject the argument, not the team the punishment paradigm rewards theory over

substance, decreasing education. Plus, they can't prove a reason why we jacked their

ability to beat the rest of our positions.


37/37


Intrinsicness Perms Bad

Intrinsicness is bad and a voting issue:

1. Decrease clash in rounds- allows the affirmative to get out of every disad or counterplanwith the intrinsic permutation; it discourages participation within the activity.

2. The perm makes the aff a moving target- the permutation advocates the plan and otheraction that the 1AC does not endorse. Stable plans are key to predictable ground and

strategy.

3. Infinitely regressive- The permutation could do the plan, the counterplan, and create

world peace or feed the hungry in Africa, the negative would never be able to predict

which of the thousands of different ways the affirmative could add something to the permto get around the net benefits

4. Time and strategy skew- allowing intrinsicness perms takes all the time the negative

spent developing the net benefit and the affirmative can just test their way out of it, thisincreases the aff side bias and is akin to doubling the 1AR's speech time

5. The perms allow for extra topical plans - which are bad for debate, because the aff canalways claim to be topical by adding on extra planks to their plan text.

6. It's a voter for fairness and education.

Documents

Theory - Scholars