You are on page 1of 3

Condo is bad and a voting issue Strat/Time Skew- Neg is allowed to concede conditional advocacies that have been

n heavily covered by the AFF creates a time tradeoff as well as a strategy skew as the Affs large amount of cards and analysis done on the argument can be pushed of in seconds by the Neg Education- The ability to drop advocacies creates shallow debates and less in depth discussion as the Aff tries to minimize time tradeoff. Real World- Real world policy makers dont have the option to propose multiple ideas and drop all or some, debaters must stick to this model as well in order to grasp the methods in which rational policy makers. Not Reciprocal- The aff cant kick the plan text, Neg shouldnt be able to do this on multiple different advocacies amplifies unfairness. C/I- (Pick One) The Negative should have unlimited unconditional advocacies or should have one conditional cp. Best for fairness and education, takes out the unfairness of ability to kick out of multiple advocacies while adding the greatest internal link to education because we debate about real world ideas. Voter for Fairness and Education- If the Neg gets Condo its justifies a no risk option leading to unfair debates and debaters quitting as every Aff round becomes an uphill battle, also limits education which is a key reason why everyone is in debate as well as its crucial to becoming real world policy makers.


1AR Extensions
Overview- The Negatives use of multiple conditional advocacies allows for a negative framed debate in which they can spike out of affirmative answers within seconds this causes people to quit as debate becomes a sport of who goes negative rather than who can debate the best. Also leads to shallow debate. Without education debate losses a lot of its value to schools and debaters amplifying the amount of people that quit debate, whole teams may even stop debating due to the loss of educational value. Specifically condo is bad because Strat/Time Skew-

Condo is good and not a voting issue Reciprocal- Aff gets to kick their advantages even if the Negative effectively turns them no reason why negative isnt allowed to do the same with advocacies Breadth over Depth- Conditionality allows us to observe and debate a wide range of plans and ideas increasing our education as we learn about a wide spectrum of rational policies Fairness- Rejecting teams on conditionality turns their fairness claims, a slip up in the negative block could be turned into an easy affirmative ballot no matter how the rest of the debate turned out, this causes more teams to quit. Key to Neg Strat- Without conditional advocacies the negative is forced to read less off-case and focus on the counter-plan more in order to go for it in the 2nr. Shallow Debate Without conditional advocacies, CPs are extended shallowly and no analysis is done creates sloppy debates in which little is learned or explained. C/I- The Negative should get one conditional cp and one conditional kritik or two conditional cps and one conditional kritik. Not a Voter- Conditionality is inevitable, voting us down wont solve anything. Plus it should be a reason to reject the argument not the team


2NR Extensions