Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Theory Blocks
Theory Blocks Index
Theory Blocks Index......................................................................................................................1
PICs Good.......................................................................................................................................2
PICs Bad.........................................................................................................................................3
Dispositionality Good....................................................................................................................4
Dispositionality Bad.......................................................................................................................5
Conditionality Good......................................................................................................................6
Conditionality Bad.........................................................................................................................7
Multiple Conditional Advocacies Bad..........................................................................................8
Textual Competition Good............................................................................................................9
Functional Competition Good....................................................................................................10
Floating PICs Bad........................................................................................................................11
Floating PICs Good......................................................................................................................12
Multiple Actor Fiat Good............................................................................................................13
International Actor Fiat Good....................................................................................................14
International Actor Fiat Bad.......................................................................................................15
Consult Counterplans 2AC Block 1/2........................................................................................16
Consult Counterplans 2AC Block 2/2........................................................................................17
Delay Counterplans Bad..............................................................................................................18
Severance Perms Illegitimate......................................................................................................19
Severance Perms Legitimate.......................................................................................................20
Timeframe Perms Illegitimate....................................................................................................21
Plan Must Be Done Immediately................................................................................................22
Affirmative Must Have a Plan Text............................................................................................23
Must Have A Plan/Solvency Advocate........................................................................................24
Critical Frameworks Good.........................................................................................................25
Fiat Good/Individual Action Bad...............................................................................................26
No Text to the Alternative – 2AC................................................................................................27
No Text to the Alternative – 1AR................................................................................................28
Performance Bad – Short Block.................................................................................................29
Performance Good – Short Block...............................................................................................30
2AC Answers to Agent Specification..........................................................................................31
ADI 2
Theory Blocks
PICs Good
Increases quality of plan writing: Forces the affirmative to defend their entire plan and only including
those actions that they can defend.
Increases the depth of education: Allows debaters to closely examine all parts of the plan to learn more
about each part.
There’s no ground loss. Affirmative can always prove their plan is better by turning the net benefit.
We don’t force them to debate themselves: just to defend the part of the plan that is not done by the
counterplan.
PICs promote the best policy. Only by dissecting mechanisms and evaluating multiple policies and their
net benefits can we establish the best possible option.
Most real world. Policy makers constantly amend and change small portions of legislation before they can
find a satisfactory end. That’s key to education and predictability.
Literature checks abuse. We have a solvency advocate defending the differences between the plan and
the counterplan.
Resolves aff bias. Affs win more rounds, have infinite prep, a huge topic that kills negative predictability,
and first and last speeches. Any abuse argument they win only proves we increase overall competitive equity.
All counterplans are plan inclusive. Alternate agent counterplans use the same solvency mechanism;
alternative solvency mechanisms use the same actor.
Limits discussion to the minor details: this decreases education about the larger issues of mental health
policy. Under their interpretation, they could counterplan to spend a penny less and compete off of a spending
disad, making our education more about trivial differences than macro policy issues.
Forces us to debate against ourselves: because they concede all but a tiny part of plan, often stripping
us of our best offense.
Disads alone would preserve their ground and check aff abuse. They still prove why the plan is
a bad idea without the ground loss of a plan inclusive counterplan.
Net benefits don’t check abuse. The disad alone would test the merits of the plan and the fact that they
run a PIC means that we’re uniquely stripped of our offense against the disad.
Infinite prep time argument is reciprocal. This topic provides plenty of prep time for the neg and
highly predictable ground for both sides. The so-called “time bias” isn’t a warrant for voting negative on a PIC.
Infinite prep time arguments would nullify all theory discussions. Nothing would ever be
abusive if we have limitless prep time get ready for it. In-round actions prove that’s not a reasonable expectation for
either side, and that abuse still exists.
Plan inclusive counterplans lead to vague plan writing: affs try to minimize the number of things
that the negs can exclude or do differently through a counterplan. This ultimately hurts neg ground more and
warrants rejection of PICs altogether.
It places the strategic ball in the affs court. The aff gets to choose whether we can kick the
counterplan by the answers they make. That checks abuse by allowing them to stick us with the counterplan or grant
out of the disads
Checks back infinite prep and aff flexibility: a huge topic which reduces negative predictability, the
right to choose the case area and plan wording, infinite prep time, the first and last speech, and the lopsided win
advantage all favor affirmatives
Counterplans don’t require more time allocation. Topicality and disads use a lot of 2AC time
also, but that’s not a reason to reject those arguments
Permutations check abuse. Just as we can advocate the status quo or the counterplan, they can advocate
the plan or the permutation provided they’re theoretically justified
Kicking the counterplan only reverts us back to the status quo: Their entire 1AC is a defense
against
2NR solves abuse. If we go for the counterplan, it will be our only policy option and we’ll advocate it
It increases education by promoting in-round strategic thinking, time management, and argument
selectivity while allowing the debate to evolve by those choices
ADI 5
Theory Blocks
Dispositionality Bad
Decreases education: Allows multiple policy worlds which decreases negative advocacy and depth of policy
discussion.
Time skew: Unique to dispo because we have to defend against two entire worlds in the 2AC. Whichever
one gets the most answers they’ll just jettison.
It’s conditionality in disguise. The process of proving a counterplan non-competitive can just as easily
be accomplished by granting substantive arguments as by granting a permutation. Both prove the counterplan is not
net beneficial.
Conditionality is categorically bad. It makes counterplans the only substantive argument in debate that
the affirmative cannot stick the negative with. This radically skews advocacy, time, and encourages contradictory
policy options at the expense of fairness
Counterplans are not the same as disads. They are policy stances which have a unique strategic
interaction with every other argument in the round, proving unique abuse to kicking a counterplan relative to a disad
Net benefits don’t check abuse. The availability of disads to compete on does not speak to the question
of whether jettisoning the counterplan or status quo after the 2AC is fair
Skews 2AC strategy. We can’t read our best offense against generic disads because the counterplan could
claim to solve those, meaning we’re doomed to have bad offense in a world in which they don’t go for the
counterplan or we’re forced to waste precious 2AC time making arguments that the counterplan remedies. If we
can’t re-give the 2AC, they can’t run the counterplan dispositionally
It’s a voting issue. Reject the theory and the negative for the abuse articulated above and the precedent it
establishes
ADI 6
Theory Blocks
Conditionality Good
1. Increases critical thinking – If the negative has multiple strategy options in different worlds, the
affirmative has to think about how to answer all of those arguments, which increases critical thinking
3. All arguments are conditional – not all arguments made in the 2AC are brought up in the 2AR, so
conditionality is reciprocal
4. Conditionality is more real world – you can repeal an amendment, or do away with a bill, or get
rid of an unconstitutional law
5. Best Policy Option – With negation theory, we should be able to test and try different options and find
the best policy
6. Fairness - The affirmative has infinite prep to prepare their case and the negative has to come up with
their arguments on the spot, so they need flexibility in the arguments presented to compete
7. Reject the argument not the team – even if you believe this, you should reject the counterplan, not
the negative team
9.Negation theory – The negative only has to negate the affirmative, not advocate a policy option – the
counterplan functions as an example of an opportunity cost of adopting the affirmative, not as an advocacy of
the negative team
ADI 7
Theory Blocks
Conditionality Bad
Conditionality is uniquely bad for the following reasons
3. Moving target:
We have no idea what we need to refute until the 2NR. At a minimum, you should give huge leeway to the
affirmative because you know what we are defending throughout the round.
4. Dispositionality checks:
Dispositionality gives them the benefits of flexibility without the abuse that conditionality creates – this is the
default status of all other arguments in debate, counterplans should be no different.
6. Infinitely regressive:
This creates a world where there is no check on negatives running multiple contradictory arguments up to the 2NR.
This explodes the ground available to the negative, destroying competitive equity.
Best division of ground: Textual competition as a standard always allow for permutations, which is the
only way to truly test the competitiveness of the plan. Functional competition reduces us to only debates about
exclusivity.
PICS check abuse: Plan inclusive counterplans are allowed under the textual competition standard, just
not THE ENTIRETY OF THE PLAN, which is what textual competition checks against.
Avoids judge intervention: subjective interpretations of how to evaluate the plan only encourage the
judge to inject themselves into the debate.
Forces the affirmative to defend all words in the plan text: This encourages more responsible
and educational creation of policies and careful plan writing.
ADI 10
Theory Blocks
Functional Competition Good
Fair division of ground: Allowing textual competition means the affirmative can advocate doing the
opposite of their original plan – e.g. “ban the plan” would not compete textually. This is a ridiculous
standard for proving competition.
It's key to garner offense. If we only looked at textual competition, the neg could just change some
miniscule word in the plan text that doesn't actually mean anything in regard to what the plan actually does,
like changing "of" to "for". We shouldn't have to defend every word in plan text, just the words that have
any functional meaning.
Key to establishing best policy option: Under textual competition, they could change "should" to
"did" and it would compete
Infinetely regressive: they could change any of the text and make it so it's not physically possible with
a critical net benefit, and we couldn't check its competition because we're just looking at textual
competition, which is key to check abusive counterplans.
ADI 11
Theory Blocks
Floating PICs Bad
1. Infinite regressive: Argumentative responsibility should be viewed holistically. The Affirmative cannot be
expected to know every single word (of thousands) used in one of their speeches.
2. Sacrifices topic education: Focuses debate into an incredibly narrow spectrum that does not relate to the
topic instead of debating about the important aspects of the affirmative plan action.
3. Skews Ground:
Allows the negative to “steal” the affirmative plan with out providing a text with which to test competition.
Textual competition is best (read block).
It is impossible for the Affirmative to effectively debate an alternative that has no text or solvency
advocate.
2. Better plan writing: This leads to better plan writing – affirmatives are forced to defend anything they
choose to include in the plan text, protecting against abusive plan texts.
3. Increases Education: Forces the affirmative to think about the implications of their plan wording, not just
the function of it. This makes individuals aware of the effect their language choices can have and forces them to
defend those language choices.
4. Ground: The plan text is the focus of debate – arguments against any and all of plan are predictable and fair.
Literature checks abuse: As long as we read evidence saying these actors would cooperate and act
together it is a predictable and debatable argument. There is no reason to reject.
Increases education: Forces debaters to research all of the different means and research different actors
for implementing plan – this increases education on competing policy options.
Checks all parts of the affirmative plan: The affirmative has infinite prep to construct a policy that is
the best policy option. This argument allows for a checking of every part of the plan.
More real world: In the real world there are often policies adopted using multiple actors.
Increases aff ground: this multiplies the links that affirmatives have to counterplan action.
ADI 14
Theory Blocks
International Actor Fiat Good
1. KEY TO TEST THE RESOLUTION—forces the AFF to justify Federal action in the resolution
2. KEY TO NEG FLEXIBILITY—AFF has infinite prep, speak first and last, and a higher win
percentage. Furthermore the AFF picks the ground. Proves NEG flex is critical and you should err NEG on
theory.
3. IT’S PREDICTABLE—we have a foreign topic. It makes sense that the NEG should be able to
debate the viability of foreign actors. Furthermore, the literature surrounding UN PKOs deals with
international agents. Proves that international FIAT is both real world and at the core of the topic.
4. KEY TO RECIPROCITY—the AFF gets to FIAT one government, NEG should be able to FIAT
one government.
2. DOESN’T NEGATE THE AFFIRMATIVE—just because X country could do the plan doesn’t
mean the U.S. shouldn’t. Crushes all 2AC strategy and makes it impossible to be affirmative If they can
only compete through a net-benefit, it is artificially competitive.
1. They literally steal 100% of the affirmative plan - it is impossible to generate offense against the net
benefit b/c the CP does ALL of the original plan. Our only offense is based on unpredictable questions of
immediacy and certainty.
2. Kills topic education - which is should be priveleged because it encourages students to learn indepeth about
new and important public policy issue EACH YEAR. The CP just promotes asinine education about "resolved"
which is the same year to year.
3. Infitinitely regressive - there are 180+ international actors or organizations the affirmative could consult.
Given the low standard that judges require for "genuine consultation" evidence, there is almost no limit to these
counterplans.
4. Counter-interpretation - the negative can read any counterplan that is advocated in the literature and does
not do all of the affirmative plan. This balances affirmative and negative ground and promotes topic based
education.
5. Infinite Ground Skew –180+ nations and a massive number of NGOs and international organizations that
the negative can consult make it impossible for the aff to prepare
6. Implementation questions are infinite – they decrease education and critical focus on the topic areas,
decreasing topic specific clash and research.
7. Artificially inflates the net benefit – advantages to the counterplan aren’t intrinsic to the plan. Germane
net benefits should be disads.
8. Preempt – our theoretical position does not exclude all consultation counterplans – it only
requires that the negative have literature advocating that the U.S. consult __________ over the affirmative plan.
9. Permutation – do both – engage in binding consultation with __________ over the plan mandates and do
the plan. The permutation does not sever or delay any part of the original plan – it guarantees solvency.
10. The negative is in a double bind – If __________ says yes to the plan it proves that our permutation is
no different than the counterplan. If __________ overwhelmingly likes the plan, they won't care that they are not
being given a veto in the consultation. However, any risk that __________ says no to the plan proves that the
counterplan has a solvency deficit. Even a small solvency deficit outweighs and turns the negative's net benefit.
11. Time delay risks a massive solvency deficit – consultation is a time consuming process – the U.S.
will have to wait till the next time the __________ meets and generate a consensus for the plan by lobbying other
members. This delay will trigger impacts outlined in the 1AC.
ADI 17
Theory Blocks
Consult Counterplans 2AC Block 2/2
12. Consultations and Incentives can’t solve because major powers don’t agree on rules,
and it leads to ineffective policy
Haass 99 (Richard N. Haass, Chair in International Security at the Brooking Institutions. What to do with American
Primacy? http://americanfuture.net/?page_id=139)
Still, consultations alone—even consultations buttressed by incentives—will not bring about consensus in every
area. Persuasion has its limits. The major powers may not agree on general rules; even when they do, they may not
agree on how to apply them in a particular situation. In such circumstances, it makes little sense for the United
States to work in vain for the emergence of international consensus, guaranteeing only inaction or a lowest common
denominator and hence ineffective foreign policy
DON’T READ THE NEXT ARGUMENT IF YOU ARE GOING TO IMPACT TURN THE NET BENEFIT!
13. Turn – Rising Expectations – one-time consultation sets a precedental hope for future
consultation – but the one-time nature of the consultation in the counterplan – especially on an issue of minor
importance – holds the potential to undermine relations when the Bush administration returns to its unilateral policy-
making of ignoring the __________ the next time an important issues does arise.
Ground: In order to answer any part of the counterplan, the affirmative is forced to argue against itself,
proving that the negative has taken away any affirmative ground in the debate.
Artificially competitive: The forced choice is rigged by the negative – the only reason delay is
considered competitive is because they rigged the counterplan to delay OUR PLAN. They have no
literature indicating that there would ever be an option of delaying our legislation in this context.
Education: The educational focus on US policymaking is lost and we begin to focus only on the
timeframe of implementation – this offers no depth or breadth of education.
1. Fails to test desirability of the CP: The only permutation that truly tests competition must include all of
the plan – this permutation proves that counterplan competes and is non-responsive.
2. Moving target: The changing of the affirmative case in the 2AC makes the affirmative a moving target and
is akin to a 2AC replan. This makes the 1AC conditional and steals all negative ground.
3. Skews strategy: Severence perms are abusive because they devastate the ability of the negative to plan
strategically by allowing the affirmative to pick and choose which negative arguments will actually have weight in
the round, after seeing those arguments.
4. Makes affirmative non-topical: The part of the plan that the affirmative severs out to make the
permutation makes them non-topical – this is a voter for reasons of fairness and ground.
5. Infinitely regressive: Justifies 2ACs jettisoning the plan based on arguments made by the 1NC and
replanning with a strategically more advantageous plan.
1. Its just a test: As long as the permutation includes topical actions, it is a legitimate test of competition.
2. Dispositionality/Conditionality justifies: Reciprocal burdens suggests that if the negative team gets to
advocate dispositionally or conditionally than the affirmative is justified in using severance perms to test
competition.
3. Its not a moving target: We don’t change the plan text from the 1AC, we simply change the text of the
permutation. They should have to prove that our severance is major enough to change the function of our original
plan.
ADI 21
Theory Blocks
Timeframe Perms Illegitimate
1. Fails to test desirability of the CP: The only permutation that truly tests competition must include all of
the plan – this permutation proves that counterplan competes and is non-responsive.
2. Destroys all negative CP ground: Even the most contradictory arguments can be made consistent
through sequencing.
3. Infinitely regressive: Justifies doing the plan than removing the plan to do the counterplan.
2. THE RESOLUTION IS IN THE PRESENT TENSE. This proves that they have to do the plan now
and that future action is negative ground.
3. NORMAL MEANS ARE IRRELEVANT. Normal means describes HOW a plan can get implemented,
not WHEN. Fiat is by definition a non-normal act – it is making congress do something that they wouldn’t normally
do and is used for the purposes of debating the costs and benefits of enacting the plan in the current system.
4. NECESSARY FOR TOPICALITY. They have to prove the plan is an increase; we can only do than by
comparing it to levels of national security RIGHT NOW. Future changes in national service might be different and
therefore they may not be an increase. This means that topicality becomes probabilistic at best, which is a voting
issue.
ADI 23
Theory Blocks
Affirmative Must Have a Plan Text
A. Standards – the affirmative must present an advocate for their plan action.
1. Research limits. If there isn't a single author who advocates the specific policy action there isn't
a definable body of literature on the case. It makes doing predictable research against the plan
impossible.
2. Ground. Without a single real-world advocate that commits the affirmative to a set course of
action they are free to fill the plan with extraneous things or leave out necessary actions killing
our counterplan and disad ground.
B. Violation – Their solvency authors do not advocate their plan action. They don’t read a
single piece of evidence that isolates the specific policy change they advocate in plan text. What
they are trying to do is like reading cards from the Republican platform claiming their orientation
is good for the country and then fiating "conservatism." The solvency is too generic to provide a
clear link to their plan action.
C. Impacts
2. Education - By recognizing pre fiat implications and arguing them we can learn about underlying assumptions
and philosophies behind policymaking. This education is best.
3. Advocate responsibility – As advocates, they should have to defend not only their stated plan and
advantages, but also any of the underlying assumptions or philosophical bases for their affirmative. To be
responsible advocates, you have to defend your advocacy in totality.
4.Real world – In the real world, policymakers consider the ethical and philosophical implications of their
policies or they pass bad policy – we are simply asking the affirmative to do the same.
ADI 26
Theory Blocks
Fiat Good/Individual Action Bad
1. Fiat good. [read theory block]
2. Fulfills purpose of policy debate: Policy debate by its name indicates debating about a policy; by
relying on individual action, we no longer debate whether or not a policy should pass.
3. Self-centered approach: Rather than focusing on the issues that face our country and the world,
individual action reverts to a self-centered approach.
4. Ground: The affirmative is limited to the ground established by the topic, which specifically calls for
federal government action. The negative team arguing that individual action should be the means of
passage is abusive to the affirmative team’s limits in terms of ground.
5. Greater impacts: The claim of the opposing team is that individual action has greater impacts, but
since this case rests on fiat bad arguments, cross-apply our fiat good cards. In this case, our plan has the
greater impacts.
6. Education: Rather than focusing on ourselves, debating the plan provides a means by which we can
learn about the government and the impacts of the plan we pass.
ADI 27
Theory Blocks
No Text to the Alternative – 2AC
A. Interpretation:
A binding text must be provided for positions that advocate a change from the status quo — tags and cards are
inadequate
B. Reasons to prefer
1) Non binding text justify intrinsic and severance moves in the 2NR nullifying an already
constrained 1AR — this moots the 1NC and 2AC
2) A binding alternative is key to affirmative offense — The alternative provides ground for kritik
uniqueness, competition, and solvency — The Aff cannot possibly win a debate unless a consistent
alternative is available
3) Floating PICs — No text justifies floating PlC’s nullifies the plan text and any advantages we
could claim making it impossible for Aff’s to win
C. Voting Issue:
In round abuse is irrelevant — vote to preserve competitive equity
ADI 28
Theory Blocks
No Text to the Alternative – 1AR
b) Extend out first standard — without a binding text, the negative legitimates moves based on
evidence extrapolation to their advocacy: This sets a precedent that would allow text-less counterplans,
as well as affirmatives, urging unpredictable moves in the last rebuttals — the negative could potentially
add alternative solvency and mechanisms to outweigh critical turns or, kick alternatives to provide link
outs from positions — crushing competitive equity
c) If we win the alternative is the most important aspect of the kritik to debate, then
we win — extend that alternatives are the only avenue for affirmative offense since it provides the
uniqueness, competition, and solvency to the kritik — they could potentially create competition at any
point of the debate by not being held to a literal advocacy
2. Functions as de facto censorship: You are no longer free to express your opinions in a standard manor,
you are confined to what the opposing team deems acceptable or important.
3. Encourages judge intervention. The focus on personal experience means that judges will make decisions
based on their identification with the stories/presentations of each team – this evaluation is totally based in judge
intervention.
4. Arbitrary evaluation: Debate is supposed to be a public speaking and advocacy activity. While a debater
may be comfortable speaking in front of an audience they may not be as comfortable singing or rapping.
5. Trivializes the issues we are debating about: They change debate from something that would belong
on C-Span to something that might be seen on Comedy Central – reject the focus on entertainment and vote for
informative, meaningful debate and discussion.
1. Increases education:
a. Allows for an alternate interpretation of the material. Instead of being confined to language one can
experiment with music, dance, or poetry.
b. Allows for a better cultural understanding. In order to perform you must understand the art, therefore
you learn to interpret music and media better.
c. Not only are you researching a single topic, but you expand your search to include a variety of alternate
forms of expression.
2. Increases identification with the arguments: You can use different forms of expression to better
connect with the argument. If we allow songs and poems from or about individuals effected by the issue, we are
better able to understand and identify with them.
3. Makes debate a forum for expression and ultimate understanding. Each individual round can
allow you to experience the same arguments through a different interpretive form.
4. Increases debatability: The level of argument has more breadth when debaters can utilize multiple forms
of presentation. This increases the levels of debatability.
5. Rejecting performance is overlimiting: There is no reason why arguments can not be offered with
alternative forms of warrants. Traditional evidence can be evaluated alongside non-traditional peformative
claims and warrants.
6. Real world: The appeal of music, poetry, etc. within the context of politics is seen everyday – for example,
MTV’s Rock the Vote, rap artists who sing about the death penalty and class divisions, etc. Our form of
advocacy is not new nor unpredictable.
ADI 31
Theory Blocks
2AC Answers to Agent Specification
1. Cross X checks abuse. The negative team could have asked in cross-x for us to further clarify.
Because they did not their agent specification argument is illegitimate.
2. No resolutional requirement. Nothing in the resolution states that we have to specify beyond the
United States Federal Government. The resolution simply states that the USFG should do the plan. If the
resolution was meant to require further specification then greater specification would have been included
in the resolution,
3. Normal means checks abuse. In our plan we state that funding and enforcement are guaranteed by
normal means and we reserve the right to clarify intent. By stating that we use normal means we indicate
that our plan is passed as any real bill would be passed through the United States Federal Government.
This would implicate the Congress, Executive, and Supreme Court.
4. We increase ground. By not specifying our agent we give the negative better D/A ground. By stating
normal means they can run D/As against the Congress, Supreme Court, and the Executive. This is better
ground than the single D/A that they would gain by us stating our agent.
5. Counter-interpretation. The word “the” is a definite article, which modifies the noun that it
precedes. In this case it is the USFG. Resolutionally based, the USFG is the most predictable
interpretation and thus should be preferred in the round.
6. No abuse. The right of the 2AC to clarify should be maintained. It is still a constructive speech and
thus a clarification is ok and predictable. The negative still has plenty of speech time in their negative
block to answer back any clarification made by the 2AC. Thus, there is no abuse.
7. ASPEC is not a voter. for the reason that there is no in round or potential abuse. The affirmative team
takes uses the most grammatically correct and logical interpretation of the resolution and actually
increases the negatives D/A ground.
8. Infinitely regressive. If we specified our agent they would just read over-specification on us – reject
these infinitely regressive arguments and judge us on the substantive debate.