Theory Backfile To Look at

Neg
Status
Conditionality Good
C/I: ____
This is best:
Neg flex aff gets to pick focus of debate, we need options to compensate
for reactionary and concessionary ground
Info processing multiple options forces 2AC efficiency and narrowing to
their best answers which focuses the debate and increases critical
thinking
Logicproving the CP is bad doesnt mean the plan is good logic is key
to make any skill portable
Ideological flexibility conditionality is the only way to read 1 k and 1 CP,
any alternative results in community schisms.
Skews are inevitable T violations and case defense are no-risk options
and its the negs job to generate time imbalances
They should have to defend opportunity costs any other interpretation
artificially insulates the aff from testing
Theory interpretations are arbitrary and self-serving they move the goal
post to generate cheap wins divorced from substance.
Straight turns check they can stick us with a disad thats not a net
benefit or read offense we cant solve, functionally deciding what we do.
They dont specify their agent---thats a voting issue
They should lose because we lose disad and counterplan ground based on
implementation and dont know how the plan is enacted-voting issue.
2NC Condo Good(McCoy)

Conditionality is the most logical [they dropped it and are out of
constructives] that outweighs you make logical decisions every day
2AC pressure forces strategic thinking considering argument interaction
and tactical choices is a key skill.
Encourages research rewards multiple good strategies and punishes bad
affs balances the quality and quantity of arguments
Creates rigorous advocacy skills the aff must defend the plan from all
sides
Neg ground requires flexibility 2AR depth, 1AR leeway, no topic DAs,
inevitably blippy 2ACs
Skews are inevitable we could read more T or case arguments
[Block and] 2NR check narrows the debate for more depth
CI ________ advocacies checks regression.
[Dispo is condo aff will always perm]

Reasonability Competing interpretations for theory is arbitrary and
crowds out substance we dont justify contradictions or 10 CPs
Uncondo Good
Fairness
It is easier to predict
Aff can pick best 2AC strat without risk of skewing.
Education - Forces the neg to fully research both sides of the argument
before entering the debate.
Most Real World Policy makers have to defend the notions of plans
proposed.
Depth is better than breath Education is not gained through number of
arguments but through in depth analysis on few.
Reject the arg not the team.
Err Neg: Theory is a zero sum game for the aff
Interpretation The neg gets ____ Unconditional advocacies.
Creates coherent strats that can be prepared outside of the round
Disincentives shady strategies
Dispo Good
Education
Best policy option real policy makers are never confined to just one
solution to a problem or forced to pass it no matter the consequences.
Forces strategic 2AC answers promotes critical, in-round thinking from
the affirmative.
Ground -Neg flex Our only burden is to disprove the plan. Arguing from multiple
levels is vital to negative strategy which outweighs because its key to
checking aff bias and we have a right to make strategic 2NR decisions.
Non-unique -- All other negative arguments are dispo.
Time skew is inevitable for the aff with 13 minutes in the block.
Aff choice -- the aff literally decides whether or not the neg can kick the
cp.
Err neg on theory aff gets first and last speeches and unlimited prep.
Not a voter -- Reject the argument not the team.
Fiat
50 State Fiat Good

Having the state government work is key to check the federal key
warrants for in the United States part of the resolution.
Real world arguments should not be weighed. Debate is not real world; if
it were then the earth probably would have been blown up by nuclear war
by now.
Reciprocity - 50 states acting in uniformity act functionally as one actor.
We increase aff ground when they can read a DA on any one of the 50
states.
Err neg on theory aff gets first and last speech plus unlimited prep time.
Not a voting issue reject the argument and not the team.
International Fiat Good

Education we get to learn more about the rest fo the world, just sticking
to US policy is an unrealistic approach to policy making
Evidence the negative can only fiat actors that we have evidence for
The affirmative must prove that the US should do the plan but if we can
prove that another actor should instead, cast a negative ballot.
Key to topic International action and domestic action are compared in
the literature
Multi Actor Fiat Good

Ground
Turn: each new actor is more ground for the aff to turn or read disads to.
Key to negative ground everything except for the plan is fair game after
the 1AC and key to neg flex.
Education
Most real world We learn about the interaction between the different
relevant various policymakers. There is never just a single actor.
Best policy option if the best policy option is with multiple actors than
that is better for education.
3. Multi-actor fiat is default the aff automatically fiats 500 congressman,
the president, and the courts alone.
4. No reasonable regress as long as we dont fiat two random obscure
actors we should be entitled to more than one.
5. Err neg on theory aff gets first and last speech plus infinite prep
6. No voter - reject the argument and not the team
Neg Fiat Good

The negative should get fiat:
Reciprocity if the aff gets fiat, the neg should too
Key to negative ground the aff gets 8 minutes of pure offense in the 1AC,
we need ways to soak some of that up through CPs
Best for testing the affirmative tests the specifics of the plan
Specificity tests the 1AC in more specific ways, which is key to critical
thinking
Allows for more diversity in debate makes debate more interesting than
simply disad vs advantage constantly
Consistently fair the status quo often changes, conditional worlds allow
for us to adapt so that times like an economic recession dont completely
skew the debate
Err neg on theory aff gets infinite prep and first and last speeches
Counter-interpretation: neg gets ___ actors to fiat in ___ worlds sets a
limit on negative fiat while still solving our offense
Not a voting issue at most, you should reject the fiat-ed off-case
positions.
Private Actor Fiat Good

Best policy option allows debate about which actor is the best to fiat,
and executes the plan properly. Finding the best policy option is key to
education
The Affirmative is responsible for its agent the aff has lots of time to
think about their plan, they should be responsible for picking the best
agent
Literature the literature exists and the counterplan exists to check if the
aff has really chosen the best actor its a test of the agent
Utopian Fiat Good

We meet - Explain why youre not utopian
Better for education utopic solutions to lifes problems can help us
visualize actual policy solutions because they can stimulate physical
change in the way policy makers think.
Ground
Key to kritik alternatives which is key to negative ground.
Turn: If we are utopic, the alternative would likely be sweeping and affect
all sectors of society meaning they can more easily garner some type of
offense.
Lit checks solvency advocates prove the plan/alt is legit
Reasonability as long as we can prove that we are realistic you cant
vote on this.
Err neg on theory -- aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep.
Not a voter - Reject the argument not the team.
CP
Delay CPs Good

Critical Thinking: Evaluating all instances of the plan is key to best
education about policy making because it forces aff to think about why
now is key to solve
Ground: No delay counterplans mean the neg loses disads that are net
benefits to the delay CP, neg loses the few topic-specific arguments that
they have
Research: Forces the aff to research any potential reasons to delay the
plan
Test of the word resolved because they have to prove they are resolved
to act now.
Doesnt steal aff ground: timeframe of impacts checks, the aff gains
ground and arguments against the delay
Predictable: Delay CPs are on every topic so the aff should be prepared
Topic-Specific Education: we still talk about your aff, the CP only changes
the timeframe of itvand if not, allowing for innovation and out of the box
thinking is good for education, unique, and the DA we read with the Delay
is topic specific
Time and strat skew inevitable
Perm checks: aff still has the ability to perm if the timeframe doesnt work
Reject the argument, not the team
Conditions CPs Good

Conditions CPs help education, they give a deeper understanding of the
issue and help find best policy
Conditions CPs are not impossible to prep, the aff knows the issues of
their aff and they can always do say no
Perm is not only option, aff can challenge competitiveness
This is not a cheap shot - It is harder for us to prep this than them
Unfair for neg: it will totally kill our strategy and ruin the debate
Conditions CPs help the aff, they can always add the condition into their
plan post round and debate better because of it
No impact: Even if unfair, there is no reason that it will unbalance debate
2NC AT: PICs Bad

PICs are good---first our offense:
Strategic costs and benefits---the aff chose to have the plan affect both
ocean and lake-based wind and gained a strategic benefit from doing so--they should have to defend the costs of that choice
Advocacy skills---PICs incentivize finely crafting proposals and thinking
through all decisions---most real-world---excluding them encourages
sloppiness---solves their offense
Education---encourages in-depth debate and research about fine details--anyone can learn to give the same generic 2NR on ASPEC---uniquely key
for policymakers and academics
Now our defense:
Net benefit checks abuse---they can impact turn it
Literature checks---prove they should be able to research answers
Err neg---aff speaks first and last and has infinite prep so they should be
able to defend their full aff
Reject the argument, not the team
Floating PICs Good

Education Forces better case writing makes the plan be specific from the 1AC.
Best policy option makes the aff defend the entire plan and is key to
finding the best policy option which is best for education.
Ground
Predictable if you say something offensive, you should be prepared to
defend it.
Representations matter key to rejecting racist slurs or arguments like
genocide good.
Err neg on theory aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep.
No voter -- Reject the argument not the team.
Agent CPs Good

Predictable aff should have prepared, theyre run every round and our
actor is completely legit and not obscure.
Key to negative ground agent counterplan make up the core of the
negatives strategic options and not getting them is grossly unfair
towards the aff.
Increases aff ground they can turn or read offense against our agent to
win the round.
Lit checks abuse there arnt many actors through which to do the plan ,
the aff had the same opportunity to research and write answers as we did
Not a voter reject the argument and not the team
Err neg on theory aff gets first and last speech plus unlimited prep
Consult CPs Good

Counter interpretation we can only do consult counterplans written
about in the literature base.
Lit checks abuse Checks squirrely consult Trinidad counterplans not
central to the topic. There are only a few reasonably grounded
counterplans which they should have prepare for which checks back all
their ground and education standards.
Key to real education
Real world - Crucial to understanding the details of international policy
issues, relations, and how the United States frames multilateral issues
which is a better internal link into education because its the point of
debate.
Best policy option consulting with another agent is crucial to testing
whether the aff is the truly the best course of action.
Neg Ground
Predictable only allowing reasonable consultation steeped in the core
neg ground which the aff can prepare for.
Neg Flex consult counterplans are key to negative flexibility and
checking back unpredictable affirmatives.
2NC CPs Good

Education
Forces critical thinking makes the 1AR use specific, critical and in-round
thinking which only makes debate more educational.
Breadth vs. depth new counterplans allows a wider coverage of the
various policy solutions to the alternative.
Ground
Its reciprocal new in the 2 is key to checking back new 2AC add-ons
Its still a constructive which means we can still introduce new
arguments
Err neg on theory aff gets first and last speech and infinite prep
Reject the argument not the team
Lopez CP Good
Multi-actor fiat is default the aff automatically fiats 500 congressman,
the president, and the courts alone. No reason why one more actor is any
worse.
Increases aff ground they can read a courts disad.
Increases education we can learn about how the judicial branch and the
constitution interact with federal policy.
Err neg on theory - aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep.
Object Fiat Good
First, Our Offense

A)
Plan specific education - Object fiat forces the aff to defend all of
their plan this leads to plan-specific education
B)
Inherency Forces the affirmative to defend why the status quo
cant solve focuses debate on inherency which leads to plan specific
education
C)
Germaneness tests the germaneness of federal action to the
impacts this makes sure that the aff cant claim ridiculous advantages
key to preventing unfair advantages and destroying fairness
D)
Policy Education Object fiat concentrates debate on American
policy policy education is better than all education because it is real
world
Next, Our Defense

A)
Going neg is harder the affirmative speaks first and last, has
infinite prep, and chooses the topic for this debate
B)
Theory Debates are Bad They promote the same debates, and
detract attention from substantive debate, the key internal link to
education
C)
And, Theory is not a voter running a bad counterplan does not
justify dropping us.
Multi Plank CPs Good

Offense
Real World in Congress they suggest bills that do multiple things. The
neg shouldnt be restricted to one action
Key to Best Policy Option Bills can have multiple planks and key to allow
CP to solve for the aff
Critical Thinking requires more in depth discussion of the argument
leading to in depth discussion on one argument
Generate Offense Only way for neg to generate offense and checks aff
Key to Neg flex the aff gets to chose the subject of the debate and gets
to speak 1st and last. By allowing the neg only one plank you restrict the
limits
2. Defense
a. Lit checks abuse real policy options have multiple planks and we have
solvency advocates which means that the counterplan should be
predictable
b. No strat skew the affirmative always get the aff and can read add-ons
to counterplans
c. More eduction this requires the aff to cover more then a simplified one
plank CP which requires more research on the topic
d. Reject the argument not the team
Other Theory
No Alt Text Good

Ground
Kills neg flex our entire kritik cannot be limited to single sentence, kills
negative blocks strategic options.
Breadth the less specific we are the more ground they get for turns and
they can still perm.
No moving target our alternative is still grounded in the alt card.
Education -Cross-x check abuse they could have gotten us to clarify a specific part
of the kritik if they didnt understand it in our speech. We would have
defended it.
Critical thinking-- Condensing the critique into a one sentence alternative
allows the affirmative to not critically think about what were critiquing
No Solvency Advocate Good

Education
Limits they discourage analytical debate, our interp. encourages aff
critical thinking which is key to policy debates
Real world people propose different solutions to problems every day.
Ground
Moving target good key to negative flexibility and strategy, which
outweighs AFF flex
Common sense - Aff can still make common sense methodological answers
to the counterplan
Reasonability we shouldnt be forced to have evidence for every
argument we make.
Advocating Perms Bad

Unpredictable The affirmative should only advocate the plan and nothing
else. Not doing this kills predictability which is key to clash.
Makes them untopical not advocating just the aff makes them extra
topical and is an independent voting issue for ground an education.
Kills education shifts away from learning about the topic
Err neg on theory aff gets first and last speeches plus unlimited prep.
Voting issue for fairness, ground and education
Vagueness Bad
Vagueness kills ground
Moving target: Vagueness can make the aff a moving target which kills
predictability they can spike out of disads or change plan planks vital to
the function of the counterplan.
Time and strat skew all our arguments are predicated upon the plan text
as per the 1AC. Later clarifying actual implementation is completely
abusive.
It slays education
Sketchiness -- If the plan is unclear, we cant learn about the specific
results of the plan because the details of actual implementation are murky
at best and which kills education about real world policies.
Generics Unclear specification means stuck with running generic
arguments to just guarantee a link.
Err neg on theory aff gets first and last speech plus unlimited prep.
Voter for fairness and education.
Perms
Intrinsic Perms Bad

Kills Education shifts the debate away from the plan and to extra topical
portions
Makes the aff extra topical which kills all disad links.
Ground
Makes the aff a moving target because the perm can always just add
things to their perms.
Not predictable they can just add anything to the plan they wont and it
removes the debate away from the resolution
Kills all disads they could just add an intrinisic perm to any disad to
solve the impacts.
Justifies infinitely conditional advantage counterplans for the neg.
Voter for fairness, ground, and education.
Intrinsic DA Perms Bad

Destroys neg ground they can just destroy all our links with a 5 second
perm which is complexly abusive because it takes out any chance of the
neg ever winning a disad.
Hurts education if we cant ever debate the links, we can never learn
about the potential side effects of the policy options.
Time skew/strat skew they can just perm any disad and force us to
answer it with theory and just kick out of it later.
Voting issue for fairness, ground, and education.
Multiple Perms Bad

Time skew they can just read 11 perms in 20 seconds and force us to
answer all of them which is hugely unfair.
Strat skew if we want the cp to stay in the round we have to spend all
our time answering the perms and we cant adequately cover the net
benefits.
Multiple conditional advocacies bad its a no risk answer to every k or
counterplan because they can just kick out of all the perms we answered
and extend the ones that we barely covered.
Interpretation the aff is allowed one perm per counterplan/k that must
include the entire aff and all or part of the k/cp to check competition and
anything else is an illegitimate advocacy.
Double bind: must be either severance or intrinsic
Anything other than our interp means the either the aff is no longer
advocating the entity of the plan which is bad because it kills
predictability OR
Its intrinsic because they are arguing something completely new which
makes them a moving target and untopical.
Err aff on theory- neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the
debate by strategically picking certain arguments.
Voter for fairness, education, and ground
Perf Con Good

Interpretation: well only take one in the 2NR and wont cross apply
contradictory answers.
Negation theory we just have to prove that the plan is a bad idea.
Multiple worlds good key to negative ground and negative flexibility and
increases strategic thinking.
Err aff on theory -- neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the
Not a voter reject the arg not the team.
Severance Perms Bad

Education We no longer learn about the specifics of the aff plan because
they can just kick out of it with the perm.
Destroys fairness- they can just spike out of any net benefit by kicking out
of strategic areas of case.
Ground Severance perms allow the aff to fiat a win by avoiding our
offense.
Voter for ground, fairness and education.
Timeframe Perms Bad

1. Time Frame Perms are Severance and Intrinsic- The way in which the
perm is arranged either adds part of the CP to the plan and then does
only part of the plan or does part of the plan and adds part of CP
2. Severance Perms Make the Plan Conditional- By being able to kick out
of part of the plan text mandate you make the plan conditional
3. Intrinsic Perms are Bad for Education- They encourage shallow
research, because what the perm adds to the plan is just stolen from the
CP, so no one will want to put time into a CP
4. Time Frame Perms Skew the NEG- The NEG has to spend much more
time answering a time frame perm, because it is unpredictable and makes
the NEG answer all the possible outcomes of the perm
5. Time Frame perms are a voter for fairness and education
Aff
CP Status
Conditionality Bad
Conditionality is a reason to reject the team
First, crushes 2AC strategythey can cross apply our offense to other
flows to use against us or kick positions we invest vital 2AC time inthats
irrecoveralbe
Second, kills informed decision-makingflips their logic arguments
because it creates structural incentives against depth of argument testing
no matter the number of debates we never conclusively vet arguments
Counter interpretation [___] condo solves their offensefair middle
ground that preserves neg flex and avoids our offense
Their counter interpretation is arbitrary and links to their logic arguments
Dispo Bad
Kills Education
Conditionality in disguise the neg knows it puts us at a strategic
disadvantage to straight turn the cp/k so they can just kick them later.
Not real world policy makers have to deal with the consequences of
proposing an action. They cant just pretend they didnt read it if someone
questions them about it.
Ground
Strategy and time skew the neg can just read a bunch of dipso
counterplans and moot 2AC answers by kicking almost all of them in the
block because the aff cant fairly turn all the different counterplans.
Race to the bottom Forcing the aff win offense on the counterplan by
straight turning vs. the negs net benefits leads to a race to the bottom.
Perms key to aff ground checks back non-competitive and artificially
competitive counterplans
Straight turns dont check its suicide not to perm in most instances, it
puts the neg into a strategic advantage.
Reciprocity the aff is forced to stick with one advocacy, so should the
neg.
Err aff on theory debate has changed, statistically neg wins more rounds.
When was the last time you wanted to be aff in an outround?
Voter for fairness, ground and education
Uncondo Bad
Education Breath is better than depth The more arguments presented the easier it
is to achieve education on a variety of flows.
Strategic Thinking Strategically choosing a 2NR strategy is part of the
education gained in debate.
Diversity Debate will stagnate if strategic block choices are limited to
unconditional advocacies.
Defense
Real World Education Policy makers dont stick to one plan of action,
they change to improve conditions.
Limits The neg over limits debate by forcing negatives to choose only
one option.
Interpretation
Dispositionality good
Solves diverse strategies by allowing negative choice.
Sets the best limits because the neg can strategically pick dispositional
advocacies with the ability to kick from them.
Fiat
International Fiat Bad

Agents must be limited to the US
Unpredictable millions of INTERNATIONAL actors, and by limiting actors
down to United States Federal Government ensures clash
No education No policy maker has the option of doing something through
either the USFG or another country doing something, which lowers our
education and clash.
Neg Fiat Bad

The negative shouldnt get fiat:
Best for testing the affirmative fundamentally questions whether the
plan is good or not, rather than shifting the debate to whether or not
there is something better than it
Best for breadth of education counterplans allow the negative to steal
the plans offense, shifting the debate to miniscule net benefits versus the
plan as a whole
Critical thinking forces the teams to weigh large and different scenarios
rather than a relatively unimportant net benefit
Steals aff offense allows them to nullify our 1ACs offense by using it as
their own
Explodes aff research burden neg has infinite disads, the aff shouldnt
have to prep for CPs and Ks either
Err aff on theory neg gets the block and infinite generics
This is a voting issue for fairness and education set a precedent against
bad practices. Even if you dont buy this, you should limit the debate to
plan vs. plan.
Multi Actor Fiat Bad

Ground
Not reciprocal we are stuck with just the USFG, they should be limited to
one other actor too.
Education
Infinitely regressive there are an infinite number of actors which the neg
can use in combination.
Unpredictable because there are so many different actors we cant
predict the various combinations to research answers to which kills
education and destroys clash
Err aff on theory neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the
Voter for fairness, education, and ground.
50 State Fiat Bad

Education -- Not real world- the 50 states have never cooperated on a
single issue in uniformity since the founding of the U.S.
No lit. - There is no literature for or against all the states cooperating.
Justifies multiactor fiat 50 actors against one actor can never win. If we
target one of the actors the neg can say the other 49 will check which is
key to reciprocity.
Err aff on theory - Err aff on theory neg gets the block and can control
the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments.
Voter for education and fairness.
Private Actor Fiat Bad

Strat Skew Moots the entire 1AC and steals aff ground
Education shifts the debate away from the resolution, destroying
education
Kills in depth topic debate debates about private actors reduces policy
action and debate, which gets rid of in depth education on the topic.
Utopian Fiat Bad

Bad for education:
Not real world -- By definition, we can never learn about practical policy
solutions. While nice to think about, an imaginary world is ultimately
useless.
Education outweighs Learning about real world is a better internal link
into education because its the only bona fide product of debate.
Annihilates Ground -- We can literally never win a debate when the other
team can just imagine away all of lifes problems.
No literature aff/neg cant research answers to utopian positions
because they simply DONT EXIST.
Voter for education, ground, and fairness
Specific CP
Delay CPs Bad

Kills FairnessGround- steals all aff ground because we cant read add-ons or make
solvency defects to the CP there is no lit comparing the squo and the
future
Future Fiat Bad It is impossible to predict whether or not it will be
possible to do the plan in the future. Destroys Uniqueness.
Inflates the Net-Benefit- reading a delay CP avoids the link to disads
simply by doing it at a later time
The CP is Non-Competitive- The plan and CP create the same end result
with no functional competitiveness and have no textual competitiveness
either, stealing our entire AFF, and only adding a delay
Encourages Cheap Shot Args- The NEG will increasingly run shorter offcase CPs that they only created to accompany a DA and inflate the netbenefit- which leads to time skew
Strat Skew- The time it takes to read a Delay CP in the 1NC and the time it
takes to answer it with all newanalytics is hugely disproportionate
Encourages Future Abuse- Every time someone runs a cheating CP it gets
a little closer to the AFFs plan; dont let this round set the precedent that
it is ok to run a non-competitive CP and get away with it-kills education
Defense
Perms Dont Check- Why should the AFF have to win the plan twice? The
CP is non-competitive a perm should always win
NEG Side Bias- They have the whole block to advance their CP, they dont
also need to run a cheating CP-Err AFF
Delay CPs are a voter for Fairness, Education
Conditions CPs Bad

Steals the AFF the neg should not be allowed to take all aff ground
Fairness - It allows the neg to take all of our ground by just attaching a
condition and keeps us from perming. You can win on nothing but an
unrelated NB.
Education It ruins the debate by creating a world where you arent
debating the best policy
Abusive - We cant argue every change the Neg can think of.
Predictability- It changes the debate; untopical item doesnt help with
understanding.
Counter Interp: Legit if it they have a comparative solvency advocate
PICs Bad
Bad for education
Unfair: makes the aff debate themselves.
Resolutional shift: concentrates the debate on insignificant aspects of the
counterplan
Encourages vague plan writing to avoid PICs.
Ground explodes neg ground because there is an infinite amount of
things that they can pic out of.
Voter for fairness, ground, and education.
Floating PICs Bad

No solvency advocate kills resolutional education, make them read
specific solvency and a plan text.
Education their advocacy can shift in round which means we can never
debate the specifics of the texts.
Ground
Moving Target no text means the neg can constantly change their
advocacy throughout the debate which is bad for aff ground because it can
render 2AC meaningless by the 2NR.
Unpredictable -- The PIC steals affirmative ground and allows them to
solve our affirmative in a 15 second blip. This is totally unpredictable and
forces the aff to perm every part of the 2nc to cover their bases.
Voting issue for fairness, ground, and education.
Agent CPs Bad

Ground Forces the aff to debate against itself a solvency deficit to the
counterplan is a solvency deficit to the plan.
Neg bias there are tons of actors just within side the federal
government, destroys our fed gov key and affirms the resolution.
Unpredictable there are literally thousands of actors the neg could
choose and theres no way the aff could prepare for all of them which kills
clash and education.
Voter for fairness, education and ground.
Consult CPs Bad

Consult kills education
Its infinitely regressive we cant predict all the different combinations of
actors and policy changes to the plan which shift the debate from the
resolution to irrelevant net benefits and insignificant policy differences.
Amendments bad no one can predict what will be changed without
specific lit which kills education and clash as the aff cannot research for
answers because they simply dont exist.
Kills Ground
Time and strat skew they can steal all the offense from the 1NC by
simply proposing that we listen to some random countrys opinion.
Not textually competitive: The counterplan merely adds the words in
consultation with, to the original plan text. Textual competition is the only
non arbitrary default on counterplan debates.
Not functionally competitive: The neg cant produce evidence that
<<insert actor>> would have specific modifications to our plan. Instead,
they rely on moving-target fiat to fill in solvency, links, and uniqueness
which are all core tests of competitiveness. Thats an independent voter
for fairness.
Plan Plus: The counterplan is plan plus which justifies aff intrinsic and
timeframe perms. This justifies an aff win because the negative can
virtually concede case and just add an extra topical plank.
Voting issue for ground, education, and fairness
2NC CPs Bad

Interpretation the neg may only read new turn, extensions or modules in
the 2NC to check back unpredictable 2AC add-ons. The interp solves their
education standards while leaving ground open for both sides.
Education
Depth over breadth its best to compare policy options in depth because
we can learn about the specific implantation and nuances of the plans and
how they work in regards to the resolution.
Ground
Sandbags the 1AR the neg can just ignore the all the 2AC responses and
read new counterplans which means the 1AR will inevitably get thinned
out which gives the neg an easy win in the 2NR.
No more constructives the aff doesnt get a 3AC to answer completely
new 2NC arguments.
Voter for ground, education and fairness
Lopez CP Bad
Justifies multi-actor fiat the cp uses multi actors which jacks
predictability and allows the neg to selectively pick actors to out solve the
aff.
No literature there is zero evidence on a Supreme Court ruling to devolve
power to the states and then have complete uniformity. Lit is crucial for
predictability and aff offense.
No test case they cant fiat a test case occurring otherwise its object fiat
which is an independent voter because it means they can essentially fiat
anything.
Artificial competition the counterplan is only artificially competitive by
banning the plan, which destroys fairness and doesnt test opportunity
costs of the plan.
Voter for fairness and ground.
Multi Plank CPs - Bad

Multiplank counterplans are bad and a voting issue for fairness and
education:
1.
Offense
1. Explodes Neg Ground Get the ability to read any number of planks
2.
2. Predictability we cant predict all the mechanisms they could use to
solve the aff
3.
3. Depth over breadth they explode the amount of subjects in the debate
depth gives us better research skills we have to find a lot evidence and
various warrants
4.
4. Time skew- neg can just read the planks and the aff has to come up with
answers to each plank in the 2AC
5.
Defense
1. Multiple CPs check they can run all of their CPs, they just have to be
separate
6.
2. Err Aff on theory conditionality and win percentage prove bias
Other Theory
AT: ASPEC
Counter-interpretation: normal means solves issues stemming from agent
specification
Solves offense, the negative can read evidence that says the plan will be
done in certain way and then link to it
Normal means solves the Elmore evidence, under normal means policies
dont lack direction or implementation.
Offense
Forcing specification gives the negative the right to agent and process
counterplans. This creates bad, un-educational debate- there is never any
discussion of the aff we just talk about their narrow net benefit and
whether or not the perm solves.
Infinitely regressive- There is no reason why specifying funding or
personnel is less relevant than ASPEC
Encourages over specifying- This kills limits and predictability because
there are thousands of case combinations.
Defense
No Resolution mandate- The resolution says the USFG, it doesnt mandate
that we have to specify a single branch.
No in round abuse- If you were to run a specific DA link to one agent, we
would not no link your disad.
Cross-x checks- You couldve asked us but you just wanted to run ASPEC
Disclosure checks abuse- They had our plan text before the round to root
it out for DA links and CPs
Wrong remedy- This is an argument why the negative should get their
ground- its never a reason to reject the aff
Functional Competition Good

Education
More real world congressman fight over implementation, not how the bill
is specifically worded
Best policy option tests a wider variety of solutions to the resolution and
different ways to solve versus small, incremental textual differences.
Ground
Textual comp encourages bad plan writing they will just make the text
vague enough to limit out textual competition which destroys negative
ground.
Any CP would be legit you can just rephrase the plan text and it would
compete the same way.
Textual Competition Good

Most predictable plan is the focus of the debate and is the most stable
advocacy in the round.
Fairness functional competition is arbitrary, it can be derived from
anything.
Forces better plan writing better for general education and ground as
well as avoiding procedurals and vagueness arguments
Textual + Functional Competition Good

Our interpretation is that counterplans have to be both textually and
functionally competitive:
2. Defense
a. No strat skew by being both textual and functionally competitive it
competes with the aff in the best possible way
b. No potential abuse it is predictable by being both and does not limit
aff ground.
3. Offense
a. Textual competition hurts depth- depth vs. breath - lack of depth
because the arguments can be almost anything. Depth is key to education
if one wants breadth one can read a newspaper whereas only debate is
capable of allowing for true depth of education.
b. Avoids purely functional competition- This trivializes debate and
focuses on other things which are un-educational.
c. Prevents word PICs-Word PICs Trivializes debate and moves debate
away from focus which hurts education.
d. Allows better Counterplans-Prohibits worst forms of counter plans such
as delay conditional and consultation
e. Less arbitrary-A combination of both textural and functional
competition is good because it is more predictable and easier to debate.
f. Avoids purely textual competition-Helps prevent unpredictability of
arguments that could remove a part of the plan and add in anything.
Unpredictability hurts education.
No Alt Text Bad

Ground Time and strategy skew- We dont know what the alternative actually is
until the rebuttals, wasting our only constructive to create offense against
the K.
Moving Target well never know what the K does until the 2NR which is
uniquely abusive because a stable text is key to 2AC answers and they can
just spike out of all our specific alt turns. This is an independent voting
issue.
Education We cant learn about the specific alternatives to plan action if
there is no text to compare to.
Cant prove competitiveness- We dont know what we can perm if theres
no text, and theyll just change their alt accordingly
Reciprocity if we should have to defend a stable text, so should they.
Voter for education, ground, and competitive equity.
No Solvency Advocate Bad

Destroys education
Unpredictable texts without a solvency advocate, the neg can fiat
anything which kills real world education because they can just create an
artificial counterplan which is bad for debate because they fiat
competitiveness.
Not real world the cp would never be presented before congress if no
one agreed it was a good idea.
Ground
Moving target without a stable plan text the neg can always shift
advocacies by the 2NR which kills aff strategy from the 2AC.
Steals aff answers we cant indict their solvency evidence because there
is none specific to their counterplan which is key to impact calc and
determining whether the counterplan solves.
Not reciprocal aff is forced to present a plan steeped in the literature
base of the resolution. Not forcing the neg to present a counterplan with a
solvency advocate is unfair to the aff.
Voter for fairness, education, and ground.
Vagueness Good
No link -- The plan is not vague ___________________
Increases education
Breadth over depth -- it forces a discussion about more of the resolution
which is the best way to evaluate the topic because we have a wider grasp
of poverty and applicable social services.
Increases neg ground A vague plan allows the neg to run more disads or
kritiks because we link to more arguments and we wont spike out of their
specific links.
C-x checks you had three minutes to clarify anything you didnt
understand after the 1AC, its not our fault you think were vague.
Not a bill it is just a plan text with resolved intent, we dont have to
specify ever minute detail.
Perms
Advocating Perms Good

Doesnt steal ground - The neg can still win that the aff is a bad idea by
weighing the DAs against the perm.
Reciprocal the neg gets to advocate the counterplan, we should be able
to advocate the perm. They can have the status quo and the counterplan,
we can have the perm or the plan.
debate by strategically picking certain arguments
Not a voting issue reject the argument and not the team.
Intrinsic Perms Good

[Explain why your perm isnt intrinsic]
Education
Key to finding best policy option most real world. Real policy makers
wouldnt exclude a potential solution if it wasnt in the original bill.
Key to testing the competitiveness of the disad/kritik
Ground each new step is more ground for the negative to read offense
against us.
debate by strategically picking certain arguments
Not a voter reject the argument not the team
Intrinsic DA Perms Good

Interpretation: the neg only gets disadvantages that are intrinsic to the
aff
Doesnt kill disads only non-competitive disads which are not
opportunity costs to the plan can be permed
Plan is still unconditional the perm is just a test of competition as long
as the aff does not sever
Not extra T if the best course of action includes the aff then it means we
the aff still wins
Checks infinite advantage counterplans
Not a voter reject the argument not the team
Multiple Perms Good

Just a test of competition the perm exists to see if the counterplan or
kritik is competitive. If it still triggers the net benefit or the counterplan is
mutually exclusive, then we lose argument. End of story.
Breadth over depth multiple perms allows us to check the
competitiveness of the k/cp under a multitude of circumstances which is
key to understanding various solutions and is key to aff ground.
Insert severance perms good / intrinsic perms theory.
Perf Con Bad

Kills education forces us to debate ourselves with contradictory answers
Strategy skew neg can just kick one argument and cross apply our
answers to the other flow.
Negation theory bad justifies affirmation theory so that we can just find
a harm in the status quo and vote aff on presumption.
Voter for education and ground.
Severance Perms Good

[Explain why your perm isnt severance]
Severance perms are a still a test of competitiveness and not an advocacy
of the affirmative.
Key to aff ground all perms other than do both would be severance
and thats unfair to the aff because theyre key to checking back
unpredictable cps/ks.
Theyre reciprocal neg gets to run pics, severance perms are key to
checking this.
Not a voter reject the argument and not the team
Timeframe Perm Good

Timeframe-is good because it is for critical thinking, allows stragetic
thinking for the neg and aff good for education
Predictable-there are only two ways to enact the timeframe perm, there is
not strat screw
Real world- policymakers prioritize policies by importance
Research-good for education because it forces the neg to do better
research toward defeating a variety of perms

Theory Backfile To Look at

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Theory Backfile To Look at

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Neg

2NC Condo Good(McCoy)

[Dispo is condo aff will always perm]

50 State Fiat Good

International Fiat Good

Multi Actor Fiat Good

Neg Fiat Good

Private Actor Fiat Good

Utopian Fiat Good

Delay CPs Good

Conditions CPs Good

2NC AT: PICs Bad

Floating PICs Good

Agent CPs Good

Consult CPs Good

2NC CPs Good

Object Fiat Good

First, Our Offense

Next, Our Defense

Multi Plank CPs Good

No Alt Text Good

No Solvency Advocate Good

Advocating Perms Bad

Intrinsic Perms Bad

Intrinsic DA Perms Bad

Multiple Perms Bad

Perf Con Good

Severance Perms Bad

Timeframe Perms Bad

International Fiat Bad

Neg Fiat Bad

Multi Actor Fiat Bad

50 State Fiat Bad

Private Actor Fiat Bad

Utopian Fiat Bad

Delay CPs Bad

Conditions CPs Bad

Floating PICs Bad

Agent CPs Bad

Consult CPs Bad

2NC CPs Bad

Multi Plank CPs - Bad

Functional Competition Good

Textual Competition Good

Textual + Functional Competition Good

No Alt Text Bad

No Solvency Advocate Bad

Advocating Perms Good

Intrinsic Perms Good

Intrinsic DA Perms Good

Multiple Perms Good

Perf Con Bad

Severance Perms Good

Timeframe Perm Good

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen