Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Theory
Theory......................................................................................................................................................................1 **STATUS/MULTIPLE WORLDS**.......................................................................................................................3 Multiple Worlds Good.............................................................................................................................................4 Multiple Worlds Bad................................................................................................................................................5 Perf Cons Good........................................................................................................................................................6 Perf Cons Bad...........................................................................................................................................................7 Conditionality Bad 2AC........................................................................................................................................8 A2: Dispositionality=Conditionality.......................................................................................................................9 A2: Perms Good....................................................................................................................................................10 A2: Ground............................................................................................................................................................11 A2: Best Policy Option...........................................................................................................................................12 A2: Reject the arg not team...................................................................................................................................13 A2: Argument Diversity.........................................................................................................................................14 A2: Strategic Thinking...........................................................................................................................................15 A2: Forces Best 2AC Args......................................................................................................................................16 A2: Perms Worse...................................................................................................................................................17 A2: All Args Conditional........................................................................................................................................18 Conditionality Good...............................................................................................................................................19 Dispositionality Bad..............................................................................................................................................20 Dispositionality Good.............................................................................................................................................21 **COUNTERPLANS**...........................................................................................................................................22 Textual Competition Good.....................................................................................................................................23 Functional Competition Good...............................................................................................................................24 International Fiat Bad 2AC................................................................................................................................25 A2: Tests US action................................................................................................................................................26 A2: Its key to ground.............................................................................................................................................27 A2: Perms check....................................................................................................................................................28 International Fiat Good.........................................................................................................................................29 Multi-actor Fiat Bad..............................................................................................................................................30 Multi-Actor Fiat Good............................................................................................................................................31 Object Fiat Bad......................................................................................................................................................32 Object Fiat Good....................................................................................................................................................33 Severance Perms Bad.............................................................................................................................................34 Severance Perms Good..........................................................................................................................................35 Intrinsic Perms Bad...............................................................................................................................................36 Intrinsic Perms Good.............................................................................................................................................37 Timeframe Perms Bad...........................................................................................................................................38 Timeframe Perms Good.........................................................................................................................................39 Multiple Perms Bad...............................................................................................................................................40 Multiple Perms Good.............................................................................................................................................41 Advocating Perms Bad...........................................................................................................................................42 Advocating Perms Good........................................................................................................................................43 2NC CPs Bad..........................................................................................................................................................44 2NC CPs Good........................................................................................................................................................45 Topical CPs Bad.....................................................................................................................................................46 Topical CPs Good...................................................................................................................................................47 Agent CPs Bad.......................................................................................................................................................48 Agent CPs Good.....................................................................................................................................................49 Consult CPs Bad.....................................................................................................................................................50 Consult CPs Good...................................................................................................................................................51 Condition CPs Bad.................................................................................................................................................52 Condition CPs Good...............................................................................................................................................53 Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory Michigan 2010 2/91 7WJ CCGJP PICs Bad.................................................................................................................................................................54 PICs Good..............................................................................................................................................................55 Neg Fiat Bad (it totez is)........................................................................................................................................56 Neg Fiat Good........................................................................................................................................................57 **KRITIKS**..........................................................................................................................................................58 Framework 1AC/2AC.........................................................................................................................................60 Floating PIKs Good................................................................................................................................................61 Floating PIKs Bad..................................................................................................................................................62 No Alt Text Good...................................................................................................................................................63 No Alt Text Bad......................................................................................................................................................64 **T**......................................................................................................................................................................65 Extra-T Good.........................................................................................................................................................67 Extra-T Bad............................................................................................................................................................68 FX-T Good.............................................................................................................................................................69 FX-T Bad................................................................................................................................................................70 Vagueness Good.....................................................................................................................................................71 Vagueness Bad.......................................................................................................................................................72 **DISADS**...........................................................................................................................................................73 Intrinsicness (DA)..................................................................................................................................................75 DA Intrinsicness Bad.............................................................................................................................................76 Politics DA Bad.......................................................................................................................................................77 Politics DA Good....................................................................................................................................................78 **IMPACT CALCULUS**......................................................................................................................................79 Education o/w Fairness.........................................................................................................................................80 Fairness o/w Education.........................................................................................................................................81 Topic-Specific Education o/w Critical Thinking...................................................................................................82 Critical Thinking o/w Topic-Specific Education...................................................................................................83 Breadth o/w Depth................................................................................................................................................84 Depth o/w Breadth................................................................................................................................................85 T o/w Theory.........................................................................................................................................................86 Theory o/w T..........................................................................................................................................................87 Potential Abuse is a Voter......................................................................................................................................88 Potential Abuse isnt a Voter.................................................................................................................................89 Err Aff on Theory...................................................................................................................................................90 Err Neg on Theory..................................................................................................................................................91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 3/91
**STATUS/MULTIPLE WORLDS**
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 4/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 5/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 6/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 7/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 8/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 9/91
A2: Dispositionality=Conditionality
1. 2AC concessions outweigh they can use dispositionality to get out of arguments that allows for better argument development 2. Dispositionality is still better 1) increases in depth education forces neg to research and prep their counterplan and prepare for straight turns 2) block solves they have thirteen minutes to answer any 2AC argument 3) forces argument development they have to develop the CP and we can extend straight turns
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 10/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 11/91
A2: Ground
1. Can test the repercussions of the plan with DAs or dispositional counterplans theyre still advocacies 2. Lack of 2AC offense outweighs being unable to turn arguments to contradictory positions means we cant generate offense
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 12/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 13/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 14/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 15/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 16/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 17/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 18/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 19/91
Conditionality Good
1. Counter interpretation we get __ test(s) of the affs implementation and __ test(s) of the affs ideology 2. Conditionality is necessary to test opportunity cost the terminal impact is to create good decision makers, conditionality creates rational decision makers 3. Structural aff bias justifies the aff get first and last speech, they pick the focus of the debate and they get ground from mechanisms 4. Forces 2ac strategic thinking they can tailor straight turns to what the CP cant solve and are forced to pick the best arguments instead of reading down a block as well as thinking on the fly, its unique education 5. Perms are worse they dont have to choose a world until the 2AR, we dont get to compare two stable worlds, rejecting the argument doesnt solve because we already made the decision 6. All arguments are conditional CPs dont take more time to answer or develop than topicality 7. Theory interpretations are illegitimate theyre arbitrary and theyll always choose something that slightly excludes us 8. Reject the argument not the team
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 20/91
Dispositionality Bad
Dispositional counterplans are a voting issue. Counter-Interpretation: The neg can choose as many unconditional advocacies as they want, forces better research because the neg has to be prepared the entirety of their counterplan and increases argument development. 1. Education: Its conditionality in disguise- they know the advantages of having us straight turn counterplans like consult, forcing us to not make the best arguments such as theory or permutations. 2. Not real world: Policymakers have to deal with the consequences of proposing an action and cant just back down when questioned about its legitimacy. 3. Ground: Perms key to aff ground- checks back non-competitive and artificially competitive counterplans. Dispositionality encourages teams to straight turn a non-competitive counterplan. 4. Reciprocity: The aff has to stick with one advocacy; so should the neg. They say neg flexibility, but that ruins aff strategy and the educational value of the debate. The neg can just read a bunch of dispositional counterplans and moot 2AC answers by kicking most of them in the block, because aff cant fairly turn all counterplans. Vote aff because on theory because otherwise it becomes a no risk option for the negative.
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 21/91
Dispositionality Good
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 22/91
**COUNTERPLANS**
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 23/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 24/91
1. EducationA. Functional competition is more real world- Congressmen fight over implementation, not how the bill is specifically worded B. Best Policy Option- Tests a wider variety of solutions to the resolution and different ways to solve versus incremental textual differences. 2. Ground- Textual competition encourages vague plan writing in order to limit out textual competition, destroying neg ground. AND its infinitely regressive because any counterplan would be legit- you can just rephrase the plan text and it would compete the same way.
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 25/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 26/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 27/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 28/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 29/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 30/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 31/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 32/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 33/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 34/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 35/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 36/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 37/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 38/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 39/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 40/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 41/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 42/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 43/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 44/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 45/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 46/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 47/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 48/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 49/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 50/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 51/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 52/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 53/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 54/91
PICs Bad
PICs are voting issues. Interpretation: Neg can run the net benefit to the PIC as a disadvantage, and they dont have to steal aff ground. This still points out the flaws of the plan without mooting 8 minutes of the 1AC. 1. Education A. Resolutional shift- Concentrates the debate on insignificant aspects of the counterplan that have nothing to do with the topic, but we have a limited amount of time to debate the resolution and now is the only time we can learn about this resolution. B. Encourages vague plan writing to avoid PICs, which decreases the development of the debate since it takes several speeches to actually know what the aff plan does. 2. Ground- Explodes neg ground because there are an infinite number of parts of the plan text that can be PIC-ed out of. For example, they could say to do the plan except spend one penny less. 3. Fairness- They kill the debate by forcing us to debate ourselves- they adopt all components of the plan except for what links to a disad, meaning they can just kick the counterplan and crossapply our arguments against us, which steals aff ground.
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 55/91
PICs Good
Counter-Interpretation: The negative should get one PIC with a solvency advocate- this is both fair and education because it gives the neg flexibility and still maintains a predictable advocacy. 1. Ground- The aff should be prepared to defend the entire plan text because PICs prove that the plan is a bad idea in at least one instance, and PICs are key to checking extra topical plan planks. 2. EducationA. Forces better plan writing and critical thinking skills because unless the aff doesnt write their plan text strategically, we cant PIC out of any part of that text. B. Forces the debate to be about the specifics of the policy, which is better for topic specific education. C. Forces the debate to be about finding the best policy option- If the counterplan is better than the plan then all of their arguments are arbitrary and dont apply. This interpretation is best because its more real world. 3. Fairness- PICs are part of a critical neg strategy necessary against increasingly vague plans. 4. Predictability- These are the most predictable types of counterplans because if the aff had done adequate research on their case they would have found literature on the possible PICs, which checks back for their infinite regression arguments.
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 56/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 57/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 58/91
**KRITIKS**
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 59/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 60/91
Framework 1AC/2AC
Our interpretation is that the affirmative must defend a topical plan and the negative must defend the status quo or a competitive policy option. The role of the ballot should be to choose between one of those options. Violating this framework is a reason to vote affirmative: 1. Aff choice <1AC ONLY> the affirmative speaks first and sets the stage for how the rest of the round plays out; it is their burden to provide a framework for evaluation. The negative must comply with this framework or provide an alternative method of evaluation in the 1NC; allowing them to wait until the block unfairly skews both our 2AC and 1AR and is an independent voting issue for fairness. 2. Limits there are literally thousands of possible philosophical objections to the plan even if they were only limited to representation kritiks they could still criticize any of the words in our 1AC and we have no way to defend against all of them. Limiting them to only a competing policy option or the status quo solves because there are only so many options against our affirmative that are grounded in the literature meaning we can prepare. 3. Ground there is no way to garner ground against nebulous, utopian alternatives they can still have their criticisms, they just have to have a competitive policy option as the alternative. Any other type of alternative is utopian, which is an independent voting issue: a) Ground we cant find answers in the literature to utopia because it DOESNT EXIST b) Fairness utopia will always outweigh imperfection meaning that theres no way the aff can ever win 4. Topic-specific education limiting the discussion to a plan or a competing policy option grounds the debate in the resolution this is the only chance to get valuable education, as we wont be debating reductions in military presence again, but we can always learn about philosophy
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 61/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 62/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 63/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 64/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 65/91
**T**
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 66/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 67/91
Extra-T Good
1. Were not extra-topical: _______________ 2. Ground extra-topicality gives them stronger links to generics and they can read disads to the extra-topical portions or counterplan out of them 3. Extra-T is inevitable policies dont occur in a vacuum, they always create action outside of what is intended 4. Key to education its better to learn about the effects of the plan than the plan mechanism itself means we learn about the effects of the resolution, which is what was intended 5. No abuse extra-T doesnt make us non-topical meaning they still get links to their generics and we cant spike out of anything 6. Not a voting issue at worst reject the extra-topical portions of our plan
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 68/91
Extra-T Bad
1. Predictable limits allowing them to go outside of resolutional action opens up the floodgates to literally anything theres no way to predict the infinite amounts of extra-topical advantages they can garner 2. Topicality the extra-topical portions of the plan arent withdrawal from the topic countries two impacts to this: a) Topic-specific education allowing them to go outside of the topic detracts focus from the resolution that outweighs because its the only chance we get to learn about the topic b) Jurisdiction if any part of the affirmative is untopical the judge does not have the jurisdiction to vote for it
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 69/91
FX-T Good
1. Were not effectually topical: ____________ 2. Its inevitable every plan takes steps to pass, its just a matter of how many 3. Key to education: a) Real-world its key to real-world education, no policy just passes all policies take steps to pass and be implemented b) Depth we learn more in-depth about the plan by debating the steps that it takes 4. Aff ground their interpretation limits out cases like changing the withdrawal dates in Iraq and Afghanistan that are at the core of the topic this is key aff ground 5. Not a voting issue evaluate effects-topicality based on reasonability their abuse standards are predicated off of us taking a ridiculous amount of steps we dont, meaning that they dont get internal links to abuse and you default aff.
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 70/91
FX-T Bad
1. Predictable limits allowing them to take steps to remove military presence opens up the floodgates they could literally take fifty steps to be topical and we couldnt predict what any of them would be 2. Makes topicality probabilistic allowing them to eventually be topical means that they could theoretically take an infinite amount of steps to be topical means that anything could eventually be topical 3. Unique abuse <explain how they garner advantages off of the steps that they take> 4. Voting issue look at the plan in a vacuum, if its not on-face topical you reject it this interpretation is better because it ensures that T is an all-or-nothing issue
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 71/91
Vagueness Good
1. Cross-x checks any questions about plan action can be resolved by just asking us about it 2. Key to education: a) Topic-specific education we learn more about the resolution by debating the effects of the plan rather than the meaning of the plan text b) Critical thinking they have to listen to the whole 1AC, not the plan text and contention titles 3. 2NC checks any shifting we do in the 2AC can be answered by new 2NC arguments 4. Not a voting issue were not going to reclarify our plan to get out of any links, thatd be suicide
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 72/91
Vagueness Bad
1. Ground our links are predicated off of their plan text allowing them to shift and reclarify their plan action kills our links to things like spending, process CPs, and disads predicated off of immediate withdrawal 2. Aff conditionality reclarification shifts their plan action in the 2AC this is an independent voting issue because the 1AC is the focus of the entire debate and shifting their advocacy moots the entirety of our 1NC irreparable abuse 3. Not topical resolved means to remove or dispel (doubts) thats American Heritage Dictionary in 2000 thats an independent voting issue for jurisdiction, because you cant vote for a non-topical plan
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 73/91
**DISADS**
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 74/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 75/91
Intrinsicness (DA)
No link the disad isnt intrinsic: _______________________________________ Our version of intrinsicness is the most fair: a) Its reciprocal we test the germaneness of the disad to the plan just like CPs test the germaneness of advantages b) Its fair well only make one, solves back infinite regression c) Logical, not empirical our intrinsicness arguments are limited to responses that do not have evidence this provides the best test of the disad
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 76/91
DA Intrinsicness Bad
1. Ground allowing them to make intrinsicness allows them to spike out of all our disad links on a topic like this the disad is the key neg position 2. Infinitely regressive even if they only get one they can still put multiple planks into it and theres no limit to the planks means they can get out of all of our arguments 3. We are intrinsic <do link analysis> 4. Counter-interpretation the negative gets intrinsicness arguments that are topical solves back all of their offense while allows predictability because its germane to the resolution 5. If they get them so do we there are a hundred options that solve for the aff better congratulations, they just handed us a hundred conditional counterplans with no texts 6. Voting issue allowing the aff to go unpunished makes intrinsicness a no-risk option, allowing them to get out of our disads every round
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 77/91
Politics DA Bad
1. Education- Focus on the process of a plan decreases topic specific education, which is key because we only have a year to debate about the resolution and we can learn about the policymaking process anytime. 2. Decreases the value of fiat- There is a reason why the 1AC includes advantages to its passage rather than the process by which that passage occurs.
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 78/91
Politics DA Good
1. Education- Increase the real world educational value of the round because we get to learn about the actual policymaking process and how bills are passed into law. 2. They encourage research- time sensitive uniqueness forces constant updates, you cant just rely on camp files throughout the year.
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 79/91
**IMPACT CALCULUS**
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 80/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 81/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 82/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 83/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 84/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 85/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 86/91
T o/w Theory
T outweighs theory a) Predictability theres literally no way to prepare for cases that arent topical without topicality they could literally run anything. b) Education narrowing the possible affirmatives to specific cases allows for in depth education about the topic instead of learning tons of things but not focusing on them. c) Jurisdiction the judge shouldnt hear cases not having to do with the resolution and nontopical cases are outside of jurisdiction. d) Turns their impacts if they were topical we wouldnt be running abusive positions.
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 87/91
Theory o/w T
Theory outweighs topicality because it is the only real in round abuse - this abuse causes us to undercover multiple positions including topicality which the negative block can then explode for 8 or 13 minutes proving the strategy and time skew caused by their abusive advocacies.
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 88/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 89/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 90/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong
Theory 91/91
Sarah/Dustin/Chuong