Kritiks are illegit 1) Non-unique: Foreign Policies that violate the kritik are passed all the time

and we haven t seen any type of implication yet. 2) Wrong Forum: a) Time constraints means the judge, and both teams don t have enough time to examine the kritik adequately, thus me must decide on the best policy option. b) The speed of the debate has already shown that the discourse of the kritik isn t a prior issue in the round you don t need to look at the implications before the affirmative impacts and policy. 3) Kritik solves without a negative ballot: Simply reading the kritik raises consciousness. There is no real world solvency or additional solvency by voting on the kritik. In fact by voting for the affirmative policy.you provide that a general argument about the Implications of a policy don t have to happen. Thus provide for more kritik solvency. 4) Kritiks don t have a timeframe and lead to policy paralysis- Kritiks don t need a timeframe and don t say if there really is a risk of a impact, so nothing is done. 5) Perm: Rethink plan in the kritik mindset and then do plan. 6) Kritik are double binding and cause the aff to be in a Ivory Tower: Kritiks link to everything topical, so either we have to concede plan solvency or the kritik. Either way the neg wins. Vote right here for abuse. 8) No alternative: the kritik offers a real world alternative and that strengthens UTOPIAN. ( links to a mindset that believes in the world being a utopia. This is bad because when reality sets in and solvency is lacking or problems occur, utopians will refuse to turn away from their beliefs and search for a scapegoat -> Genocide of people in Zimbabwe, etc. ) 9) Ground Skew- kritiks can assume millions of things and all they have to do is link to the USFG. 10) The negative isn t defending the SQ or offering a competitive policy- Even if the neg wins the kritik.so what? No plan is enacted and the SQ isn t defended. vote here for debatiblity and vague neg strategies. 11) No timeframe for impacts: the affs harms are right now and the kritik doesn t even have a timeframe for implications. 12) Implications at most are iffy- they depend on a certain mindset and then something else happening.what is that something else?? 13) Kritiks encourage Nihilism: (doubt in everything) a) the kritik asks us to doubt plan for one minute and look at the kritik doubt in everything- is Nihilism b) If nothing is true everything is allowed- this kind of radical sketching allows for Muder and Crime..which out weigh the kritik 14) Utopia Scenerio: 1) No alternative: the kritik offers a real world alternative and that strengthens UTOPIAN. 2) Utopianism kills to tyranny: Facism and Communism both killed Millions of people on their pursuite of a utopian future. 15) Framework will always outweighWhen the neg ran this kritik they completely ignored the framework of the debate without even touching out framework debate or even mentioning it. In the world of policy rounds we need to examine fiat and what happens when we do something. In this instance. it is by rejecting the aff ( insert aff impacts here) will happen. And fiat is always going to be a better world that the SQ b/c of the affirmatives policy option. PICS BAD!

1) PICS distort the focus of debate- they are infinitely regressive you could say the plan should apply to everyone but Bob. It trivializes the nature of debate and directs attention away from advocacy of ideas. 2) It destroys competitive equity- the team is forced to debate against themselves. Since the CP is still part of the plan the aff is precluded from running DAs to the CP. 3) PICS endorse intellectual plagiarism- the neg attemepted to capture our advocacy without or authorization. 4) PICS shift the focus of debate from the question of the resolution. to simple plan mechanics. Which kills aff ground and is a Independent VI.

5) PICS endorse vauge plan writing making all debate sloppy and kills education and clash which is also Independat voters also.. 6) No loss of ground to the neg .all they did was they did was redo the aff plan to prove a kritik or dis-ad won t happen.which makes the DA non-intrinsic.. 7) TURN- PICS harm all affirmative ground- The (CP/Kritik) makes the aff defend only a tiny portion of plan or not even a lot of plan.such as funds and enforcement it makes the aff look like an idiot.. 8) Voting issue- Any harm to ground is a voting issue. Dispo Bad A. Creates multiple worlds decreases negative advocacy and depth of policy B. Time skew we have to defend against two worlds, it essentially doubles neg speech time C. It s conditionality in disguise it s SUICIDE for the aff to not make a perm, we d never win (insert cp) CP and they can grant a straight turn as proof that CP doesn t compete D. Conditionality is bad it makes CP s the only argument we can straight turn without them being stuck with it. This skews strategy and advocacy, further justifies contradictory arguments 2NC CP's Bad A. Time skew look, I have 5 minutes to answer a 13 minute block zero reason for the 2NC to run a CP B. Moving target it s a drastic shift from the INC strategy C. Sandbagging 2NC CP s make the debate start over in the I AR destroys development of arguments and kills education Conditionality Bad A. Absolute strategy skew, I could spend precious 2AC time straight turning the CP and they can still kick it in seconds B. Justifies advocating the permutations... if you don t want to pull the trigger at least give us some leeway on the permutation C. Creates multiple worlds, allowing the neg to arbitrarily switch between SQ and CP, proves we can never compete with the CP, and it justifies multiple plan texts which kills their ground voter for education Kritik Perms Legit 1 .Kritik Perms are Key to aff competition -- if we couldn t permute the kritik we would always loose we are forced to use the state which almost guarantee them some link perm is our only strategic weapon against the kritik 2. Lack of text justifies permutations our only hope to compete with inevitable shifting alternatives is the permutation 3. Kritik is a CP they ll claim to solve our aff the perm becomes our only hope to compete in any kritik debate Defense of Dispo 1. Straight turns check abuse we put the strategic ball in your court this flips all of your time and strategy args 2. Permutations are worse their conditional and there is the potential for multiple permutations proves our one dispositional CP isn t abusive 3. Drop the CP not the team there s no warrant for reject we still win one NB s 4. 2NR defines our advocacy this worid view solves all of their strategy claims 5. It s what we do not what we justify our worid view is the least abusive model for debate one dispositional CP is not multiple conditional one 6. Err neg on theory side bias and first and last speech 7. Net benefits checks abuse their easy to turn and stick us with the CP 8. Key to education our CP checks the aff s knowledge of plan and all interrelated aspects 9. Key to negative ground if we had to defend the status quo we would always loose the 1AC gets 8 minutes to point out a flaw we d never be able to beat that back 10. Best policy option CP is key to the search for the most effective means of doing plan 11. Most real world -- policy making is decided upon the examination of multiple options 12. Key to strategy aff answers are unpredictable dispositional CPs are keyto neg strategy and options

PIC's Good 1. Increases quality plan writing forces affs to actually think about the wording and meaning of plan increases education and critical thinking 2. Forces them to justify all of plan text creates the best debates and increases education 3. Their interp of PICs makes all CP s a PlC... kills neg ground and debatablity 4. We re not a PlC we re a different actor that gives them plenty of DA s and solvency arguments checks all abuse 5. Lack of agent specification justifies PICs only way we can compete 6. Drop the CP not the team this is our world view on all theory questions they offer no warrant for our rejection only that of the CP