Verbatim 4.6

ConditionalityA) Interpretation: Conditional Arguments are bad for policy debate

B) Violation:

C) Standards1. Strat Skew- Completely screws up the Affirmatives strategy by making us focus on arguments that could be kicked out at any moment2. Reciprocity- The affirmative team has an unconditional plan and must stick to it, but by accepting condo good, the neg team can hypothetically run as many plans/k as they wish without3. Infinitely Regressive The negative team could run any amount of contradictory arguments without having to worry at all about them unlike the aff.4. Moving Target- The neg can switch advocacy with each speech and from within them multiple times, this kills the affs ability to defend and create offense, as well as educationD) Vote Aff on conditionality1. Education- Education is lost by allowing the neg to read off innumerable plans instead of focusing in depth within the debate2. Fairness-Fairness is a check against abuse, which is why a vote on conditionality bad is key