DISPOSITIONALITY GOOD 2AC

THEORY MAGIC

THEORYNegative Fiat EXISTS

LONG7SHORT8A/2 No Right to Counterplans9Conditionality Good

2NC102NR11A/2 Advocating Perms1213A/2 Argumentative Irresponsibility

A/2 Justifies Severance Perms14A/2 CPs are Different Worlds and Not Args Conditional15A/2 Strategy Skew16A/2 One CP bad interp17A/2 Justifies Infinite Worlds18A/2 Dispo Better19Conditionality Bad

2AC (Long)202AC (Short)211AR Overview22231AR (all args)

A/2 1AC checks SQ24A/2 Aff side bias25A/2 Unconditional Worse26A/2 Stick us with the CP27A/2 Time Skew Inevitable28A/2 CPs leads to opportunity costs29A/2 Dispo IS Conditionality30A/2 Perms Check31A/2 Key to Neg Strat32A/2 Negation Theory33A/2 No in round abuse34A/2 All args conditional35A/2 Time pressure good36A/2 Err negative37A/2 Only one conditional counterplan38A/2 Leads to adhoc theories39A/2 Topicality first4041A/2 Plan focus

42A/2 2AC strategy

A/2 Key to kritiks43A/2 Best Policy Option4445A/2 More real world

A/2 Potential abuse NOT a voter462AR

Overview47

A/2 Err negative48A/2 All time tradeoffs reciprocal49A/2 All args conditional50A/2 2AC strategy51A/2 Only one conditional cp52A/2 No right to cover53A/2 Breadth54A/2 Multiple perms55A/2 Time pressure good56A/2 Conditional perms check57A/2 Time skew arbitrary58A/2 More real world59A/2 Best policy option60PICS BAD

2AC (Long)612AC (Short)621AR (Short)631AR (all args)64A/2 Key to test all of plan65A/2 Encourages spec plan writing66A/2 Lit checks67A/2 Net benefits checks68A/2 Best policy option69A/2 Key to check extra topical plan planks70A/2 Aff must defend 100% of plan71A/2 Encourages research72A/2 Inround abuse only73A/2 Topical pics check74A/2 Key to neg strat75A/2 More real world76A/2 Plan focus77A/2 Reject the arg78A/2 All cps are pics79A/2 Err negative80A/2 We get one pic812AR

Overview82A/2 Real world8384A/2 Encourages spec plan writing

A/2 Reject the arg, not the team85A/2 Net benefit/competition checks8687A/2 Aff must defend 100% of plan

A/2 Encourages research88A/2 Key to neg ground89PICS GOOD

2nc (Long)902NC (Short)912NR

Overview92A/2 NO Aff ground93A/2 Leads to vague plan text94A/2 Other counterplans are okay95A/2 Net benefit alone is enough96A/2 Inifitely regressive97A/2 Bad advocacy98Dispositionality good

2NC (Long)992NC (Short)1002NR

A/2 Perms dont check101

A/2 Straight turns dont check102A/2 No aff side bias103104A/2 Education

A/2 Your cp is conditional105A/2 Multiple worlds106A/2 No advocacy1072NR Overview108DISPOSITIONALITY BAD

2AC (Long)109 2AC (Short)1101AR

A/2 (All args)111Overview112A/2 Outweighs topicality113A/2 Key to neg strat114A/2 Conditional perms worse115A/2 Plan focus/neg theory116A/2 Best policy option117A/2 Real world118A/2 2ac chooses our strategy119A/2 No in round abuse120A/2 Time skew arbitrary121A/T Just stick us with the counterplan122A/T No right to cover123A/T Discuss more issues124A/T Time pressure good125A/T Err negative126A/T Were not going for CP127A/T Multiple perms worse128A/T Were going for CP129A/T Addons check130A/T Unconditionality worse131A/T Only one dispo cp132A/T Unconditionality IS multiple aff worlds133A/T Straight turns check134A/T Perms check135A/T All args are dispo136A/T Education137A/T Strat skew inevitable138A/T Err neg139A/T Reject the arg140A/T Time tradeoff reciprocal141A/T Aff side bias142A/T Severence/intrinsic perms justify1432AR

Overview144TEXTUAL COMPETITION BAD

2AC145A/2 Key to testing146A/2 Not infinitely regressive147A/2 Justifies 2ac clarifications148A/2 CX doesnt check1492AR

Overview150TEXTUAL COMPETITION GOOD

2NC1512NR

Overview152A/2 Cross-ex checks153A/2 Leads to semantics games154A/2 Not real world155A/2 Infinitely regressive156TOPICAL CPs BAD 2AC1571AR

Overview158A/2 Best policy option159160A/2 Err negative

A/2 Education161A/2 Key to negative ground162TOPICAL CPs GOOD2NC163AGENT CPs BAD

2AC (Long)1642AC (Short)1651AR

(All args)166A/2 Must defend agent167A/2 Limit the topic168A/2 Literature checks abuse169A/2 Literature demands agent CPs170A/2 Best policy option171A/2 Encourages specific plan writing172A/2 Competition checks1732AR

Oveview174AGENT CPs GOOD

2NC (Long)1752NC (Short)1762nr

overview177A/2 Net benefit alone is sufficient178A/2 Kills topic specific debate179A/2 Infinitely regressive180A/2 Forces aff to argue against selves181A/2 Encourages vague plan writing182A/2 Moot 1ac183OBJECT FIAT BAD

2AC1841AR

A/2 Net benefits check abuse185A/2 All CPs are object fiat186A/2 Key to neg ground187A/2 Key to test federal govt1882AR

Overview189OBJECT FIAT GOOD

2NC1902NR

Overview191A/2 Moots 1ac192A/2 Infinitely regressive193ARTIFICIALLY COMPETITIVE CPs BAD194ARTIFICIALLY COMPETITIVE CPs GOOD19550 state fiat good 2NC197INTERNATIONAL FIAT BAD

2AC1981AR

A/2 Disproves the resolution199A/2 Literature checks200A/2 Agent is a key resolution question2012AR

202Overview

INTERNATIONAL FIAT GOOD

2NC

2NR203Overview204205A/2 Judge is a us policymaker

A/2 International orgs = multiple countries206207A/2 Infinitely regressive

50 STATE FIAT BAD

2AC (Long)2082AC (Short)2091AR

210(All Args)

A/2 Its run every year211A/2 Competition checks212A/2 Its should/would213A/2 Tests federal2142AR

Overview2155O STATE FIAT GOOD

2NC (Long)2162NC (Short)2172NR

Overview218A/2 Its utopian219A/2 Infinitely regressive220A/2 No literature221A/2 It isnt reciprocal222Severance Permutations Bad223Severance Permutations Good224226Time Frame Permutations Good

Intrinsicness Permutations Good227Perms

A/2 Cant perm a kritik229CONSULTATION BAD

A/2 Multiple perms bad230NEW 2NC CPs 1AR2312AR

Overview232233A/2 Best policy option

A/2 2ACcritical thinking234A/2 Its a constructive235A/2 Moots 1nc counterplan value236NEW 2NC CPs GOOD

2NC (Long)2372NC (Short)2382NR

Overview239A/2 Internsic perms justified240A/2 Leeway on 1ar arguments241DELAY CPs GOOD

2NC (Long)2422NC (Short)2432NR

A/2 Plan is done later244A/2 Justifies intrinsicness246ASPEC 2AC2471AR

A/2 Solvency deficit248

249Overview

FIAT SHOULD BE IMMEDIATE250FIAT DOESNT HAVE TO BE IMMEDIATE251MULTI-ACTOR FIAT BAD252MULTI-ACTOR FIAT GOOD253Ks Must Have a Text Alt

1AR Overview255A/2 Tags/Cards = Advocacy256Piks bad 2AC257Floating PIKS Dad 1AR 258259Negative Framework 2NC FIAT Bad

A/2 must spec cp status in the 1nc (Short)260A/2 Must spec cp status in 1nc (Long)261A/2 MUST SPEC CP STATUS

2NR Overview263A/2 Its my cross-ex264A/2 Youre stuck with the cp265A/2 Not specifying isnt fair266267A/2 Leads to Conditionality

MISC - Negative fiat exists 2nc268MISC Theory is not a voter269MISC Err negative on theory270MISC Potential abuse is a voter271A/2 REVERSE INHERENCY272A/2 COUNTER-PERMS273A/2 WHOLE REZ274EXTRA-TOPICALITY GOOD275EXTRA-TOPICALITY BAD276EFFECTS T GOOD277EFFECTS T BAD278GRAMMAR STANDARD BAD279SPEED GOOD

SHORT280281SPEED GOOD LONG VERSION (1/4)

-284negative fiat inevitable 2NC (long)negative fiat is inevitable and is the only non-side biased standard for the round-

1. Reciprocity- The aff has the option to suspend reality for durationo of plan implementation, negative ground is based on fiat cutting both ways.The 1AC is a 9 minute straight turn to the squo. If we have to defend the straight turned squo then the aff should have to defend all plan implementation processes (insert L or F spec)2. real world- Policy makers negate competing policies all the time. Real world education is critical to create effective advocates (if its a K debate, link to how effective 3. Best policy Post 1ac debate is supposed to be a debate on how to best solve a harm- negative fiat is critical to ensuring full testing of the 1AC which is key to fairness, excluding sections of the 1ac from discussion, is exclusionary to the negative and proves the aff has not met their presumptive burden, vote neg.4. There is no abuse, permutations check artifical and non-competitive counterplans.5. No aff fiat- the aff has to prove this is intrinsic ground. any abuse is checked by permuatations.6. Ground- Counterplans are critical to negative flexibility, we cant be expected to 7. Opportunity Cost- The counterplan is an opportunity cost to the plan- Neg fiat is just a way of testing if the options precluded by plan implementation are preferable to the plan.negative fiat inevitable 2nc (short)Allowing negative fiat is the only fair standard for the round-

1. Reciprocity- The aff has the option to suspend reality for durationo of plan implementation, negative ground is based on fiat cutting both ways.

2. Status quo is not an option- The 1AC is a 9 minute straight turn to the squo. If we have to defend the straight turned squo then the aff should have to defend all plan implementation processes

3. real world- Policy makers negate competing policies all the time. Real world education is critical because debate is an educational activity to prepare debaters for real life advocacy.

4. Ground- Counterplans are critical to negative strategy and our ability to check back aff side bias and infinite prep.

5. Side negative- they have the first and last speech and infite prep. this argument uniquely justifies it because not allowing negative fiat assures negs lose 100% of debatesnegative fiat inevitable 2nr at: no right to counterplans1. Counterplans are key to ground- Counterplans are key to test the best policy option/2. Disads not an alternative- the aff can outweigh any disad at the impact caculus level.

3. Negation theory subsumes the affs alternative. Counterplans key to test all the plan mechanisms.4. This proves our fairness sides negative- they justify a world in which the negative can never win. and fairness is the internal link to the affs ability to access education voters.5. and our interpretation is betters for education- counterplans allow for competing alternatives to solve the 1ACs harms. This is key to inround education and critical thinking.conditionality good 2NC

Conditionality is good-1. Key to educationa. Only conditionality allows in depth and multi-faceted case engagement, otherwise they can force the debate onto the terminally unconditional counterplan with 8 minutes of perms and straight turns.b. Time pressure good- Forces the aff to engage in strategic thinking, and dont hold us accountable for their time allocation errors.c. Best analogue to real world policy discussion- Policy making should not be the sole focus of debate, there is a truckload of credible literature that contests the idea of structured or state-centric political solutions.2. Key to Fairness

a. Neg Flex- Neg strategy is based on flexibility, we collapse to a consistent position at the 2nr, which checks abuse and forces strategic management of prep allocation b. Negative strategy- We should be able to adjust our strategy in the face of 2ac add-ons, disallowing condo kills our ability to balance add-ons.c. Multiple permutations check abuse- the aff has multiple conditional worlds, this trumps and checks negative conditionality since they get the last speech and the last chance to collapse. Dont let them get away with saying well we dont do that- we cant force them to use all the tools at their disposal. 3. Multiple textually competitive worlds bettera. 1AC Checks the Status Quo- Rebuttals can make up for 2AC undercoverage with 1AC cross-applications.

b. Time skew is Relative- Dont take their deficiencies out on us.c. Its reciprocal- Takes us as much time and strategic diversion to go for multiple worlds as it takes the aff to answer them.

1. The 1ar excersices selective extension- theoretically this is the same thing as the affirmative, and time constraints prevent extension of every argument, their elevation of the counterplan is arbitrary and not reciprocated in their interpretation of 1ar obligations. Reciprocity is key to theory debates being resolved without unpredictable punishment paradigms where you drop teams for stepping on an invisible landmine.2. Counter interpretation- the negative gets only 1 conditional counterplan- this checks infinite regression.

3. Reasonability checks- even if we lose offensive voters they should have to prove that conditionality is substantially worse for debate than unconditionality.4. Reject the argument not the team- Weve invested time on the theory debate too; the punishment should fit the crime.

Conditionality good 2NREven if we lose every reason why conditionality is good you should reject the argument not the team-

Drops for theoretical advocacy operate from a defunct and inconsistent punishment paradigm ANALOGOUS TO AN INVISIBLE MINEFIELD that varies from judge to judge and chills theoretical creativity and experimentation in a legalistic ICEBOXFirst, our offense.

Conditionality is key to education-

1. Forces intelligent 2AC choices- They must choose selectively, providing a focused debate.

2. Kritiks- Conditionality allows negatives to test the affirmative with both critiques and policy indicts.

a. Kritiks key to education- necessary to help us formulate an accurate perception of how our personal actions affect the structures we live in. 3. Best policy option- making us choose one path in the 1NC prohibits modeling real world policy complexity- interaction of competing justifications for the rejection of the plan is the best model for Dynamic policy discussions- evangelical Christians might oppose an environmentally destructive policy for religious reasons, and deep ecologists might oppose the same policy sans religious justification.4. Education outweighs and is a prerequisite to fairness- Permanence: we wont remember whether we won this round but well always retain the knowledge we gained.

education accesses fairness, since broad/deeply educated judges and debaters are more likely to understand and accept or reject topic specific abuse arguments with legitimate expertise.Conditionality is key to fairness

1. Key to negative ground- other counterplan statuses allow the 2AC to run 8 minutes of straight turns. Specificity of 2AC turns make the block nearly impossible, distract from case debate, and lock us into a counterplan drowning anchor.2. Conditionality is key to block strategy- we decide the 1NC counterplan based on 1AC advantages, 2AC add-ons justify reformulation of this strategy.3. Reciprocity- Multiple conditional permutations allow them to operate in multiple worlds, We collapse to a consistent advocacy in the 2NR, they even have the advantage because they speak last.

4. Negative ground outweighs affirmative ground- they have infinite prep, side bias, and the first and last speech, without flex we are dead meat.Now our defense

1. Time skew is inevitable and arbitrary- dont punish us for being faster or more strategic. Their standard creates a race the the bottom where the winner is decided by absence of valuble skill sets.2. The 1AC is 8 minutes of impact turns to the status quo which protects the affirmative against us kicking the counterplan, that presumptively limits us, we are already at a disadvantage- topics and affirmatives are selected on the basis of significant flaws in sqo.3. All time tradeoff arguments are reciprocal- We have to spend time defending each world view just like the affirmative, and when we collapse they get prep and the last speech to adjust- if we surprise them, their predictive deficiencies should not be on us.4. Err negative on questions of theory- the analysis about side bias is above. At worst, reject the argument, rejecting the team chills creativity and strategic thinking.5. Multiple counterplans arent a reason we should lose- we have to invest time in the counterplans, we have to read evidence to access a net benefit, Plus they can make quick, citeless analytic perms so they always win the time trade off anyways.conditionality good 2nr at: we get to advocate perms

1. Conditionality does not mean the negative gets to advocate perms. Perms only test competition. If the counterplan goes away and they still advocate the perm, it becomes intrinsic. This is a reason to vote against them because the plan should be the focus of the debate and allowing arbitrary spikeouts means that they could perm out of all of our disad links. This makes debate 100% unfair for the negative.

2. Allowing perm advocacy feeds our arguments about side bias- the negative needs conditionality to level the playing field. They should have to stick with the plan unless testing competition.

3. This argument is illogical- the affirmative shouldnt be entitled to any world views beyond the 1AC- they have the resolution and thats it.

conditionality good 2nr at: argumentative irresponsibility

1. Our interpretation solves this- we will only run one conditional counterplan.

2. Their offense doesnt check aff side bias- irresponsibility is only true in a world where we run contradictory or multiple world views. Our interpretation is just to test the aff and ensure that there is a level playing field.

3. Non-unique: all args are conditional, even if a counterplan is a different world. This would make us irresponsible with topicality, disads, and case arguments. This gives more weight to our offense.

conditionality good 2nr at: justifies severance perms

4. Conditionality doesnt justify severence permutations- conditionality is key to testing the plan. Severance perms moot the focus of the debate: the plan. They make it impossible to be negative.

5. Negative conditionality is not a punishment to the affirmative- it just puts us on a level playing field with 2AC add-ons and offense against the status quo.

6. Severance perms are an independent voting issue- even if we win that you should reject the argument on conditionality severance perms are infinitely worse- they are functionally the most abusive thing the aff could do, way worse than not reading a plan text at all because we lose education when we focus on the plan text throughout the constructives and they perm out of all or part of it.

conditionality good 2nr at: cps = diff world, not all args conditional

1. Just because the counterplan is a different world doesnt mean it is a critical distinction- their arguments are all predicated on strategy and time skews. The conditionality of other arguments nonuniques their abuse claims.

2. They can only win that conditional counterplans are worse, but not uniquely bad. If we have offense reasons as to why this one conditional counterplan is critical, err negative.

conditionality good 2nr at: strategy skew

1. Well win side bias as an offensive answer to this argument- we can prove that conditionality is critical to our ability to level the playing field. First and last speech as well as good solvency evidence trump conditionality

2. This argument is non-unique- we could run 5 topicality arguments and 4 disads and force the 2AC to make hard strategic choices- they cant win a threshold on this argument.Turn- Strategy skew only levels the playing field. Some teams are faster or more technical, the 2AC should be forced to make strategic choices based on the quality of a teams arguments.

conditionality good 2nr at: one cp bad interp

One conditional counterplan is a fair intepretation:

1. It is the only reciprocal interpretation which guarantees negative counterplan ground and prevents the affs infinite regression and strategy skew arguments.

2. Side bias and negation theory outweighs-

a. We still get to test the entirety of the aff plan in an effective and fair way.

b. Even if statistics are unproven, the aff gets the first and the last speech. The 1AR is judge biased to overlook mistakes and the negative has a much higher standard to check good solvency evidence.conditionality good 2nr at: justifies infinite worlds

1. Our interpretation solves this argument- the negative gets one conditional counterplan. This checks infinite regression and the possibility of abuse.conditionality good 2nr at: dispo is better

1. This is an impossible distinction- dispositionality is functionally conditionality. We dont need to win that conditionality is better, only that its reasonable. The difference is so menial that there is no net educational difference.2. Unconditionality is the only real alternative and its bad for debate because it kills the negatives strategic flexibility and means the aff will win 100% of debates. Negative flexibility is explained in the overview with best policy option and our flexibility to run critiques and counterplans to test 100% of the affirmative.

3. Dispositionality allows them to force us into one advocacy- we have offensive reasons why this is bad and negative flexibility is better for competitive equity, education, and fairness.

Conditionality Bad 2AC (Long)

1. Strategy Skew- Nothing we say can make them go for the counterplan. This hurts 2AC and 1AR strategy and offense allocation.

2. One dispositional counterplan solves all of their offense- giving us control via turns ensures competitive equity.

3. Education- multiple worlds destroy in-depth discussion and topic-specific education.

4. Bad advocacy- it promotes argumentative irresponsibility because they arent held to their advocacy.

5. Justifies severence and intrinsic perms- the aff should be able to have as much leeway in advocacy as the negative.

6. We can ADVOCATE perms- This is the only fair way to check negative bias from conditional counterplans. This checks abuse because they cant decide if we go for the perms.

7. Fairness- this standard comes before anything else. If the field is tilted 100% towards the negative it makes education irrelevant.

8. Reciprocity- aff advantages are dispositional- if you straight turn them well go for them- this proves lack of equity.

9. Infinitely Regressive- Their interpretation justifies 40 conditional world views that we cant be prepared to answer.

10. Voter for reasons of competitive equity and education.

Conditionality bad 2ac (short)

1. Strategy Skew- Nothing we say can make them go for the counterplan. This hurts 2AC and 1AR strategy and offense allocation.

2. One dispositional counterplan solves all of their offense- giving us control via turns ensures competitive equity.

3. Education- multiple worlds destroy in-depth discussion and topic-specific education.

4. Justifies severence and intrinsic perms- the aff should be able to have as much leeway in advocacy as the negative.

5. We can ADVOCATE perms- This is the only fair way to check negative bias from conditional counterplans. This checks abuse because they cant decide if we go for the perms.

6. Voter for reasons of competitive equity and education.

conditionality bad 1ar overview

Conditionality is bad-

1. It limits our ability to make strategic concessions which stifles critical thinking. This forces us to answer every position as if it were unrelated to the rest of the debate meaning we cant allocate time properly in the 2AC to make offense.

2. Its infinitely regressive- allowing even one conditional counterplan makes it possible for multiple conditional world views that the aff can never answer- this kills fairness.

3. They cant win any offensive reasons why conditionality is good- one dispo counterplan solves all of it, preserves plan test, best policy opion, and negative ground.

4. Fairness is a pre-requesitive to education- time inequitives make educational discussion impossible. Privilege this standard first.

5. Reject the team, not the argument- they justify a world where the negative wins 100% of debates, crushing competitive equity and education. Punishment by ballot is the only solution.conditionality bad 1ar (all args)

Conditionality is bad and a reason to reject the team-

Negative counterplan conditionality is unique we cant extend straight turns on other flows as rebuttal offense.

Its infinitely regressive- it justifies unlimited conditional worlds we can never be prepared to answer that.

Dispositionality solves 100% of their offense- it gives the negative flexibility and leaves the 2AC with possibilities.

We dont need to win in round abuse- the treshold for abuse is impossible to objectively identify. You should evaluate theory as a question of competing interpretations.

Fairness outweighs education- if the game is rigged, no one will play. If they can win that education comes first, we still win

Kills Clash conditionality encourages shallow easy debating by the negative.

Strategic concessions- the 2AC has to make decisions and constrained by the ability to stick them to one position.

There are no impacts to best policy option- debate must be fair. This isnt the real world- these considerations come first.

Conditionality link turns side bias- we cant make any offense to the counterplan so we can never win. Side bias arguments should be used ONLY as a tie breaker, not a round decider.

Permutations dont check- its a test of competition, the negative can force us out of offense.

Dont just stick them with the counterplan- the damage was done in the 2AC and the 1AR. Reject the team, not the argument, to set a precedent for what is good for debate.conditionality bad 1ar at: 1AC checks SQ

1. The 1AC is not a sufficient check- we still need offense on disads.

2. Counterplans force undercoverage of case arguments meaning that we cant use the strategic value of the 1AC.

3. This is an irrelevant point and defense at best- it still makes their advocacy unpredictable and abusive.

conditionality bad 1ar at: aff side bias

1. Nice try. The negative gets the block which makes the 1AR the hardest speech in debate.

2. This argument is disproven- everyone flips neg in outrounds, the negative wins at least 50% of debates, and the claim is nonfalsifiable.

3. Limits outweigh- conditionality shifts the debate so far negative that any aff side bias doesnt justify.

4. This argument proves our interpretation: dispositionality checks aff side bias while ensuring equity.

5. Good negative arguments will beat aff side bias, not abuse.conditionality bad 1ar at: unconditional worse1. This is irrelevant- our counterinterpretation is that they get one dispositional counterplan- this solves all of their offense.

2. Not true- it 100% checks aff side bias without skewing debate towards the negative.

3. Fairness questions should supercede any of the best policy option arguments.

4. Education is irrelevant if there is no competitive equity- if the 2AC has to answer multiple moving worlds there is no way we can win.

5. Unconditional counterplans ensure reciprocity of advocacy from the 1AC and 1NC.

conditionality bad 1ar at: stick us with the CP

1. This is a bad standard. This justifies abuse of 2AC strategy without losing.

2. This moots the value of all of our offense outside of the counterplan and means that we have to win theory to force them to go for the counterplan.

3. Time tradeoffs mean that we can never win that the counterplan itself is bad and guarantees the aff will win- this is still unfair and a reason to vote against them.conditionality bad 1ar at: time skew inevitable

1. Our counterinterpretation solves all of your offense on this question- time skew may be inevitable, but strategy skew isnt.

2. Dispositionality ensures that even if time skew occurs it isnt compounded by strategy skew.

3. This is defense at best- it doesnt justify their counterplan being conditional.

conditionality bad 1ar at: cps = opportunity costs

We agree. If the plan precludes the passage of the counterplan we should be able to extend turns as offense- since we stop the passge of a BAD policy that functions as an ADVANTAGE for the affirmative.

This is defense at best- we have offense reasons why conditionality is worse for debate.

conditionality bad 1ar at: dispo = conditionality

This isnt true. Dispositionality allows the affirmative to make strategic concessions to point out contradictions and stick the negative with the counterplan.

Straight turns are our only offense since perms are a test of competition- we should be able to use them to put pressure on the block.

They are assuming a poor interpretation of dispositionality- call it what you want, straight turns should force the negative to answer them and go for the counterplan. This is the same as a disad or critique.conditionality bad 1ar at: Perms check

1. Not true. Perms dont ensure that the 2NR goes for the counterplan.

2. Perms are defense questions of competition- not offensive reasons why the CP is bad. We cant go for the perms if they dont go for the CP according to their interpretation.3. Net benefit is automatic offense- since perms have to include the plan they already have a disad to the perm.4. Counterplans are worse than perms- they change the world of uniqueness.

5. We should be able to advocate perms even if they dont go for the counterplan- this is the only fair check on abuse.

Conditionality bad 1ar at: key to neg strat

1. Dispositionality solves all of their offense- they can provide alternative world views with strategic benefits for both teams.

2. Conditionality decreases negative strategic planning dispositionality forces them to consider the interactions of arguments ahead of time.

3. This standard is impossible to judge- they may have plenty of good arguments they just chose not to make.

conditionality bad 1ar at: negation theory

1. Dispositionality solves all of their offense- they can provide alternative world views with strategic benefits for both teams.

2. Yes, the negative gets everything outside of the resolution, but that doesnt justify HOW you run those arguments.

3. This is a nonfalsifiable claim- negation theory is a nebulous abstract of debate. It begs judge intervention to decide what is and is not in the realm of the negatives ground.

4. If testing the plan is the only important thing, it justifies racist claims and stupid strategies in the name of negation theory.

conditionality bad 1ar at: no in round abuse

5. The abuse was the skewing of 2AC strategy. Even if they dont kick the counterplan, its a reason to lose. 1AR strategy is also tanked because we cant make offense effectively and predict 2NR strategy.

6. We dont need to win in round abuse- it is an arbitrary distinction. You should default to competing interpretations and vote for the interpretation that minimizes potential abuse.

7. Potential abuse should come before inround abuse because it sets a standard for what is acceptable. No in round abuse is a cop out way of saying that they should win even if we win offensive reasons why conditionality is bad.conditionality bad 1ar at: all args conditional

1. All arguments are dispositional. If we straight turn a disad they have to answer those turns.

2. Counterplan conditionality is uniquely bad- they are a new world, not like a disad. That means it requires specific offense.3. Advocacies are not conditional- case turns maybe, but not new world views.conditionality bad 1ar at: time pressure good

1. Time pressure is bad- pressuring 2AC time means that we make careless decisions and forces undercoverage ofyour world view- this means less critical thinking and educational discussions, proving no value in their framework.

2. If time pressure is good, they should read unconditonal counterplans and deal with 9 minutes of 2AC turns.

conditionality bad 1ar at: err negative

1. Turn: Err affirmative- the negative block spreads the 1AR and they choose the grounds for the debate. Their claims about first/last speech are overwhelmed by the block and infinite prep time doesnt check back conditionality abuse.

2. Conditionality link turns side bias- we cant win with skewed offense ability. Side bias arguments should ONLY be used as tiebreakers.

3. There is no warrant to this claim- they made the decision to choose an abusive status, they should be able to defend it theoretically.conditionality bad 1ar at: only one conditional counterplan

1. Counter-interpretation: negative gets one dispositional counterplan. Dispositionality is uniquely better than conditionality.

2. This doesnt solve for our fairness or education standards even if makes debate less infintely regressive.

3. Its arbitrary- it justifies answering PIC infinite regression by saying we only get those one its still bad for offense.

conditionality bad 1ar at: ( adhoc theories

1. Conditionality isnt an ad hoc theory- they should have to defend the way that they run it.

2. This is non unique- all arguments are ad hoc, so there is no impact.

3. Turn- Voting aff on conditionality gives an incentive for coherent theory arguments instead of ad hoc theories.

4. Turn- conditionality justifies 50 counterplans and going for the one with less answers which is infinitely more ad hoc.

5. This doesnt answer our 2AC questions of fairness.conditionality bad 1ar at: topicality first

1. You should not favor topicality over conditionality- it fundamentally skews our ability to make offensive answers.

2. The terminal impact to both arguments is the same. If they win potential abuse on T, we capture and magnify that possibility because they allow for INFINITE conditional world views.

3. Their argument is bad for debate- if it were true that T came first they could run 50 counterplans and go for T so that every affirmative loses for undercovering.

4. Well go for reasonability on topicality- but they can never win that conditionality is reasonably good, it always makes strategic affirmative concessions impossible.conditionality bad 1ar at: plan focus

Plan focus is a bad standard for conditional counterplans

1. It justifies racism as long as the plan is fully tested.

2. Disads solve all of their offense- they can effectively test whether the plan is good or bad.

3. This standard justifies counteprlans- well concede the negatives right ot those, just not conditional counterplans.

4. Their standard is bad for debate- it justifies 50 conditional counterplans to fully test every aspect of the plan.conditionality bad 1ar at: 2AC strategy

Conditionality destroys 2AC offense- we cant make strategic concessions or straight turns effectively.

Dispositionality is a better standard- we can make perms, theory arguments other than dispo bad, and effectively deploy offense. This is better

It forces critical thinking by the negative about strategy choices.

It encourages in depth debate and clash which is better education for both teams and the judge.conditionality bad 1ar at: key to kritiks1. No impact- they can run kritik alternatives dispositionally or unconditionally. This is a better interpretation.

a. It makes kritiks predictable for the aff and gives us ground for offense.

b. It ensures negative ground to test the plan with their alternative.

2. Proves our infinite regression arguments- theyre interpretation guarantees them the status quo, a conditional kritik, and a conditional counterplan- this makes 3 conditional world views that we have to answer and provides no bright line for where negative options end.

3. They have to prove that CONDITOINAL kritiks are better for debate than skewing aff strategy.conditionality bad 1ar at: best policy option

1. This is a bad standard it justifies voting on intrinsic permutations or severance perms. Those are bad for both teams.

2. Dispositionality solves all of their offense- we can search for the best policy through a paradigm that is fair to both teams.

3. Education comes second to fairness- a level playing field is a prerequisite to good debate.4. Best policy option shouldnt determine theory questions- default to a standard of fairness as opposed to justifying abusive persm and counterplans.

conditionality bad 1ar at: more real world

1. This is debate. It is a game. If the game is rigged in favor of one side, it loses meaning.

2. The real world is a bad standard for debate- the entirety of disads are based not in the abstract of political theory, not real life.

3. This isnt true- someone can adopt an ideological position that they will defend unequivocally.

4. Topicality isnt real world, neither are critiques with a pre-fiat alternative or aspec and ospec- that doesnt mean that they arent allowed in debate.conditionality bad 1ar at: potential abuse =/= a voter

1. Irrelevant. The 2AC and 1AR strategy skew proves inround abuse: we cant deploy offense against multiple moving worlds.

2. This is a question of justifications- if their interpretation justifies a world tilted 100% negative thats a reason to vote against them.

3. Potential abuse is the only standard of punishment- a world without potential abuse means that they always run the counterplan conditionally even if we prove that that is bad.

conditionality bad 2ar overview

Conditionality is a reason to reject the team- a few offensive arguments were winning.

1. Conditionality destroys aff strategic time allocation- all other arguments are dispositional- we can extend straight turns to disads. Conditional counterplans hijack this offensive avenue and mean that the aff can never defend against the counterplan.

2. Its infinitely regressive- Even if the interpretation is one dispositional counterplan it doesnt matter. The logical end of justifying any form of conditionality is that 40 conditional counterplans would be good. We can never be prepared to debate that interpretation. This is a reason why the LOGIC behind their offense is flawed, even if we lose claims about specific in round abuse.

3. Reciprocity- We cant extend turns on other flows or key pieces of offense to force them to go for the counterplan. This proves why our interpretation of one dispositional counterplan solves all of their offense and ours- because it ensures negative and affirmative ground.

4. They cant win any offense on conditionality for two reasons

a. Its all predicated on education gain- Our fairness questions come first because educational discussions are impossible without a fair playing field.

b. Dispositionality solves all of their offense- they only have reasons why counterplans are good. We allow those with our counter interpretation, preserving best policy optionl, plan testing, and negation theory while avoiding our reasons why conditionality is bad.

5. 2AC in round abuse implcations are clear- it hijacks our strategic advantage of having the 1AC or the 2AC as speeches. Even if we lose this claim, you should vote on potential abuse- its impossible to determine exactly what the threshold for voting on abuse is. You should default to competing interpretations and if we win that our interpretation is better for debate we win the theory debate.6. Reject the team, not the argument- we have clear impact calculus and were investing time. Just rejecting the counterplan doesnt punish the negative or send a signal that conditionality is bad. conditionality bad 2ar at: err negative

1. There is no warrant to this argument. Even if they win reasons why negative ground should be preserved conditionality TURNS and WORSENS side bias arguments by making it functionally impossible for the affirmative to ever win because we can never effectively deploy offense meaning that were screwed.

2. Aff side bias is a fallacy- the aff always loses to smart PICs, the negative block overwhelms the 1AR, and they control the entire direction of argumentation. These arguments subsume their warantless claims about first and last speech or seemingly infinite prep time.

3. Their aff wins 60% of debates statistic is made up. This assumes past topics, not this one. Our specific warrants outweigh.

4. Infinite prep, even if true, doesnt justify conditionality- it justifies counterplans. Pre-round prep doesnt solve in-round inequities.

5. The 1AC isnt the focus of the debate, the 1NC is, so the first speech is a meaningless distinction.conditionality bad 2ar at: all time tradeoffs reciprocal

1. Time trade offs are NOT reciprocal- they get to preempt the transition from multiple worlds to one in the block of the 2NR and they get to choose where our offense is weakest and theirs is strongest. The only affirmative check is straight turns on the net benefit but they dont have to answer those under their interpretation.

2. Reciprocity only applies to strategic concessions- conditionality makes these impossible.

3. Our counter interpretation solves this- it means that aff time tradeoffs on the counterplan guarantee offensive ground.conditionality bad 2ar at: all args conditional

1. All arguments are dispositional- if we straight turn a disad they have to answer those turns. They cant just ignore those turns or theyll lose their defense of the status quo. Conditionality hijacks our avenue to strategic turns.

2. Conditional counterplans are uniquely bad because they offer a new world view and change questions of uniqueness because they can avoid and potentially solve disads. This changes how we answer every position.

3. Our counter interpretation is better on this question- if every argument IS conditional then counterplans should be dispositional to give the affirmative appropriate ground.

conditionality bad 2ar at: 2ac strategy

1. Conditionality kills 2AC strategic strategy- we cant concede certain arguments that link to the counterplan. These strategic concessions are the core of affirmative strategic thinking. Furthermore, its impossible to make strategic choices that will help us in REBUTTALS since we cant generate straight turn offense for later speeches.

2. Dispositionality solves this offense- it allows the 2AC to make strategic choices to stick them with the counterplan.

3. Even if we lose this argument you should vote aff- the ultimate impact is education and we have the only analysis about why fairness claims should come before education.

4. This proves infinite regression- they are saying that conditionality pressures the 2AC and thats good. If that is true, 20 conditional counterplans would pressure me more, but that doesnt make it legitimate.

conditionality bad 2ar at: only one conditional cp

1. This isnt a good answer to our counter intepretation that the negative gets one DISPOSITOINAL counterplan- this gives the negative all of their counterplan flexibility/education claims while allowing strategic 2AC choices.

2. This doesnt solve any reasons why conditionality is bad except for infinite regression- still hurts 2AC strategy, decision making, and time allocation. It is still a voter.

3. It doesnt matter- even if they run one under their interpretation our infinite regression arguments apply because they can still use their offense reasons why conditionality is good to JUSTIFY infinite worlds being good. It is still a reason to on face reject their offense.

4. Dont allow this arbitrary interpretation- its the equivalent of we only get this one PIC to answer pics unlimit or Well only consult Spain to answer consult is infinite regression. The justification of their logic is that multiple worlds is good, not a constrainted number. Their interpretation is just a veiled attempt to allow their form of abuse.

conditionality bad 2ar at: no right to cover

1. We should get to cover- all 1NC positions are possible 2NR strategy. If we dont have the same right to answer positions the debate is skewed totally in favor of the negative. Fairness MUST be reciprocal on positions. Even if we lose that, they are still losing the strategic concessions argument- we dont need to win 2AC coverage to win this theory debate.

2. This proves infinite regreswsion- they can justify tons of conditional worlds by arguing the 2AC just needs to try harder. This argument is just bad defense.

conditionality bad 2ar at: discuss more

1. This prives infinite regression- more conditional worlds leads to more discussion but excessive breadth kills debate.

2. no impact- discussing more things isnt better for debate- its better to discuss one world in depth. The fact that the 2NR collapses down to the easiest out proves that discussing more just gives them a strategic advantage.

3. Time constraints answer this- discussing more is bad because we never get true education and it hurts our time allocation. Questions of fairness should come before education- thats in the overview.conditionality bad 2ar at: multiple perms

1. Multiple perms are key to fairness- counterplans are often multiple policies, we need to be able to test all parts. If they run a consult counterplan we need to be able to test the consultation and the genuine aspects of the consultation.

2. Multiple perms are just multiple no link arguments- they have to win the net benefit to win offense to the perms.

3. It is justified by conditionality- even if multiple perms are bad in the abstract the nature of conditional counterplans means that we need as many arguments as we can.

4. We should be able to advocate at least one perm even if they kick the counterplan because it ensures 2AR offense in the rebuttals.

conditionality bad 2ar at: time pressure good

1. Time pressure because of conditionality is bad- it forfeits the 2ACs right to concede arguments when positions conflict and leads to careless decision making and under coverage- this detracts from educational debates and link turns their education claims.

2. It justifies infinite conditional advocacies- if their interpretation is one conditional counterplan then this argument doesnt apply to them. Using time pressure as a standard establishes 0 brightline for what level of time pressure is best.

3. There is no reason time pressure helps fairness, only education. Our impact calculus subsumes this.

4. If time pressure is good they should read unconditional counterplans and deal with affirmative straight turns.conditionality bad 2ar at: conditional perms check

1. Perms dont check abuse- they only test competition so the negative can force us out of them.

2. Counterplans are harder to answer than perms- the 1AC cant preempt every counterplan but the CP net benefit preempts our perms- they take way less time to answer.

3. Counterplans change the world of uniqueness in how we answer disads- perms dont, meaning they are different than a counterplan.

4. This justifies us getting to advocate the perms even if they kick the counterplan to ensure aff offense in rebuttals.

conditionality bad 2ar at: time skew arbitrary

1. Irrelevant- it doesnt answer our strategy skew or infinite regression arguments.

2. This doesnt answer our arguments- even if its arbitrary to whine that counterplans take more time it isnt arbitrary to argue that they moot 2AC offensive routes- its not that the counterplan takes longer but that we should be able to extend straight turns as offense like on disads.

3. This is bad defense- we cant give a number to strategy skew but we can prove that our standard is true on some level so it still stands as an offensive voter.

conditionality bad 2ar at: more real world

1. Real world is a bad standard for debate- Fiat isnt real but it is necessary to avoid should/would questions in debate. Intrinsic and severance perms are real world they just represent amendments to the plan but they are still theoretically bad. Fairness is a better model than real world policy making.

2. Conditionality isnt real world- Politicians determine their political posturing based on beliefs not on what their opponents cant effectively cover or answer.

3. This is defense- not a reason that conditionality is good, just a chance it isnt bad. If we win any offense its a reason to disregard this argument.

conditionality bad 2ar at: best policy option

1. Best policy option shouldnt be your default standard for theory- this justifies intrinsicness perms as the best policy to avoid the disads but they are bad for fairness. Fairness precedes education claims because no one will play a rigged game.

2. This proves our arguments about infinite regression- examining 20 policies increases the possibility well find the best one.

3. Dispositionality solves this- they can have their counterplan and test 100% of our plan while preserving strategic aff ground.

pics bad 2AC (long)

1. Ground and strategy skew- they moot the value of the 1AC and force the aff to start the debate in the 2AC.2. Encourage vague plan writing- that hurts the negatives ability to generate offense and is uniquely worse for them.

3. Education PICs reduce debate to superficial distinctions between the plan and counterplan- this moots breadth of education in the activity.

4. Affirmative contradiction it forces us to argue against ourselves which makes debate abusive and unfair this supercedes education.

5. Its inifintely regressive- justifying any single pic opens up the floodgates for menial one word pics.

6. Literature checks- If they dont have a piece of evidence specifically advocating the action of the counterplan it means debate is impossile for the aff to predict.

7. This is a voter for reasons of fairness and ground reject the team, not the argument.

Pics bad 2ac (short)

1. Ground and strategy skew- they moot the value of the 1AC and force the aff to start the debate in the 2AC.

2. Encourage vague plan writing- that hurts the negatives ability to generate offense and is uniquely worse for them.

3. Affirmative contradiction it forces us to argue against ourselves which makes debate abusive and unfair this supercedes education.

4. Its inifintely regressive- justifying any single pic opens up the floodgates for menial one word pics.

5. This is a voter for reasons of fairness and ground reject the team, not the argument.

pics bad 1ar (short)

PICs are bad

1. They overinflate the value of small disads by mooting most of the case.

2. They encourage vague plan writing to protect for clarifications- this is uniquely bad for negative ground and turns their offense.

3. Its infinite regressive- there are millions of pics so we can never be prepared.

4. Voter for fairness and education.

5. They have no offense on why PICs are key to fairness- only education. Fairness outweighs education because it is a prerequisite to educational discussion. Without sufficient 2AC offense against disads, educational discussion is impossible.Pics bad 1ar (all args) if you want to maybe go for it

Pics are bad and a voter for fairness.

1. The net benefit alone solves all of their offense but PICs are still unfair- they can test all of the plan without artifically inflating disad impacts against the case.

2. Its infinitely regressive- it justifies millions of counterplans that we cant prepare for.

3. We dont need to win in round abuse- there is no threshold for that standard. Judge theory like topicality- a question of competing interpretations.4. Fairness outweighs education- if the game is rigged, there is no possibility of educaiton discussions.

5. Even if they win their standard education claism, we have education offense

a. Provincial focus- PICs foreclose exploration of the majority of the 1AC, destroying argument diversity.

b. Vague plans- affirmatives will write their plan specifically vague to avoid PICs which makes debate useless for both sides.

6. Not all counterplans are pics and there is no right to counterplans anyways- they can go for the net benefit/case arguments.

7. Conditional/Dispositional PICs force a double bind- if we make offense they can kick the counterplan and use our offense as a disad against us. This is a voter external to any question of theory.

8. There is no impact to the search for best policy option- debates must be fair before we can try to model real life. Besides, this is a game- fiat proves.

9. PICs link turn questions of aff side bias we can never win if they skew it so we dont get offense. Side bias arguments should ONLY be used as a tiebreaker.

10. Reject the team, not the argument- we shouldnt have to win a theory debate just to return to square one.pics bad 1ar at: key to test all of plan

1. No impact no reason they need to test all of the plan. They can just prove that part of it is a bad idea. This solves our claims about fairness which outweigh this unwarranted argument.

2. PICs lead to bad plan testing- they dont test the ENTIRE plan, just some insubstantial part of it. This is worse for education.

3. The net benefit alone is sufficient- they can test the same portions of the plan but the affirmative still gets the 1AC to compare to disads. Pics bad 1ar at: Encourages spec plan writing

1. This argument is disproven by every debate ever. A more specific plan doesnt decrease pic ground they could still pic out of one word or actor. Instead, affirmatives will make the plan broad enough to be able to clarify.

2. That isnt a reason to justify an abusive pic- there are better ways to get to more specific plan writing such as running a disad with an artifically created generic link.

3. No impact the affirmative shouldnt lose for the plan having one tiny flaw.

4. There are an infinite number of pics that we can never predict- the only way to avoid them is to make our plan vague. That proves our argument.

pics bad 1ar at: lit checks

1. Literature does not answer our offense- even if the net benefit is predictble and based in the literature they moot a large portion of the 1AC, so they shouldnt get to fiat that.

2. It doesnt answer infinite regression- tons of idiots write stupid crap on the internet. That doesnt make it predictable.

3. They could quote Ben Franklins A penny saved is a penny earned and wrong a one cent counterplan- that makes for bad debate. Just look at the veto-cheato counterplan. Tons of idiots write about that but it doesnt make it a good argument.

4. Blogs solve all of their offense.pics bad 1ar at: net benefit/competition checks

1. Its infinitely regressive they can still run any minute PIC out of a single little part of our plan. There are tons of disads to miniscule aspects of the plan that the case would usually outweigh so we overlook them in our research.2. This inflates bad disads makes the impact seem huge because the counterplan captures almost all of the case. That analysis is above.

3. The affirmative should only have to win solvency deficits- not beat back the crappy net benefit.

4. It doesnt justify the strategy skew- we get literally 0% offense from the 1AC which makes debate 100% skewed negative.Pics bad 1ar at: best policy option

1. This doesnt justify PICs you can run counterplans that arent pics, or kritiks, or disads and case turns and just advocate the status quo.

2. This argument justifies multiple contradictory conditional positions, intrinsicness perms, severance, and new 2AC plan clarifications- all of which are bad for debate.

3. PICs destroy the search for best policy option- regardless of plan merits we cant win that its the best policy when we cant predic the PIC and make offense. Research tends to overwhelm truth claims in debate- just look at politics disads. Predictable offense is necessary to determine the best policy option.

4. Youre negative- you have no right to a best policy option. You have to prove that the affirmative is a BAD idea not just subsume part of our plan and claim you can do it best.

pics bad 1ar at: key to check extra topical plan planks

1. This isnt the reason you ran this pic. Plus, we arent extra topical

2. Topicality solves all of our offense- make us lose the debate there.

3. The judge can choose not to evaluate those plan planks.

4. Extra topicality is good- it gives you more ground for disads and critiques.pics bad 1ar at: aff must defend 100% of plan

1. It leads to trivial distinctions via pics which destroy WHOLE plan focus.

2. Our interpretation is fair- you could still run other counterplans or disads and case arguments and wed defend all of our plan.

3. We can defend 100% of our plan but your trivial PIC distinctions still mean that we get no offense.4. There is no reason we should be responsible for every tiny detail of implimentation, enforcement, etc unless there is a reason that concern can outweigh the rest of the plan. They literally force us to have offense to these minutia of issues.

pics bad 1ar at: encourages research

1. Research has no impact. It is just a poor defense of PICs. Dont do the work for them, were the only ones impacting fairness claims.

2. PICs discourage research- the negative will know that they only need the PIC to beat the case, so they wont research specific arguments. Researching PICs becomes a substitute to better arguments.3. They could research the net benefit without the PIC. Theyd still have incentive to work so that they have unpredictable disads.

pics bad 1ar at: in round abuse only

You should reject the team even if we cant win clear in round abuse

1. It sends a signal that PICs are a bad model for debate.

2. Theory is a question of what you justify, not what you do. Evaluate it like you evaluate topicality- if their world is unfair for the affirmative, they should lose.

3. We have in round abuse- we cant use our 1AC as offense against the counterplan, they can claim all of it while still getting their artifically inflated net benefit.pics bad 1ar at: topical pics check

1. No they dont. They only prove that PICs are bad- we cant use predictable aff ground based in the resoultion to outweigh the net benefit. They can still run veto counterplans, politician counterplans, etc.2. Its still infinitely regressive- funding the implimentation of a topical policy still provides excessive PIC ground.3. Topical PICs are actually worse- we cant use our predictable aff ground based in the resolution to outweigh the net benefit since they infringe on resolutional territory.

pics bad 1ar at: key to neg strat

1. The negative can have other counterplans- agent counterplans, plan-plans, and inventive counterplans (which are a dime-a-dozen on this topic) solve all of their offense.

2. Even if our interpretation is more limiting it is better for debate because it allows both sides to generate offense- again, fairness for both sides should outweigh fairness claims of one.

3. This justifies our ground claims the 1AC is key to affirmative strategy, and they entirely moot its offensive value.

4. The only reason they are good for the negative is because they screw the affirmative- they have no other offense. They are just good because we get no offense. Our interpretation still allows them to run other counterplans or their net benefit as long as they make a few in-roads on the case.

Pics bad 1ar at: more real world

1. Irrelevant- this isnt the real world, its a game, fiat proves. this justifies intrinsicness permutations as congressional amendments.

2. Their standard means you vote aff- after amendments the original author still gets credit.3. This is debate. It is a game. If the game is rigged in favor of one side, IT LOSES meaning.

4. The real world is a bad standard for debate- the entirety of disads are based not in the abstract of political theory, not real life.

5. Topicality isnt real world, neither are critiques with a pre-fiat alternative or aspec and ospec- that doesnt mean that they arent allowed in debate.

Pics bad 1ar at: plan focus1. Irrelevant- we have to defend 100% of our plan. You shouldnt get to defend it too. Youre negative.

2. The counterplan defacto justifies the resolutions intents so its still a reason to vote aff.

3. This isnt true. The trivial net benefit takes focus away from the plan anyway.

4. You can focus on the plan by indicting our solvency actor, which is a more effective alternative to PICs.

5. Plan focus doesnt outweigh questions of fairness- even if it is better for education.pics bad 1ar at: reject the arg

1. This is antilogical. Theory is a question of fairness- if we win that your interpretation isnt fair, you should lose the round.

2. Thats like saying that questions of topicality should reject the plan but vote for the advocacy- its bad for debate.

3. Rejecting the argument doesnt PUNISH the negative team which is the only way to send a signal- it is a defacto way of saying that dispo is good regardless of whether or not they can justify that claim.

4. This justifies 50 extra topical plan planks that spread the negative out of the debate but our justification is reject the plank, not the team.

5. Time constraints- rejecting the counterplan assumes we win on theory which requires such a time investment that were sure to lose offense on other flows.

Pics bad 1ar at: all cps = pics

1. Not true- there are plenty of mechanisms for solving the problems of the status quo. Sanctions, Engagement, Threats, and Incentives are all unique mechanisms of solving international relations problems that can be done without being a PIC.

2. If this argument is true, it is only a reason to reject counterplans- PICs are sufficiently bad for debate that the negative should be limited only to good disads and case arguments if this is true.3. They can run counterplans that solve all of our case without using any of our plan, for example

Pics bad 1ar at: err negative/side bias

1. This is so unwarranted. Even if they win warrants for why negative ground should be preserved PICs flip and WORSEN all side biases against the affirmative- if we cant generate offense, were in trouble. Side bias arguments should be tiebreakers, not round-deciding.

2. Judge bias goes negative critiques prove, as well as the flexibility of negative fiat. We can only fiat within this terrible resolution while they get everything else.

3. The block solves 100% of this argument- the 1AR is the hardest speech in debate. We have to fight an uphill battle to beat back the 15 minute block.4. We dont have infinite prep- we have to research for the negative too. Even if we do get more prep for our aff, that doesnt justify abuse. Plus, they have infinite prep to cut their generic disads and case arguments.5. The first and last speech dont matter- more focus is placed on the 1NC, the 2AR is spent making up for 1AR blocks, and the negative block subsumes all of this argument.pics bad 1ar at: we get one pic1. Theory is a question of competing interpretations. If you justify one pic that means that you justify ANY one pic which leads to one word pics.

2. Pics are bad flat out. There is no reason that only allowing one is okay. This isnt a conditionality argument.

3. Counter interpretation: the negative gets one counterplan that is wholly outside of the resoultion and the affirmative plan which doesnt compete through artificial net benefits.

pics bad 2ar OverviewPICs degrade debate and are a reason to vote against the negative- were winning a couple of key offensive arguments.

1. PICs destroy all aff ground- they allow the negative to overinflate disads that we could usually outweigh. That means we dont get to use the case as offense against any arguments. This crushes competitive equity and checks back all of their arguments about aff side bias.2. PICs are infinitely regressive. They can PIC out of specific politicians, meaningless questions of funding, certain localities, etc. and create a meanial net benefit based on individual action, one county, etc. This destroys debate by giving the negative infinitely many ways to usurp the case with some lame net benefit.3. Allowing PICs will ultimately hurt the negative as well it encourages vague plan writing to make desperate attempts to avoid PICs and protect ground. Vagueness will not only deny PICs but effective disad, case, and kritik ground- this subsumes all of their reasons why PICs are good since it proves that allowing PICs will just make debate worse in the long run. It also makes the loss of PICs inevitable.

4. These arguments outweigh all of their offense the err negative on theory crap is predicated on an educational gain- this is a moot point if fairness isnt established as a prerequisite because no one will debate if it isnt fair.

5. None of their arguments are reasons why PICs are GOOD, just reasons why the need the net benefit. They can run agent counterplans, plan-plans, or creative other mechanisms to solve our case while ANSWERING THE ADVANTAGES and going for the same net benefit- this is better for debate because they can test 100% of the plan without mooting our ability to compare the case to the disad.

6. We shouldnt have to win in-round abuse for you to vote here. Its impossible to determine what is sufficient abuse to vote on theory. We should just have to win that our interpretation is better for debate. If we win that pics are on-balance bad for debate they should lose. Were the only ones with IMPACT CALCULUS and a clear framework for evaluating theory.pics bad 2ar at: real world

1. Real world justifications are a bad model for debate- fiat isnt real but we use it for the purposes of debate. Intrinsic perms are more real world but they are still bad for the negative- there is no reason to default to this standard.

2. PICs are unrealistic- policy options arent rejected based on one minor flaw but rather on questions of overall desirability.

pics bad 2ar at: encourages spec plan writing

1. Vague plan writing offense link turns any impacts to good plan writing- were ahead on this part of the debate.

2. There is no reason this should come before our fairness claims- the aff should not lose debates because of one tiny plan flaw. Were the only ones with impact calculus and comparisons of the offense in the round.

3. Proves infinite regression: we cant possibly write a plan good enough to avoid every PIC unless we write it purposely vague- this proves our argument.

pics bad 2ar at: reject the arg, not the team

1. Reject the team. This is a bad standard and would justify numerous extra topical plan planks but only rejecting the plan, not the team. That alone is bad for debate.

2. Time constraints necessitate rejecting the team. We have to win a theory debate and that time tradeoff means that we cant win offense on other flows- we go for theory to punish the team for abuse. We shouldnt have to win theory just to return to square one.

3. Debating theory is good- it shapes the interpretations that apply to a broader level of debate. Rejection of a flawed theoretical framework helps shape debate as a whole. Dont let them try to claim educaiton standards off of going for theory- if we dont hammer out theoretical issues first it makes any education meaningless because the game is already rigged.

pics bad 2ar at: net benefit/competition checks

1. Researching the net benefit doesnt solve our offense- only theirs. It allows them to test all of the plan but the corresponding PIC destroys affirmative ground by giving us no weigh to leverage the case against the disad. This moots the value to any possible research weve done for offense against the net benefit

2. The net benefit doesnt check infinite regression- tons of disads exist to miniscule aspects of the plan. We can usually overlook the explosive number of disads unless we have to prepare for bad PIC debates. This turns and magnifies research burden and education arguments.pics bad 2ar Aff must defend 100% of plan

1. We will- but we should have the ability to weigh the entirety of the plan against disads or kritiks otherwise they can overinflate the impacts and well always lose.

2. There is no reason we should be responsible for the tiny details of implimentation- that proves our infinite regression argument.

3. They force us to literally have offense against every possible difference in funding and agency- these fairness concerns should outweigh their education defense.

4. Not allowing us to leverage the case against disads turns education because it doesnt allow us to use it as defense against poorly constructed disads.pics bad 2ar at: encourages research

1. Research is a defense standard for PICs without a comparative impact- dont do the work for them, were the only ones impacting fairness claims since the 1AR.

2. Turn: PICs discourage research. Even though the negative may be encouraged to research a trivial PIC, they wont go beyond because theyll know thats all that they need to win. Researching terrible tiny counterplans will subsume research on developed case arguments, disads, etc.

3. Our counterinterpretation solves: They could run the net benefit without the PIC and still get all of the research/education offense without any of the abuse.pics bad 2ar at: key to neg ground

1. The only way they can win PICs are good for the negative is because of abuse they cause. It is naturally good for the negative to produce a counterplan that we cant predict or generate offense against- but this begs the question of fairness. Our interpretation allows them to run the net benefit which sufficiently ensures aff testing and negative ground and means that they only need to win some solvency deficit arguments to beat back the aff.

2. They can run other counterplans- the overview is clear on the point that they can run unique and better counterplans to solve the aff case and preserve fair ground for both teams.

pics good 2nc (Long)

1. Side bias justifies- the affirmative picks their own ground, they have the first and last speech, and they get repeated debates to perfect their 2AC blocks.

2. Education demands PICs

a. The counterplan could be a legit argument in the literature or policy-making circles; excluding it would be arbitrary and destroy topic education.

b. Topic literature demands PICs- we have specific solvency advocates that treat it as a legitimate policy option.

3. Education and activism outweigh their narrow fairness concerns- learning about how policies function determines our real world advocacy skills which extend beyond the debate.

4. Literature checks- It ensures predictability of the counterplan.

5. PICs are critical to checking extratopical advantages- they ensure affirmative accountability.

6. No infinite regression- the plan provides affirmative predictability; theyve had tons of time to plan on defending the way they explain it.

7. All counterplans are plan-inclusive- they all use the federal government or they involve alternate agents to do the plan action.

8. Addon advantages check abuse- they can run addons to the parts of the plan we exclude. They should be prepared to defend.

9. Reject the argument, not the team- for the reasons above.pics good 2nc (short)

1. Side bias justifies- the affirmative picks their own ground, they have the first and last speech, and they get repeated debates to perfect their 2AC blocks.

2. Education demands PICs

c. The counterplan could be a legit argument in the literature or policy-making circles; excluding it would be arbitrary and destroy topic education.

d. Topic literature demands PICs- we have specific solvency advocates that treat it as a legitimate policy option.

3. Education and activism outweigh their narrow fairness concerns- learning about how policies function determines our real world advocacy skills which extend beyond the debate.

4. Literature checks- It ensures predictability of the counterplan.

5. No infinite regression- the plan provides affirmative predictability; theyve had tons of time to plan on defending the way they explain it.

6. All counterplans are plan-inclusive- they all use the federal government or they involve alternate agents to do the plan action.

7. Reject the argument, not the team- for the reasons above.

pics good 2nr overview

Well win that PICs are key to Negative ground and crucial to test their plan. None of their arguments answer that PICs are inevitable that all counterplans are technically PICs, which means that their interpretation is devastating for the Negative. We could never run a counterplan under their interpretation, which forces us to defend racism good, or to never test the Aff plan the way we should. If we win the uniqueness to this argument, any risk that our interpretation is good for debate should be preferred. Now, the line-by-line:

pics good 2nr at: no aff ground

1. The aff always has ground- they could straight turn the net benefit.

2. They dont lose 1AC ground per se they just chose a poor 1AC that doesnt have good defense against PICs- that means they have no unique right to their entire 1AC.

pics good 2nr at: leads to vague plan text

1. This is a lie- they will write their plan more specifically to ensure that we have less ground.

2. Not a reason to reject PICs- they should defend their assumptions. If that causes bad plan text choices, well beat them on other arguments.

3. No impact- Vague plan text gives more links to disads and critiques which leads to more educational debate. They have to prove why this is a bad standard.

pics good 2nr other counterplans are okay

1. This is an unfair distinction for the aff to make- if we can win that counterplans are critical to negative strategy, PICs are just one more weapon. We are entitled to any method of affirmative testing.

2. There is no threshold- all arguments are PICs. They either use the federal government or some other actor to do the plan with small changes.

3. This proves our side bias arguments- allowing the aff to choose the direction of negative strategy any further ensures that they win 100% of debates. It makes being negative an impossible position.

pics good 2nr at: net benefit alone is enough

4. This is irrelevant- PICs are critical to highlighting the importance oft eh net benefits that would otherwise be menial in the 2AC decision making. PICs increase the relevance of issues that would otherwise be pushed to the side for more important disads.

5. PICs are critical to ensuring the uniqueness of our net benefit which means that well get indepth discussion on the impact issues.

6. The aff doesnt get to pick negative strategy- we should be able to use the net benefit to test the aff in whatever way we want. Thats our job, were negative.pics good 2nr at: inifitely regressive

1. No Impact- While the number of PICs may be high, each is based around the plan and thus fully predictable and easy to defend against.

2. Education Outweighs- They can spin lame stories of ridiculous stupid counterplans but no one would run those because theyd lose on a solvency deficit. Education demands unique and good pics.

3. Literature Checks- If we can provide a single card advocating the counterplan it checks the ability of infinite one-word regression.pics good 2nr at: bad advocacy

7. TURN- Advocacy and activism demand pics because they force the affirmative to defend all of the assumptions behind the plan and chart the direction for movements of chance.

This isnt true- well fully advocate our pic and its educational benefits as a unique issue in this round worthy of full consideration.

dispositionality good 2nc (Long)1. Counter interpretation- the negative gets one dispositional counterpland the status quo. this is uniquely better than conditional and unconditional counterplans.2. Strategy skew is inevitable- they have to choose whether or not they want to deploy their best answers on the counterplan anyway.

3. We turn time skew- they can allocate their time to force us to spend more time on the counterplan.

4. We turn strategy skew- were limited more by how they choose to answer the counterplan.

5. Best policy option justifies the dispo counterplan- we should be able to freely test all of the affirmative and areas outside of the topic.

6. Straight turns check abuse- Any offense guarantees that well go for the counterplan.

7. Perms check abuse- they can test the competitiveness of the counterplan and we wont go for it. Perms take 2 seconds to make and 2 minutes to answer.

8. Err negative on questions of theory- they get the first and last speech as well as infinite prep time

9. Dont reject the team, reject the argument- were just leveling the playing field.dispositionality good 2nc (short)1. Counter interpretation- the negative gets one dispositional counterpland the status quo. this is uniquely better than conditional and unconditional counterplans.2. Strategy skew is inevitable- they have to choose whether or not they want to deploy their best answers on the counterplan anyway.

3. Best policy option justifies the dispo counterplan- we should be able to freely test all of the affirmative and areas outside of the topic.

4. Straight turns check abuse- Any offense guarantees that well go for the counterplan.

5. Err negative on questions of theory- they get the first and last speech as well as infinite prep time

6. Dont reject the team, reject the argument- were just leveling the playing field.

dispo 2nr AT: perms dont check

1. This is asinine- they still get their perms but only as a test of competition- if they can prove the counterplan isnt competitive that justifies our not going for it.

2. It is inevitable that the counterplan will dictate the direction of the perms otherwise theyd be intrinsic which kills negative strategy.

3. Perms are worse for negative strategy because we have to spend a disproportional amount of time answering them if we want to go for the counterplan.

Dispo good 2nr at: straight turns dont check1. Yes they do- if you have an offensive reason why the counterplan is bad then well go for it, thats uniquely better for the aff.

2. A world where they dont have offense means that it is more likely that well go for the counterplan anyway.

3. It ensures that you just need to do a bit of research and well lose the counterplan debate every time.

4. Straight turns are a far cry from strategy skew for the aff- straight turns are better than perms anyway, and if you want to make both, make both.dispo good 2NR at: no aff side bias1. Yes there is- they get the first and last speech as well as infinite prep time.

2. The 1AR is not nearly as hard as they say- you just develop more credible reasons to prefer 2AC argumentation.

3. The block doesnt justify the 2AR which is a speech specifically designed to sway judges to prefer the aff.

4. Even if there isnt a specific aff side bias in the minds of judges, a world without dispositional counterplans ensures an aff side bias on every counterplan debate.dispo good 2nr at: education1. Going for theory is worse for education than any claims about dispositional counterplans.

2. Dispo counterplans are better for education- they allow the affirmative to explore more ways to uniquely attack the counterplan.

3. Unconditional counterplans are worse- they crush our search for the best policy option which should be a paradigm for evaluating debate.

4. Conditional counterplans are worse- they breed artifical advocacy and make counterplan debates superfluous.

dispo good 2nr at: your cp is conditional

8. Shut up. Conditional means that we can kick it any time- weve outlined that if you straight turn it, we cant.

9. Just because we can kick when you perm doesnt make it conditional- youre simply questioning the competition of the counterplan.

10. This uniquely proves why dispositionality is better- precisely because it isnt conditionality.

11. their interpretation of conditionality makes debate unwinnable for the negative and means that unless we choose to run the cp unconditionally well always lose to a theory debate.dispo good 2nr at: multiple worlds1. This is not a dispo bad argument this is a counterplans bad argument all counterplans create multiple worlds.

2. They dont have to generate offense against any world EXCEPT the counterplan. Their whole 1AC is offense against the status quo. They just need to defend that.

3. Conditional counterplans are worse- they create multiple worlds with no stable advocacy. Even if the aff doesnt need specific offense it is still justifies a world with more abuse.dispo good 2nr at: no advocacy1. This claim is unwarranted- were negative! We will advocate either the status quo or a competitive counterplan. Only the affirmative is obligated to one stable advocacy.

2. This has no implications on in round education- well advocate the counterplan until it is NOT educationally beneficial or doesnt aid in the best policy option- we still learn about it while we talk about it.

3. Our advocacy is simple: aff bad.

4. Conditionality is worse it creates a world of literally no advocacy at all.

dispo good 2nr overviewGoing for theory in the 2AR is worse for education in debate than our dispositional counterplan any day. There are a few reasons that you shouldnt pull the trigger on theory:

1. Reject the argument not the team- While they may be able to win reasons why our framework stole 10 seconds of 2AC speech time, that doesnt answer reasons why the negative should have ultimate flexibility in defending the bastion of preparation that is the aff. Vote against the counterplan and still weigh our disads and case arguments.

2. Dispositionality is not bad for debate. Well advocate the counterplan as a way of disproving the affirmative unless they can prove that counterplan noncompetitive or we feel wed like to advocate the status quo. All they need is some good offense and were screwed.

3. Dispositionality is the lesser of all evils: conditional counterplans are worse for debate because they mean that the affirmative has no leeway in controlling negative strategy. Unconditional counterplans make it impossible to be negative- dispo is the only fair middle ground.

4. Best policy option should supercede all other claims- debate is a game about what would best solve a problem and dispositionality is the only way to adequetly test the waters of available solutions.dispositionality bad 2ac (long)1. Strategy skew- we have to choose how to attack the counterplan and generate offense against the CP and ths status quo. Dispo pics make this uniquely worse because they can suck up any add-ons.

2. One unconditional counterplan solves all of their offense- it ensures fair clash, education, and the search for the best policy option. It also ensures reciprocity.

3. Education- they kill in depth education on advocacy issues which is the grounds for all learning in debate.

4. Fairness- they tilt the debate 100% in the favor of the negative- we can never prepare to adequately answer the CP without losing every other position.

5. It creates bad advocacy- they can decide midway through the round what they support.

6. it justifies aff conditionality- it makes intrinsic and severance perms legitimate.

7. This is a voter for reasons of fairness and predictability- Even if they go for the counterplan you should vote aff because of 2AC strategy skew.dispositionality bad 2AC (short)1. Strategy skew- we have to choose how to attack the counterplan and generate offense against the CP and ths status quo. Dispo pics make this uniquely worse because they can suck up any add-ons.

2. One unconditional counterplan solves all of their offense- it ensures fair clash, education, and the search for the best policy option. It also ensures reciprocity.

3. Education- they kill in depth education on advocacy issues which is the grounds for all learning in debate.

4. Fairness- they tilt the debate 100% in the favor of the negative- we can never prepare to adequately answer the CP without losing every other position.

5. This is a voter for reasons of fairness and predictability- Even if they go for the counterplan you should vote aff because of 2AC strategy skew.

dispo bad 1ar (all args) if you maybe want to go for it

Dispositionality is bad and a voter for fairness- a couple of argument subsume all of their block answers.

1. Negative counterplan dispositionality is unique- we cant extend straight turns on other flows as offense. It is a new world.

2. Dispo is conditionality in drag

a. Strategic negatives will add extraneous planks to the counterplan to force aff perms.

b. Competition has multiple meanings- answering the net benefit proves a counterplan non-competitive so they could kick it.

3. Unconditionality solves all of their offense- It gives negative flexibility but preserves critical 2AC strategy ground.

4. Dont need in round abuse- The threshold is impossible to measure- competing interpretations is the only objective way to evaluate theory.

5. Fairness outweighs education- Unfair debates destroy the possibility of in depth discussion.

6. If they win that education outweighs, well still capture that- Conditionality kills education, encourages easy shallow debates by the negative.

7. No impact to best policy- Debate is not the real world, it must be fair. FIAT proves this is a game.

8. Dispo link turns and magnifies side bias- We cant win without offense. Side bias arguments should ONLY be a tie breaker.

9. Damage was done to 2AC strategy- vote against the team, not the argument.dispo bad 1ar overview

1. Dispositionality is conditionality in drag

a. Strategic negatives will add extraneous planks to the counterplan to force aff perms.

b. Competition has multiple meanings- answering the net benefit proves a counterplan non-competitive so they could kick it.

2. This limits our options to make strategic concessions, stifling critical thinking and forcing answering of negative positions in a vacuum. This destroys 2AC time allocation and strategy- voters for fairness and education.

3. Fairness claims outweigh education because no one wants to play a rigged game.

dispo bad 1ar outweighs topicality

Dispositionality outweighs topicality

1. 2AC strategy and time skew means we cant effectively answer topicality. Proves our reasonability standards.

2. Its infinite regressive- It justifies extending 50 contradictary counterplans in the block and going for T in the 2NR.

3. Dispos potential abuse outweighs- T is only that year, dispo is relevant to the entire activity of debate.

4. In round abuse outweighs- Strategy skew outweighs their fairness claims because the ultime impact of 2AC strategy skew is a larger fairness problem where the neg will ALWAYS win.

Worst case scenario is that our education and fairness impacts cancel out the voters on T and both arguments go away. Risk of the case warrants an aff ballot.

dispo bad 1ar at: key to neg strat

1. Dispositionality decreases strategic thinking- the option to kick the counterplan undermines argument interactions.

2. Unconditionality solves- They still have the strategic option of counterplans run fairly.

3. Proves abuse- It is key to the strategy only because it hijacks aff ground for making answers.

dispo bad 1ar at: conditional perms worse

Conditional perms are better than dispo counterplans

1. The net benefit is automatic offense- perms include the plan which the net benefit is a disad to.

2. Only a test If they kick the counterplans, the perm goes away, so its always still in their hands.

3. Counterplans change the world of uniqueness which changes the answering of every position.

dispo bad 1ar at: plan focus/neg theory

1. This justifies racism because only testing the plan matters.

2. Our reasons that dispo is bad prove that their standard is bad for debate. Negation theory should only be upheld when it is a fair paradigm.

3. Counterinterpretation solves They can still focus on the plan using counterplans unconditionally.

dispo