SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
THEORY
TOPICALITY IS NOT A VOTING ISSUE ................................................................................................................ 2
COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS GOOD ............................................................................................................. 3
COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS BAD ................................................................................................................ 4
EFFECTS TOPICALITY BAD ................................................................................................................................... 5
EFFECTS TOPICALITY GOOD ................................................................................................................................ 6
CONDITIONALITY BAD - 2AC……………………………………………………………………………………7
1AR CONDITIONALITY – EXTS – DISPOSITIONALITY COUNTERINTERP................................................... 8
1AR CONDITIONALITY – EXTS #1 – STABLE ADVOCACY ............................................................................. 9
1AR CONDITIONALITY – EXTS #2 – TIME/STRAT SKEW .............................................................................. 10
1AR CONDITIONALITY – EXTS #3 – DEPTH VS. BREADTH .......................................................................... 11
1AR CONDITIONALITY – EXTS #4 – RECIPROCITY ........................................................................................ 12
CONDITIONALITY GOOD (1/2) ............................................................................................................................ 13
CONDITIONALITY GOOD 2/2 ............................................................................................................................... 14
DISPOSITIONALITY BAD – 2AC .......................................................................................................................... 15
PLAN INCLUSIVE COUNTERPLANS BAD – 2AC .............................................................................................. 16
1AR EXTS - #1 – MOOTS 1AC ............................................................................................................................... 17
1AR EXTS - #2 – PLAN WRITING ......................................................................................................................... 18
1AR PICS – EXTS #3 – UNPREDICTABLE ........................................................................................................... 19
PLAN INCLUSIVE COUNTERPLANS GOOD ...................................................................................................... 20
Textual Competition Good ......................................................................................................................................... 21
Functional Competition Good .................................................................................................................................... 22
AGENT CPS BAD ..................................................................................................................................................... 23
50 STATE UNIFORM FIAT BAD ............................................................................................................................ 24
50 STATE UNIFORM FIAT GOOD......................................................................................................................... 25
Lopez CP BAD ........................................................................................................................................................... 26
INTERNATIONAL ACTOR FIAT BAD .................................................................................................................. 27
CONSULTATION CPS BAD ................................................................................................................................... 28
2NC CPs GOOD…………………………………………………………………………………………………….29
2NC CPS ILLEGITIMATE ....................................................................................................................................... 30
NO TEXT TO THE K ALTERNATIVE BAD .......................................................................................................... 31
FLOATING PIKS BAD ............................................................................................................................................. 32
1
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
TOPICALITY IS NOT A VOTING ISSUE
AND, TOPICALITY IS NOT A VOTING ISSUE –
A. Literature and clash check abuse—renewable energy to RPS is both central to the topic and has a deep
literature base which checks all of their arguments
B. Competing interpretations is a bad method to evaluate topicality debates-it encourages arbitrary definitions and
justifies counter interpretation, only our aff is topical
C. Reasonability is a better method to evaluate topicality debates—if they cannot prove that our aff is harmful to
their ground there is no reason to reject us
2
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS GOOD
COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS IS BEST:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
ONLY OBJECTIVE STANDARD – IT’S THE ONLY WAY FOR A JUDGE TO COMPARE TWO
INTERPRETATIONS – REASONABILITY RELIES ON JUDGE INTERVENTION TO DETERMINE
WHETHER A SINGLE INTERPRETATION IS GOOD OR NOT.
FAIRNESS – KEY TO ELIMINATE DEFINITIONS THAT ARE BAD FOR DEBATE BECAUSE
THEY ARE TOO BROAD, NARROW, OR OBSCURE
INCREASES CLASH – ALLOWS US TO DEBATE THE MERITS AND DISADVANTAGES OF
USING CERTAIN DEFINITIONS
NOT ARBITRARY – WE DON’T USE AN ARBITRARY DEFINITION, AND IF WE DID THEY
WOULD JUST POINT THAT OUT
THEY AREN’T EVEN REASONABLY TOPICAL: ________________________
NOT UNFAIR FOR THE AFF – IF THEY’RE TOPICAL THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND AN
OFFENSIVE JUSTIFICATION FOR A DEFINITION THAT THEY MEET – ALL THE CASES THAT
MEET OUR INTERPRETATION CAN DO THIS
3
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS BAD
1. The Search for Best Definitions is a Major Cause of Misunderstanding
I.A. Richards, Oxford, The Philosophy of Rhetoric, 1936, p.11
A chief cause of misunderstanding, I shall argue later, is the Proper Meaning Superstition. That is, the common
belief-encouraged officially by what liner on in the school manuals as Rhetoric—that a word has a meaning of its
own (ideally, only one) independent of and controlling its use and the purpose for which it should be uttered.
2. Definitions are Never Definite
Frederich Waismann, prof of philosophy, Oxford, The Theory of Meaning,
G.R.H. Parkinson, ed., 1968, p.40
…we can never eliminate the possibility of some unforeseen fact emerging, we can never be quite sure that we
have included in our definition, everything that should be included, and thus, the process of defining and refining
an idea will go on without ever reaching a final stage. In other words, every definition stretches into an open
horizon.
3. Attempts to find Definite Meanings can be Worthless
Susanne Langer, philosopher, Philosophy in a New Key, 1942, p. 43
The analysis of “meaning” has had a particularly difficult history; the word is used in many different ways, and a
good deal of controversy has been wasted on the subject of THE correct way, THE meaning of “meaning.”
4. Specific abuse is all that matters: If the neg can not articulate any in round ground loss then there is nothing
wrong with our interpretation of debate.
4
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
EFFECTS TOPICALITY BAD
EFFECTS TOPICALITY IS BAD:
1) THE AFF CAN CLAIM UNPREDICTABLE ADVANTAGES OFF ANY OF THE POTENTIALLY
HUNDREDS OF STEPS BETWEEN PLAN ACTION AND AFFIRMING THE RESOLUTION – ANY
CASE THAT PREVENTS NUCLEAR WAR BECOMES TOPICAL BECAUSE IT PREVENTS
EVERYONE IN THE NATIONAL SERVICE PROGRAMS FROM DYING
2) EVEN IF THEY GRANT US POTENTIAL FOR MORE GROUND, THIS IS UNPREDICTABLE
GROUND BECAUSE IT’S NOT TIED TO THE RESOLUTION, WHICH IS USEELSS TO THE NEG –
JUST BECAUSE THERE’S SOMETHING TO SAY AGAINST IT DOESN’T MEAN WE SHOULD BE
EXPECTED TO CARRY IT WITH US
3) TOPICALITY IS AN A PRIORI ISSUE – MUST BE EVALUATED BEFORE LOOKING AT
SUBSTANTIVE POLICY ISSUES LIKE SOLVENCY – MEANS THAT IF THE PLAN TEXT ISN’T
ON FACE TOPICAL, YOU REJECT IT AS NOT IN YOUR JURISDICTION TO EVEN CONSIDER
5
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
EFFECTS TOPICALITY GOOD
EFFECTS TOPICALITY GOOD –
1. We still defend the resolution—as of the 1ac, we will affirm the topic—the only way for us to spike out is
if they make those arguments—it’s the same on any other argument
2. Increases negative ground—they get more links based on the different steps that we take
3. Not infinitely regressive—literature base and loss of strategic value means we’ll never take 10 steps to
reach the resolution—that would just give them more ground to CP out of
6
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
CONDITIONALITY BAD
Conditionality is a voting issue 1. destroys stable advocacy - policymakers don’t advocate multiple paradoxical positions. This destroys realworld education.
2. strategy and time skew- the conditional nature of the CP means that the 2AC is mooted by the potential
for the kick-out. The Aff can’t control the policy advocacy in the round – guts in-round decision-making.
3. depth over breadth- conditionality means shallow debates on more arguments instead of one developed
in-depth position. Forcing the Negative to stick with one advocacy increases the depth of the debate.
4. not reciprocal- The affirmative can’t kick out of the plan and has to defend it then so should the negative.
5. Interpretation – Negatives are allowed on dispositional CP – solves your offense and gives the Aff some
strategy against the CP.
7
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
1AR CONDITIONALITY – EXTS – DISPOSITIONALITY COUNTERINTERP
Even if they win any of their conditionality good arguments all of them are solves by dispositionality. They could
have ran their advocacy dispositonality. This is good because it puts the ball back in the affirmative court allowing
the affirmative to make strategic choices to prevent time skew, or any other abuse. Treat theory like topicality in
terms of competing interpretations.
8
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
1AR CONDITIONALITY – EXTS #1 – STABLE ADVOCACY
Extend 2ac conditionality kills stable advocacies because it allows the affirmative to moot out of any advocacy,
deeming every argument that is run conditionally, terminally unstable.
stable advocacies are key to 2 things:
1) education
we have two internal links to our education standard:
real world education
stable advocacies are an essential standard of real world policy making, since every policy maker creates his/her
plan and sticks with it, rather than creating his/her her plan and then dropping it because the opposing party makes
good arguments against the former's plan. Mirroring real world policy making allows for a form of holistic
education, since you get put in the shoes of an actual policy maker.
And, second internal link is critical thinking
Without stable advocacies, debate would allow people to drop arguments because the opposing team responds with
good arguments. This kills any chance of critical thinking, because in a world of stable of advocacies, teams
would kick out of arguments because the arguments are "hard" to defend.
2) bidirectionality
If the negative team is confined to defending one advocacy, both teams are distributed a fair amount of ground to
defend or hedge against the negative/affirmative's advocacy. bidirectionality is key to maintain a fair debate, since
both teams are given equal amounts of ground to defend, post-constructives.
9
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
1AR CONDITIONALITY – EXTS #2 – TIME/STRAT SKEW
Extend conditionality kills strategy and time skew- the affirmative can run 10 conditional counterplans and they
can kick them and go for the one with least offense means the aff would lose.
1. strategy skew – conditionality forces contradictory arguments on both sides—in order to answer one position
affs have to strategically compromise a position on another flow. this is unfair because it makes us argue for and
against our initial positions and kills our ground. it’s uneducational—we should pick one position and stick to it.
2. time skew – they can run an incredible amount of arguments and kick all of them—choosing the one we
couldn’t get to. this encourages cheap-shot debate where reading fast is more important than strategic thinking—
destroying clash. clash is key to education—its necessary to develop arguments and have warranted debates. it
decreases fairness because teams that can read faster than others will always win. reading faster doesn’t make a
better debater—it deters strategic thinking and forces everyone to just read faster.
10
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
1AR CONDITIONALITY – EXTS #3 – DEPTH VS. BREADTH
extend 2AC #3 - depth is better than breadth –
1. policy education - we are future policymakers and conscientious voters—we don’t completely understand
how policies work when we have shallow debates
2. discourages clash—shallow debates means we get a superficial understanding of policies and can’t
generate specific arguments
3. justifies warrantless claims - shallow debates are the equivalent of tagline debating instead of exploring
the warrants to a claim.
11
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
1AR CONDITIONALITY – EXTS #4 – RECIPROCITY
Extend that conditionality is not reciprocal because the affirmative can’t kick out of plan
1. justifies performative contradictions---it allows the negative to run multiple arguments that contradict
like the ssa representations k and china cp. kills fairness the aff cant win when the neg can gain links to
their k from the 2ac's response the the cp.
2. education--multiple advocacies allow the neg to go for the argument that was under-covered discouraging
argument development. indepth arguments improve education on the subject.
3. aff conditionality --the aff is stuck with the plan the neg should be held to the same standard- justifies
severance, we can sever the links to the da's. due to strat skew.
4. makes them moving target- the negative can shift their advocacy through the round to spike out of 2ac
offense destroying the predictability this out-weighs neg flex.
12
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
CONDITIONALITY GOOD (1/2)
CONDITIONALITY IS LEGITIMATE Counterinterpretation: The negative gets one conditional advocacy --- solves their infinite regress and multiple
counterplan claims --- makes debate hard but not impossible.
First is our Offense
A. Negative Flexibility : the negatives role is to negate the resolution – conditionality provides us with a crucial
strategic tool – this outweighs their argument because negative flexibility is key to competitive equity and
balancing an affirmative side bias.
B. Strategic thinking: Debating in multiple worlds offers unique educational skills like critical thinking and time
management that are more important than their types of education because they can be applied to future rounds and
every career path not just policymaking
(_) Education: We learn about more advocacies and affirmative defenses of those advocacies.
Policymaking should begin at challenging multiple broad concerns and collapse on to specific issues in order
to choose the best policy.
Etzioni 1986. [Amitai, Ph.D. in Sociology from UC Berkeley, Professor of Sociology at Columbia, “Mixed Scanning Revisited”]
Janis and Mann (1977. p. 37) introduced a major improvement of the program. They point out that while in the initial scanning. all those options
that have no "crippling objections" are held over for closer scanning. which amounts to a "quasi-satisficing" approach,
"each time the surviving alternatives are reexamined, the testing rule might be changed in the optimizing direction
by raising the minimum standard (from crippling objections to more minor objections)." They also expanded the range of decision making to which mixed
scanning may be applied: "Although intended for policy makers. the same program, with minor modifications could be applied to
an individual's work-task decisions and to personal decisions involving career, marriage, health or financial security" ( 1977, p. 38). For such applications. they indicated, step a(i) must be
modified: the staff and advisers would be replaced by family or friends. Starkie (1984. r. ' 5) concurs with Etzioni that a mere accumulation of numerous incremental changes is not expected to yield :tic equivalent of a
contextual or fundamental decision. because the incrementalist model provides no provide lines for the accumulation; it is likely to be random or scattered. In contrast. in mixed scanning. the fundamental decisions provide such
guidance. Starkie correctly points out that Etzioni's suggestion that an "incremental 'creep' followed by a sudden change when existing policies are no longer sustainable by modification alone" is but one possible pattern of a
combination of incremental and fundamental decisions; incrementation may follow a fundamental decision, just as readily as the other way around. Chadwick (1971) relates the various methods of decision making to different
purposes and techniques of decision making. He sees rationalism as related to attempts to explore the long range; and sees its techniques as either normative forecasting or exploration and simulation; that is. lacking in empirical
context. He sees
the purpose of mixed scanning as the "provision of alternative sets of action policies," using evaluation.
the design methods. and something he calls "planning balance sheet" (p. 340). No details are provided concerning these techniques and Chadwick's endorsement of mined
scanning "as a highly acceptable meta-procedure" is based on his judgment that it is flexible but not on an empirical study. Wright (1977) follows a similar tack.
[…]
Parkinson (1980) applies the mixed-scanning approach in an attempt to develop a new policy-making model for the
educational system in Ohio, superior to the existing one. The approach used in the educational system before Parkinson’s endeavor was relatively
incremental; contextual considerations were neglected (1980, p. 161 1. Following the mixed-scanning approach, Parkinson developed a model that defines
policy first on a broad level and then evaluates policy on an incremental level. To incorporate the mixed-scanning approach,
Parkinson suggested that there is a need to establish a meta policy group with the capability to maintain broad
perspectives needed for longer range planning. -without destroying the need for individuals and groups to research
and provide information on specific policy issues which are of particular interest themselves” (1980. p. 169). Parkinson’s study is normarive in
that it is prescriptive; he did not study the results of shifting io the mixed-scanning model he favored in his study.
13
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
CONDITIONALITY GOOD 2/2
Second is our defense
A. Everything in debate is conditional – the Aff can kick out of advantages or permutations. The Aff is not tied to
extension of every 2AC argument
B. Alternatives worse– the status quo should always be a logical option – otherwise the judge is forced into the
illogical position of endorsing a bad counterplan if the plan is worse.
C. Time and strategy skews are inevitable – teams will always be faster and theory and topicality arguments will
always produce a time and strategic trade-off – the counterplan is preferable to these debates because they increase
education and equalize time trade offs
D. Err Neg on theory – the aff gets 1st and last speech, infinite prep, and strategic case selection
14
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
DISPOSITIONALITY BAD
Dispositionality is a voting issue 1. dispositionality is the same as conditionality - even if we straight turn it they can still advocate a independent
da to case that over comes the advocacy and the plan we can never stick them with the cp killing education and
fairness
2. strategy and time skew- the conditional nature of the CP means that the 2AC is mooted by the potential for the
kick-out. The Negative could potentially read 10 different dispositional policy arguments – the Aff can’t fairly
answer all of those worlds.
3. not reciprocal- the affirmative can’t kick out of the plan and has to defend it then so should the negative.
4. counter interp- we can straight turn the net benefit but also get 1 theory arg other than dispo bad and a perm
that is not intrensic.
15
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
PLAN INCLUSIVE COUNTERPLANS ILLEGITIMATE
AND, PICS ARE A VOTING ISSUE –
A. MOOTS THE 1AC – the PIC forces the aff to argue against their own plan. This makes it impossible for the
aff to generate offense. It is not unreasonable that the Aff should be able to utilize their 1AC as offense to a CP.
B. HURTS NEG GROUND - Encourages bad plan writing. In the world of PICs, the affirmative will reduce the
amount specificity in their plan. This hurts the ability for the negative to generate disad links and specific case
turns.
C. PREDICTABILITY –PICs encourage debate over trivial aspects of the plan. The functional nature of most
PICS make the research burden impossible for the aff.
D. OUR INTERPRETATION IS: The negative is allowed one counterplan that is either is NOT derived from
affirmative action, or an inclusive counterplan that is directly derived from the plan text. (the negative is allowed
one counterplan that both textually competes and functionally competes.)*
**CONDITIONAL PICS ARE UNIQUELY ABUSIVE - RESIDUAL ARGUMENTS - because of the
inclusive nature of the counterplan, there are residual effects of the offense that apply to the plan. This makes it
impossible for the affirmative``` to read offense.
16
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
1AR EXTS - #1 – MOOTS 1AC
Extend 2AC #1 – PICs destroy fairness because they force the Aff to debate against their own case. This means all
of our 1AC can now be used for the negative. This hurts fairness because all of the time we spent giving reasons
why our plan is good are wasted, because the counterplan virtually is the plan.
17
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
1AR EXTS - #2 – PLAN WRITING
Extend 2AC #2 – The aff is forced into writing vague plan texts in order to try to avoid the PIC. This means the
Neg looses other counterplan ground based on specific parts of the plan text, and it also hurts education because
the Aff will not learn how to write texts correctly.
18
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
1AR PICS – EXTS #3 – UNPREDICTABLE
Extend 2AC # 3 – It’s unpredictable because there are an infinite number of parts of the plan they can PIC out of.
They only need to find one solvency advocate to get evidence, but the Aff can never have enough time to research
all of the possible PICs. This means the Neg will always be able to win based on the evidence they have.
19
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
PLAN INCLUSIVE COUNTERPLANS LEGITIMATE
AND, PLAN INCLUSIVE COUNTERPLANS ARE LEGITIMATE –
FIRST, OUR OFFENSE –
a. Increases In Depth Research- the PIC forces the debate around a specific section of the aff’s plan. The
debate is not over a trivial portion of the plan if we have evidence and an impact.
b. Better Plan Writing- PICs require Affs to write better plans – a world without PICs does not force Aff
accountability on plan writing, which is key to negative ground.
c. Key To Negative Ground- defending the status quo is not a strategic option. Most disadvantages can’t
outweigh the Aff. A DA to test the bad portion of plan will never outweigh the Aff.
d. Best Policy Option- The point in debate is to find the best policy option to solve the problem at hand. PICs
are real world – they parallel the amendment process in Congress as lawmakers seek to find the best policy
option.
AND, OUR DEFENSE a. All CP’s Are PICS- It is impossible to have a counter plan by definition, without a word, action, or actor
that is part of the Affirmative’s policy.
b. The Aff should defend all parts of the Plan- We are only asking the affirmative to defend their plan. It’s not
unreasonable or unpredictable.
c. Err Neg On Theory- Negative has negation theory, side bias- infinite prep time, first and last speech for
affirmative, and aff plan choice.
20
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
Textual Competition Good
The CP is not textually competitive. Textual Competition is good
1. Eliminates bad generic CPs. Extra-competitive—net benefits are unpredictable, kills aff ground. All plan
inclusive— they deny us the ground to use our IAC as offence. Kill Topic Specific Education—they allow for cps
like consulting NATO, which denies us education about Africa
2. Its objective—it is the only way to objectively determine whether the CP is competitive. It skews the debate
toward the negative
3. Grammar Skills: Increases grammatically correct plant texts because being textually competitive requires being
grammatically correct. Grammar key to predictability--it sets up a median between the aff and neg
4. Counter Interpretation: Counter plans must be both textual and functional
21
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
Functional Competition Good
Interpretation: Counter Plans must be functionally competitive
Our Counter plan is justified
1. Textual Competition kills aff ground---it’s hard for aff to garner offense against cps that textually compete
2. Textual allows neg to pic out of limiters in the plan to generate plan-plus Cps—Plan-plus CPs kill aff ground,
they jack 100% of plan by merely altering the text
3. Textual Competition encourages functional severance—they can sever out of the functional parts of the plan—
allowing them to moot out of all DAs
4. They justify scrambling eggs—they can make intrinsic permutations by just rearranging the words of the plan
text to say something else
5. It does not allow for ban the plan CPs, which are the most competitive forms of counter plans—killing neg
ground
22
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
AGENT CPS BAD
AND, AGENT COUNTERPLANS ARE A VOTING ISSUE
A. Not reciprocal – the Neg can take any USFG agent they want – we’re bound to the USFG as a whole.
B. Forces aff to debate against itself – neg steals all our offense and arguing against counterplan is arguing
against plan.
C. Unpredictable- allows the neg to choose any part of the USFG, it’s too big to research all the possible
agents.
D. Kills topic specific education – we don’t talk about the actual impacts of energy policy, we only talk about
the process in the USFG
23
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
50 STATE UNIFORM FIAT BAD
AND, FIFTY STATE UNIFORM FIAT IS A VOTING ISSUE a. Unpredictable—The neg’s fiat is utopian and their solvency claims are not grounded in literature.
Never has all 50 states enacted the same alternative energy policy.
b. Antithetical to comparative literature base—all the solvency authors say states are better because of
individualized actions and experience – the fiat does not even flow in the direction as their solvency
claims.
c. Not reciprocal—the neg gets to fiat uniform approval by their multiple actors, the aff does not
within the USFG. We don’t get to say all 100 senators vote the same way – this interpretation
would gut Neg’s politics links.
d. Interpretation: Neg gets one CP that is non-uniform 50 state fiat – this still leaves the Aff with key
literature – based state coordination clash.
24
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
50 STATE UNIFORM FIAT GOOD
AND, FIFTY STATE UNIFORM FIAT IS LEGITIMATE Our offense:
A. Key to Aff ground – 50 state uniform fiat makes the Aff defend against 1 actor, 50 state fiat means Aff has to
defend against 50 states. Uniform fiat prevents a negative moving target over a normal 50 state CP.
B. Increases topic education – the state vs. federal jurisdiction is at the heart of the Alternative Energy literature.
The best debate in the literature is which actor should do the plan
Our defense:
A. Reciprocity – both the Aff and Neg are fiating the entire nation - both are national plans and both the Neg
and Aff should have fiat powers over different actors to implement the plan
B. Key to test the phrase, “federal government” in resolution – no other way to check the phrase, “federal
government” other than a policy debate about states vs. the federal government
C. Err negative on theory – 50 state fiat checks Aff side biased - they get first and last speech, infinite prep
time, and ground choice.
25
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
Lopez CP BAD
LOPEZ FIAT IS A VOTING ISSUE A) Double Actor Fiat Bad – having both the federal and state governments act is unfair because its not
reciprocal and it negates our USFG key warrant which is the only predictable strategic check against the
states counterplan - it is not reciprocal with Aff fiat power
B) 50 State Fiat Bad – there is not literature on all 50 states acting in unison which denies our ability to
produce comparative solvency arguments and its not reciprocal because they engage 50 independent actors
we only get one
26
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
INTERNATIONAL ACTOR FIAT BAD
INTERNATIONAL ACTOR FIAT IS A VOTING ISSUE:
a. Fiat disparity. The affirmative is limited to one actor, the negative has a limitless number of actors it
can choose from. This is unfair.
b. Unpredictable. There are an infinite number of international actors that the negative could choose
from—there are international organizations, combined organizations, countries, and unlimited
permutations of these. The aff would never be able to predict which actor the negative will choose this
round. This destroys preparation.
c. Conditional international counterplans bad – the neg could run 20 different international
counterplans and go for the one we undercovered This justifies abusive permutations, hurts in-depth
education and favors low-quality debate. This is an independent voter.
d. Jurisdiction. A fair limit on fiat is to limit it to those bodies which are held accountable to us. We
cannot speak for those of other countries and to pretend to advocate on their behalf hurts a real-world
decision-making framework.
27
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
CONSULTATION CPS BAD
FIRST, CONSULTATION COUNTERPLANS ARE ILLEGITIMATE FOR MULTIPLE REASONS –
ALL OF THESE ARE VOTING ISSUES FOR REASONS OF COMPETITIVE EQUITY AND
AFFIRMATIVE GROUND:
1) It is not predictable – they can consult an infinite number of agencies or actors before doing the plan.
There is no way we can be prepared to debate each of these agents and kills education due to the lack of
clash in the debate.
2) Plan Encompassing CPs, or PECs, are bad -- their counterplan does 100% of the case and
encompasses aspects of our advocacy, nullifying all 8 minutes of the 1AC and all of our offense from
that speech. This justifies permutations that are Perm: Do the Counterplan. The CP is artificially
competitive and just plan-plus.
3) Counterplan uses future fiat – it takes the initial action of consultation before implementation even
begins. The aff plan is passed immediately but the CP takes time to occur, killing all unique disad
ground to the counterplan. This justifies time frame perms and delay counterplans. This justifies the
permutation of Perm: Do the Counterplan and then the Plan. If their rubberstamping arguments are
true, the actor will never know that we were going to do the plan anyway.
4) Multiple Actor fiat is bad – they get the USFG plus the actor that they consult. This is not reciprocal
and hurts Affirmative ground. It also infinitely explodes our research burden when an infinite number
of actors can now be used in combination with one another.
5) Puts the Affirmative in a strategic double-bind -- if we non-unique their relations argument and say
the actor would say no to the plan, it becomes a unique DA to the plan, link turning the net-benefit
means the CP gets 100% solvency, putting the Aff in an offensive double bind. This is super-charged
by conditional consultation counterplans, which are a unique form of abuse. The conditional nature
means the Negative could kick the counterplan and use the newly created offense against the Aff. This
is an independent voting issue.
28
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
2NC CPS GOOD
AND, 2NC COUNTERPLANS ARE LEGITIMATE –
FIRST, OUR OFFENSE 1. Prevents 2AC sandbagging – in a world of no 2NC CPs, a 2AC will have a strategic advantage to wait and read
their strongest advantages as add-ons after the CP is read. 2NC CPs are necessary to check back this abusive
tactic. 2NC CPs encourages offense to be developed earlier in the round.
2. Increases critical thinking – since 2NC CPs fundamentally change the face of the debate, their inclusion only
increases critical, in-round thinking which makes debate more educational.
3. Our interpretation is that the 2NC is allowed one unconditional counter-plan that is justified by 2AC responses.
AND, OUR DEFENSE 1. “C” is for constructive - The 2NC is a constructive, so we get to make new arguments. Not allowing 2NC
counterplans expands AFF side bias.
2. Abuse claims are all non-unique. A good NEG block should fundamentally change the way a debate functions
anyway. All neg blocks should introduce new strategy to a round and apply pressure to the 1NC.
3. Unconditional, non-plan inclusive counter-plans check abuse.
4. 2NC counter-plans are predictable - If you read external impact turns or add-ons, the NEG is going to try to
answer it.
5. 2AC non-intrinsic arguments check back the abuse on 2NC counter-plans. 2NC CPs function the same – they
check back aff arguments that are not germane to the aff plan.
6. Err NEG on theory – Aff gets first and last speech, infinite prep time, and ground choice.
29
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
2NC CPS ILLEGITIMATE
2NC COUNTERPLANS ARE A VOTING ISSUE –
A. Devastates all potential 2AC ground - There is no 2AC argument that can’t be counterplanned out of. This
makes all possible 2AC arguments vulnerable.
B. Sand-bags the 1AR - 2NC counterplan skews 1AR’s ability to extend 2AC arguments and is a time skew
on a speech that is already under time pressure. A 2NC CP radically changes the function of a debate
C. Decreases education - All of their arguments justify “new in the 2” which leads to a shallow debate. The
Negative allows an infinitely regressive framework that allows any off-case position to be ran “new in the
2”.
D. Not reciprocal - the AFF is only allowed one plan; the negative should be allowed only one counterplan.
Just because the 2NC is a constructive does not mean that 2Ns get more ground than the Aff.
E. Fairness o/w negative flex – debate is already skewed toward the negative, allowing them to skew out of
2AC offense means negative always wins -- they get the block and Negation Theory means they can run
anything they want
F. Justifies 1ar severance perms- they can spike out of 2ac offense we can spike out of the links to DAs to
prevent time-skew.
30
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
NO TEXT TO THE K ALTERNATIVE BAD
NO TEXT TO THE K ALTERNATIVE IS A VOTING ISSUE A
no stable ground – we lose our ability to produce strategic offense and permutations – without a text there
is an incentive for the negative to shift their alternative to nullify the 2AC
B
Reciprocity – we have a stable text – if they can claim to solve the affirmative and change the status quo
they should have one too
31
SDI 2008
Theory
KMT
FLOATING PIKS BAD
FLOATING, PLAN-INCLUSIVE KRITIKS ARE A VOTING ISSUE –
A
no text – they should not be able to solve anything without a text – it destroys our ability to produce offense
and permutations
B
Conditional – this is a uniquely bad form of conditionality – not only is their argument new in the 2NC but
we have no mechanism to straight turn – this destroys affirmative strategy
C
Ground – the PIK steals affirmative ground and allows them to solve our affirmative in a 15 second blip –
this is sacred ground which they have to right to access – especial without a counterplan
D
No solvency – they have no solvency argument of advocate – don’t let them get away with just claiming to
solve our affirmative – specified solvency is essential to offense and affirmative strategy
32