Theory File **Status Theory** Conditionality Bad Conditionality is a voter: 1. Advocacy Skills – force them to defend one position throughout the entire debate, its reciporical 2. Bad Neg Research – shouldn’t be rewarded for lazy neg research, force them to find the best answer to the aff 3. Forces Contradictory Answers – prevents the 2AC from reading its best offense, could be crossapplied to another flow 4. Time Skew – overspread us in the 2AC and create a shallow debate and preventing clash and depth of education 5. Strat skew – prevent us from reading our best offense out of fear of contradictions 6. Depth over breadth – it is more important to learn about things in detail than learn little about a variety of things – only debate provides this education. 7. Neg side bias – the negative gets the block and pre-round disclosure 8. Its not what you do its what you justify – view the debate as the interp against the counter interp 9. Interp – 1 Conditional world, prevents contradicting truth claims. Their interp is arbitrary and self serving. Conditionality Good Conditionality is not a voter: 1. Decision making education – forces both sides to make strategic decisions 2. Topic Specific Education – key to learning about more aspects of the topic 3. 2AC critical thinking – forces them to make strategic decisions to avoid contradictions 4. Real World – policy experts can have multiple idea and abandon them if they are proven wrong 5. Best Policy Option – key to test the aff from multiple angles and create a variety of education 6. Neg flex – gives the neg the ability to run different types of arguments, attacking the affirmative and exposing more arguments 7. Skew Inevitable – disads and T not covered by their interp 8. Perms check – takes two seconds to make and two minutes to answer 9. Breadth over depth – it is more important to learn about a variety of things in order to create a stable grounding of knowledge. 10. Aff side bias – first and last speech and infinite prep 11. No in round abuse – don’t make us defend every meaning of our interpretation 12. Counterinterp – 1 conditional Counterplan and 1 Kritik solves their offense and allows us to attack the aff from multiple angles. Dispositionality Bad Dispositionality is a voting issue. It is bad for the following reasons: 1. Moving Target – The Neg can change the definition of disposition to suit their needs any time during the debate, there is no predictable definition. 2. Unfair – Aff sticks with the 1AC the entire debate, don’t let the Neg kick out arguments 3. Strat Skew- Forces the Aff to alter their 2ac to answer arguments that will be dropped. Neg gets to kick out whenever they want, but we can’t check back by making perms. Key to Fairness 4. Depth over Breadth– the Neg doesn’t fully develop their arguments because they can drop them at any time, preventing the Aff from learning fully. A strong depth argumentation is better than quick overview on many advocacies. Prevents education 5. Time Skew – More important arguments get less time to be answered and the time goes to off-cases the Neg will drop in the end. Alters time allocation. 6. Dispositionality is conditionality in disguise. Has the same limits as conditionality and is therefore abusive to the aff. Reject the team, not the argument; it is key to education in the debate. Dispositionality Good The negative team should be allowed to run Dispositionality. 1.Ground-Dispositionality allows the negative to pick what it wants to drop if the affirmative strait turns the counterplan giving more ground to the negative. 2.Fair- As the affirmative is allowed to run a plan we should be allowed to have a counterplan. Dispositionality allows for the negative to run counterplan. 3.Middle ground- it is in the middle of conditionality and unconditionally giving the affirmative a choice whether to strait turn the counterplan, but also giving it ground to work on. 4.No abuse- dispositional counterplans are the same as case turns and can be dropped at any time. 5.Competition- the negative team can pick what is not winning them the debate and drop allowing for the strong affirmatives arguments to go directly against the strong negative arguments. 6.Negative flexibility- allows for time to be spent on better arguments because it allows the negative to kick arguments that aren’t good Dispositionality is not a voter; reject the argument not the team. Yes Neg Fiat 1. Counter interpretation – yes neg fiat 2. Prefer a. If they get to prove fiat is true, the neg should have reciprocal reasons to prove them wrong. No aff resolution, no aff fiat. b. Education – comparing policies is what happens in real policy making – Congress checks c. Fairness – some things like patriarchy are indefensible and the Neg is bound to the status quo d. Checks small, strange affs – counterplans are the only strat Neg has e. Infinite prep checks abuse - the aff gets the first and last speech, near infinite prep, and 2AR persuasiveness – allowing conditional options gives the neg the ground to keep up with the aff f. Reject the argument not the team No Neg Fiat The Negative Should Not Get Fiat: There’s no negative resolution. The neg side is supposed to negate the resolution, not create one for themselves. 1. There’s no counter-resolution to justify neg fiat – neg fiat creates three problems for the entire debate: A. First: the aff must come up with a solution to a problem the neg causes B. Second: the negative must prove that solution wrong- taking away focus from the real debate and centering it on something that the neg created – only makes it worse for the neg AND aff C. Third: moots the 1ac by stealing offense and integrating it into a counterplan 2. This has three impacts: A. first: fairness: Unpredictable – it justifies infinite counter plans all with obscure net benefits to beat the case – takes necessary aff ground, creates unnecessary research, and therefore kills education B. second: Ground: Creates shallow case debate – neg fiat means the negative doesn’t have to spend as much time on case – we have an 8 minute 1AC for a reason – make them dedicate more than a minute to it C.Third: education: Critical thinking – plan focus good – focusing on obscure net benefits to obscure counterplans only makes it less educational to debate- depth over breadth EVEN IF this isn’t persuasive enough for you to decide neg fiat is abusive, neg fiat creates an aff vs aff debate. This would create an arbitrary race to the bottom with endless perms and obscure counterplans. Therefore It’s a voter for fairness, education, and ground – it creates an “aff vs aff” debate, kills education through obscure counterplans and net benefits the aff can in no way be prepared for, and steals not only 1ac ground but aff ground in general during the debate. **Counterplan Theory** Agent CPs Bad Interpretation: Agent CPs are only legitimate if they have a corporate specific solvency advocate. 1. voter for fairness and education—kills education because we’re focused on specifying the agent and we don’t get to have a debate about why the plan is good or bad. Kills fairness because the CP steals the aff’s offense in the round and the aff has nothing to fight for. 2. moots the 1AC—the CP takes away our offense. The affirmative team should be able to talk about why our aff is good and weigh it against Neg offense. Without offense the aff has a large disadvantage in the round. 3. Unpredictable—the CP can use any agent it wants, and there’s no way for the affirmative to be able to predict and prepare for all of them. 4. Infinitely regressive—justifies ASPEC which progresses to having to specify more and more things which kills the debate because we aren’t talking about policy, we’re talking how to specify something further and further. Agent CPs Bad - 1AR Extend our Interp: their CP has to have a corporate specific solvency advocate. This is better for education because it forces the neg to have a real counter plan that’s distinct from the aff to discuss and advocate for against the 1AC. 1. Extend our voter, debating about Agent CPs doesn’t actually result in more education, because we just talk about an agent and we don’t learn anything about the actual policy or how that policy affects the world around us. And it kills fairness for the aff because it steals aff offense. Agent CPs Bad - AT: Politics Debate We can still have a politics debate without Agent CPs, Agent CPs just allow the neg to steal the 1AC and force the aff to debate it. You can still run a politics DA, you don’t have to have an Agent CP to do that. Agent CPs Bad - AT: Time Spec The Neg still gets ground, we can still have time specific debates with Delay CPs, Agent CPs aren’t key. Agent CPs Good We have a solvency advocate and therefore meet their interpretation. 1. Education – allows discussion about which agent is best suited to do the plan. Agent CPs increase knowledge about government and the complex parts. By naming a specific agent it increases education about that agent. 2. Politics debate – they allow for discussion about whether traditional fiat is the best option and also allow for the politics disad to be read as a net benefit. 3. Time specific – makes net benefits time specific which makes the aff defend the actor of their plan in immediacy, thus leading to more neg ground. Agent CPs Good – AT: Education The affirmative team must be able to defend the actor of their plan since they use traditional fiat in order to pass their plan. This is key to neg ground because if their actors cannot be questions it takes away key disads, for example the politics DA. Agent CPs Good – AT: Education We don’t kill plan specific education – we decide who the best actor is to do the plan. This discussion does not kill discussion of outcomes of the plan. Agent CPs Good – AT: Unpredictable Not unpredictable – all the aff has to do is prove that their actor – Congress – is better than the agent the CP specified. Agent CPs Good – AT: Infinitely Regressive Not infinitely regressive – only a certain number of answers can solve for their plan therefore no over specification can occur. Conditions CPs Good Conditions counterplans are legitimate— Counter-interpretation- Conditions CPs allow for better discussions to occur Standards 1. Key to neg ground – It holds the aff to governmental action and immediacy of plan. If the conditions counterplans were absent, the debate would be one-sided. 2. Real world: The real world uses conditions. Internal link counterplans are good because they allow for more real world thinking about these specific topics. 3. Helps the aff: it allows them to add the condition into their plan after the round and debate better because of it. 4. Impact: there’s no impact, so even if it’s unfair there’s no reason the debate will be unbalanced. Conditions CPs Bad Condition Counterplans are illegitimateInterpretation: Condition Counterplans are only fair if they contain a functionally comparative Solvency Advocate and if they are reasonable. 1) The Neg can use any number of absurd Condition Counter Plan texts. This is unfair for the Aff because it kills their offense. 2) Condition Counter Plans are infinitely regressive. The Aff has no way to prepare for the countless numbers of arguments the Neg has the capability to present. 3) Condition Counter Plans don’t focus on the outcome of the debate; only the conditions of it, so it’s non educational. 4) Because Condition Counter Plans are infinitely regressive, the Aff wastes time trying to answer the numerous amounts of arguments the Neg is able to produce. PICs Good Counter interpretation: The aff has to defend the entirety of their Plan text 1. No Abuse: the aff checks abuse by perms 2. All counter plans are pics, not allowing them kills neg ground 3. Real world: in real life policy making you have defend your entire bill not just the parts you want 4. Infinite prep: since the aff has infinite prep time to make their aff they should be able defend their whole plan 5. Topic specific education: by allowing the neg to test the aff, it allows for more discussion of the topic and therefore a better debate and discussion of the topic 6. Critical thinking: Forces the aff to make stronger and higher quality plan text 7. Fairness: the neg has the burden of the status quo, so the aff has the burden of defending the plan text 8. Predictability: gives aff stable ground to debate on and not a moving target, the neg can only use functions of the plan. 9. Reject the argument not the team: Pics are a voter PICS Bad Interpretation: PICs prevent education and are abusive. Voter: PICS are a voter for education, fairness, and predictability. Destroys education: Prevents education because the aff cannot learn from debating against other plans and criticisms. There is no offense for the aff to fight against the neg because the neg has stolen the aff’s plan. Destroys fairness: There is an unfair research burden because the neg does not need to research anything while the aff spends time to create a plan and results in the neg stealing it. Not predictable: The neg can take out any section of the aff’s plan, preventing the aff from predicting the neg and prepping for it. Leads to time skew. Time Skew: The aff needs time to find cards to attack its own plan REJECT THE TEAM NOT THE ARGUMENT. >:) Private Actor Fiat Good Counter-Interpretation: The negative should be able to have private actors facilitate the plan; private actors encompass a huge part of the oceans topic Provides specific education about private actors- by researching these companies debaters are able to get a wide variety of knowledge about the private actors in general; we access education better Aff should be able to be tested with all actors to see which one is most efficient- this is real world, in the real world most plans are done by private actors. Seeing debate through a more real world lens is more productive Only a few private actors with the capability to facilitate the plan therefore it’s reasonably predictable—only few companies have the resources and qualifications to pass the plan, so that leaves few enough that it’s researchable Private companies are very important actors, and those that have the means might do the plan more efficiently – they have more expertise and resources Allows Aff to explore their topic more- private actor fiat allows the affirmative to see different, more diverse, arguments made against their case, which actually helps them to make their case stronger If the Aff gets fiat, its only fair the Neg should get fiat as well- we have to level the playing field of the affirmative and negative, the aff gets infinite prep time and the neg does not, the least we could do is give them both fiat The oceans topic literally states non-military actors enact the plan— and private entities are basically the entirety of the oceans topic The doesn’t have more ground than the aff—the aff gets to read usfg add ons Private Actor Fiat Bad Voters 1)(education) - since the aff cannot be adequately prepared for the debate there will be no educational benefits. This is depriving the affirmative of an integral debate skill 2)(Limits)Loss of Aff ground-Private Actor Fiat steals the entirety of the Affirmative and its offense this leads to an unequal distribution of ground and leads to a one sided debate. 3)Fairness- Private actor fiat creates an unfair debate and that makes it impossible for the aff 4)Interpretation- negative must have resolutional actors, this allows for negative predictability 5)Not Competitive- Private Actors are not competitive with governmental ones, this means the CP Is not competitive with the aff 6)Private actor Fiat is infinitely regressive- Agent specification leads to infinite regresivity, this creates an unreasonable burden on the affirmative 7)Predictability- With private actors there are infinite options for the negative. There is no reasonable way that the affirmative can be adequately prepared. 8)No reciprocity- The Affirmative doesn’t get to fiat private actors the negative shouldn’t either 9)Private actor fiat discusses the process of the plan as opposed to the outcome International Fiat Bad International CPs are illegitimate— 1. Shifts focus of debate from whether or not the plan should happen to arbitrary decisions on who should do the plan—this destroys education. 2. No real world applications—policymakers can’t just assume other countries will enact the plan in real life. 3. The CP artificially inflates the net benefit—international DAs mean we can still talk about international actors. 4. Moots the 1AC—disregards 8 minutes of affirmative speech time—the aff’s only offense is their case and the neg steals this. 5. Unpredictable—there’s an infinite number of international actors—it’s impossible to research all of them. 6. Kills aff ground—debating against the CP is debating against the aff—it forces the aff to debate against itself. 7. Interpretation: The neg can only have the USFG as an actor to provide reciprocity. International Fiat Good International actor counterplans are legitimate -- 1. Tests the aff – the resolution specifically says USFG. The CP makes sure the aff defends the actor of the resolution. 2. Key to Neg ground – restricting other countries severely limits the Neg’s available arguments, leaving us with only the US. The CP increases the quality of the debate. 3. Increases education – lets us debate about more than just the US. We can learn about other international actors. The judge is a hypothetical policymaker who isn’t rooted in only the US. 4. Increases critical thinking – forces the Aff to create a plan that has a US key warrant. Debating a specific part of the plan makes them think of more detailed and educated responses. 5. Finds the best policy option – key to test if the US is the most desirable actor. Since the ocean is global, it’s essential to talk about other countries. 6. Predictability – testing the actor’s solvency ability should be expected by the Aff. 7. Reject the argument, not the team – this isn’t a voting issue. 8. C/I – International CPs have a comparable solvency advocate. The Neg only has one actor, just like the Aff. 2NC CPs Good The negative should get to read 2NC counterplans A. Time Skew: Infinite prep: The counterplan is not a time skew because the aff needs to treat this like any other argument, the aff doesn’t need new cards, the aff only needs to extend case, therefore it doesn’t take time away from oncase arguments. B. Ground: The neg answered why this is not a time skew therefore ground is not limited C. Predictability: Counterplans are predictable in the debate and introducing them in the 2NC doesn’t change the predictability of the argument itself. D. Education: Bringing up new arguments allows the debater to learn more about a diverse range of government politics Justification: the CP is justified by the ethic that the aff can add add-ons to their first speech AND the 2NC is still a constructive, therefore, we can introduce new arguments 2NC CPs Bad A. Time Skew: If the cards in the first speech are insufficient this is not the neg’s fault, the aff has infinite prep to change this B. Ground: the aff actually said that it gives aff more ground therefore cP’s in the 2NC does not limit ground C. Predictability: Extend the argument which states that this does not require new cards, the first speech should be enough to D. Education: The affirmative limits the education in the debate by refusing to answer the CP 2NC CPs Bad – AT: Time Skew Time skew turn: The affirmative bringing up this theory argument limits the amount of time spent debating the topic rather than so called “abuse”, the aff creates the time skew. **Perms** Severance Bad 1. Skew- Severance skews neg in 3 ways. First- steals all neg ground. Second- time skews the neg. It takes 2 seconds to sever out and completely waste the time of the 1NC. Thirdskews all neg strats. Eliminates all possible DA's because the aff can simply sever out. Neg can't form effective strategy if aff can't just sever out every round. Kills fairness 2. No clash- Aff avoids any sort of clash in the debate and instead opts to lower the education of the debate by severance. Lack of clash kills education. 3. Aff Condo- Aff shouldn't be able to switch their plan at will. This makes their perm unpredictable as they can simply change a few words to form a diferent perm, meaning the aff has an infinite number of perms they can use. Unpredictability kills fairness. 4. Infinite Prep Time- The aff has a lot of time to before the round to choose which plan to go for. There is no need for a severance perm if they were truly content with the plan they chose. Voting Issues 1. Fairness- Fairness is voter. Aff skews neg in 3 different ways, is unpredictable, abusive and validates a vote against them. 2. Education- Education is voter. Aff lowers level of education, vote against them. AT: Real World- In the real world, members of congress can't just introduce a new plan and then immediately back out, which is what severance is. Severance Good 1. Real World-Severance is the most real world. Policy makers make amendments to policies in order to arrive at the best one. 2. Reciprocity PIC's-The neg is allowed to use a PIC (Plan Inclusive Counterplan) and potentially PIC out of any aff. The aff should be allowed to do the same and use severance perms to check the fairness. 3. Reciprocity Condo-The neg can bring up multiple advocacies and kick out of them as necessary, hence allowing them to change positions. As such the aff should at least be allowed to change their plan. 4. Perms Check Abuse-The neg is able to read any counterplan or K that have nothing to do with the resolution or plan besides an extra advantage or wording change. The aff should be allowed to adjust the plan and perm in order to check the competitiveness and abuse of the K/CP. Reject the Argument not the team-More educational for both sides. Voters Education-Real world policymaking is key to education. Fairness-Reciprocity and checking abuse are key to Fairness. AT:Skew-There is still ground for the Neg to argue, as in the part that was severed. Also, on strat skew the neg is still capable of kicking out of the CP and/or running a DA, T, K, or any combination of the three. Intrinsicness Good A: Interpretation: The aff can make intrinsic permutations B: We meet C: Standards: 1. Kills education - It simulates real life scenarios. Saying intrinsic permutations are bad is killing the education my partner and I are trying to gain in the debate. This does not kill negative ground. They can still argue that the supplement will not solve or its harms outweigh its benefits. 2. Research – By allowing intrinsic permutations, my partner and I are forced to research more on the topic given at hand. Thus increasing the amount of education we receive from debate. 3. Predictability – My advocacy is predictable because when they bring up a disadvantage, they should see that I will have an attempt at solving for the disadvantage. 4. Real world decision-making. When a potential action is proven undesirable in the real world, we do not reject it on face because we are bound to the exact text of our advocacy. Rather, we are able to add on extra things we will do to compensate for that disadvantage. Real-world decision-making is key to education because it is the only way we can learn analytical skills that will help us make decisions that will actually be relevant in real life. D: Voter A. Fairness is the voter. If one side were to win because of an unfair advantage, then there would be point in the debate in the first place. Thus fairness is an inherent part of debate. If the round is inherently biased toward one debater, the judge cannot fulfill their role of deciding the winner because any issue a debater is winning on the flow couldn’t be definitively attributed to their ability as a debater but could rather be an effect of a structural advantage. This is a voter even if they concede the interp because I had to invest speech time to preempt this abuse, which skewed my time and strategy. Intrinsicness Bad Interpretation: The aff must not add to their advocacy when perming a neg position. Standards: 1. In Round Predictability: The aff gives no boundary to where the plan texts ends therefore allowing the AFF to add in or detach anything making them a moving target. Being bound is key to fairness. 2. Ground: This means when they are adding to their plan in the 1AR they are taking ground away from the neg. Equal division of ground is key to fairness because both debaters need to start on an equal playing field to have the same chances of winning. 3. Time skew - harms fairness because whichever debater has less relevant time will automatically be put at a disadvantage. 4. Real World: The aff simply fiats that something will happen to solve back the harms outlined In the real world. People don’t base problem solving off the ideas that something will magically occur. Real world decisions are key to education because this allows us to make things we learn in debate applicable later in our lives. **K Theory** Vague Alts Good 2NC Vague Alts Justified/Good 1. No brightline: shouldn’t be a voter, the aff can always argue that any alt is vague because vagueness can’t be defined 2. Interpretation: if we can prove that the alternative solves the kritik, then it’s not a reason to vote against us 3. Education: vague alts encourage critical thinking which is a portable skill and outweighs, force more research, and allows more more avenues for discussion 4. Reject plan text: if they claim that our alt text is vague, you should also reject the plan text because it’s equally vague 5. Theory over substance bad: the aff values theory more than substance, leading to shallow theoretical debates, killing education 6. Ground: cross-ex of the 1NC checks alt 7. Reject the argument, not the team Vague Alts Bad 1. No aff ground: they can reinterpret their alt after the 2AC; it makes them a moving target, and there’s no stable offense; it makes it impossible to win on the aff since we don’t even know what the alt is 2. No clash: this is meant to be a debate not hide and go seek; we can’t debate about the arguments if we’re forced to discuss what it actually is first; kills fairness 3. Precision: specificity is necessary to education; a vague alt can’t solve the kritik because it doesn’t specify the methodology with which it solves 4. Skews 1AR: The 1AR is already the most time-pressured speech of the round, the neg can reinterpret their alt in the block and read new solvency, forcing the 1AR to spend more time on the alt skewing 1AR time allocation, that forces shallow debating 5. Interpretation: they have to be able to identify and specify a significant change in the status quo post the alternative 6. Fairness: no clash, we aren’t able to debate about the efficacy of the alt because it’s vague 7. Fairness outweighs education: you skew the 1ar and that forces shallow debating: theory allows both teams to come to a clear idea about what we’re debating 8. Predictability- vague alts aren’t predictable PIKs Good Negative Ground Strat: 1) Piks are the only opportunity the negative has to not just criticize the affirmative with an alt, but to give a way the plan could be put into action with the correct methodology. Education: 1) It lets debate look a level deeper at the fundamental issues of the affirmative’s ocean policy. Real World: 1) In the real world policies go through this same kind of scrutiny over the content and presentation of plans. Defensive Answers- Predictability and Time: 1) The pik is in the 1NC meaning it is just as predictable as the K. If the affirmative listened to kritic, it is just as predictable as going for any part of the rest of the K and shouldn’t affect the affirmative more than an additional offcase would. Fairness: 1) Piks do not change the advocacy of the negative at all. It supports its claims on the K with the correct methodology. 2) Piks can be answered with many of the same answers as any other CP. In order to be “fair” debate would need to exclude all CPs which would crush negative ground. PIK Interpretation: One floating pik is fine if it is competitive through a K that provides an explanation to how it solves the kritical methodology of the affirmative better than a perm. Not a voter, reject the Argument, not the Team. PIKs Bad A. Interpretation: Floating PIKS are illegitimate. B. Standards Predictability 1) Allows the neg to be a moving target 2) Let the neg shift the k debate which is unpredictable and skews what was answered in the 2ac Fairness Voting issue for fairness 1) The negative team can just change their advocacy with a floating PIK in the neg block which is unfair for the aff. The 2AC’s arguments become useless and the most time pressed speech 1AR gets even more pressured which is unfair 2) Impossible for the AFF to answer a floating PIK fairly Ground Voting issues for ground 1) Floating PIKS steal Aff ground. They can’t advocate against the K if it encompasses their entire case. This destroys the aff ground for offense. This means that the neg can just moot the 1AC Education Voting issue for education 1) This allows the neg to just prep an advocacy that steals the AFF’s ideas which destroys education for both the neg and the aff. This makes it so that there is no education in round C.You need to reject the team to prevent this abuse.
