Neg
Status
Conditionality Good
C/I: ____
This is best:
Neg flex – aff gets to pick focus of debate, we need options to compensate for reactionary and
concessionary ground
Info processing – multiple options forces 2AC efficiency and narrowing to their best answers which
focuses the debate and increases critical thinking
Logic—proving the CP is bad doesn’t mean the plan is good – logic is key to make any skill portable
Ideological flexibility – conditionality is the only way to read 1 k and 1 CP, any alternative results in
community schisms.
Skews are inevitable – T violations and case defense are no-risk options and it’s the neg’s job to
generate time imbalances
They should have to defend opportunity costs – any other interpretation artificially insulates the aff
from testing
Theory interpretations are arbitrary and self-serving – they move the goal post to generate cheap
wins divorced from substance.
Straight turns check – they can stick us with a disad that’s not a net benefit or read offense we can’t
solve, functionally deciding what we do.
They don’t specify their agent---that’s a voting issue
They should lose because we lose disad and counterplan ground based on implementation and don’t
know how the plan is enacted-voting issue.
2NC Condo Good(McCoy)
Conditionality is the most logical – [they dropped it and are out of constructives] – that outweighs –
you make logical decisions every day
2AC pressure forces strategic thinking – considering argument interaction and tactical choices is a key
skill.
Encourages research – rewards multiple good strategies and punishes bad affs – balances the quality
and quantity of arguments
Creates rigorous advocacy skills – the aff must defend the plan from all sides
Neg ground requires flexibility – 2AR depth, 1AR leeway, no topic DAs, inevitably blippy 2ACs
Skews are inevitable – we could read more T or case arguments
[Block and] 2NR check – narrows the debate for more depth
CI – ________ advocacies – checks regression.
[Dispo is condo – aff will always perm]
Reasonability – Competing interpretations for theory is arbitrary and crowds out substance – we don’t
justify contradictions or 10 CPs
Uncondo Good
Fairness –
It is easier to predict
Aff can pick best 2AC strat without risk of skewing.
Education - Forces the neg to fully research both sides of the argument before entering the debate.
Most Real World – Policy makers have to defend the notions of plans proposed.
Depth is better than breath – Education is not gained through number of arguments but through in
depth analysis on few.
Reject the arg not the team.
Err Neg: Theory is a zero sum game for the aff
Interpretation – The neg gets ____ Unconditional advocacies.
Creates coherent strats that can be prepared outside of the round
Disincentives shady strategies
Dispo Good
Education –
Best policy option – real policy makers are never confined to just one solution to a problem or forced
to pass it no matter the consequences.
Forces strategic 2AC answers – promotes critical, in-round thinking from the affirmative.
Ground -Neg flex – Our only burden is to disprove the plan. Arguing from multiple levels is vital to negative
strategy which outweighs because it’s key to checking aff bias and we have a right to make strategic
2NR decisions.
Non-unique -- All other negative arguments are dispo.
Time skew is inevitable for the aff with 13 minutes in the block.
Aff choice -- the aff literally decides whether or not the neg can kick the cp.
Err neg on theory – aff gets first and last speeches and unlimited prep.
Not a voter -- Reject the argument not the team.
Fiat
50 State Fiat Good
Having the state government work is key to check the federal key warrants for “in the United States”
part of the resolution.
Real world arguments should not be weighed. Debate is not real world; if it were then the earth
probably would have been blown up by nuclear war by now.
Reciprocity - 50 states acting in uniformity act functionally as one actor.
We increase aff ground when they can read a DA on any one of the 50 states.
Err neg on theory – aff gets first and last speech plus unlimited prep time.
Not a voting issue – reject the argument and not the team.
International Fiat Good
Education – we get to learn more about the rest fo the world, just sticking to US policy is an unrealistic
approach to policy making
Evidence – the negative can only fiat actors that we have evidence for
The affirmative must prove that the US should do the plan but if we can prove that another actor
should instead, cast a negative ballot.
Key to topic – International action and domestic action are compared in the literature
Multi Actor Fiat Good
Ground –
Turn: each new actor is more ground for the aff to turn or read disads to.
Key to negative ground – everything except for the plan is fair game after the 1AC and key to neg flex.
Education –
Most real world – We learn about the interaction between the different relevant various
policymakers. There is never just a single actor.
Best policy option – if the best policy option is with multiple actors than that is better for education.
3. Multi-actor fiat is default – the aff automatically fiats 500 congressman, the president, and the
courts alone.
4. No reasonable regress – as long as we don’t fiat two random obscure actors we should be entitled
to more than one.
5. Err neg on theory – aff gets first and last speech plus infinite prep
6. No voter - reject the argument and not the team
Neg Fiat Good
The negative should get fiat:
Reciprocity – if the aff gets fiat, the neg should too
Key to negative ground – the aff gets 8 minutes of pure offense in the 1AC, we need ways to soak
some of that up through CPs
Best for testing the affirmative – tests the specifics of the plan
Specificity – tests the 1AC in more specific ways, which is key to critical thinking
Allows for more diversity in debate – makes debate more interesting than simply disad vs advantage
constantly
Consistently fair – the status quo often changes, conditional worlds allow for us to adapt so that times
like an economic recession don’t completely skew the debate
Err neg on theory – aff gets infinite prep and first and last speeches
Counter-interpretation: neg gets ___ actors to fiat in ___ worlds – sets a limit on negative fiat while
still solving our offense
Not a voting issue – at most, you should reject the fiat-ed off-case positions.
Private Actor Fiat Good
Best policy option – allows debate about which actor is the best to fiat, and executes the plan
properly. Finding the best policy option is key to education
The Affirmative is responsible for its agent – the aff has lots of time to think about their plan, they
should be responsible for picking the best agent
Literature – the literature exists and the counterplan exists to check if the aff has really chosen the
best actor – it’s a test of the agent
Utopian Fiat Good
We meet - Explain why you’re not utopian…
Better for education – utopic solutions to life’s problems can help us visualize actual policy solutions
because they can stimulate physical change in the way policy makers think.
Ground –
Key to kritik alternatives which is key to negative ground.
Turn: If we are utopic, the alternative would likely be sweeping and affect all sectors of society
meaning they can more easily garner some type of offense.
Lit checks – solvency advocates prove the plan/alt is legit
Reasonability – as long as we can prove that we are realistic you can’t vote on this.
Err neg on theory -- aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep.
Not a voter - Reject the argument not the team.
CP
Delay CP’s Good
Critical Thinking: Evaluating all instances of the plan is key to best education about policy making
because it forces aff to think about why now is key to solve
Ground: No delay counterplans mean the neg loses disads that are net benefits to the delay CP, neg
loses the few topic-specific arguments that they have
Research: Forces the aff to research any potential reasons to delay the plan
Test of the word resolved – because they have to prove they are resolved to act now.
Doesn’t steal aff ground: timeframe of impacts checks, the aff gains ground and arguments against the
delay
Predictable: Delay CP’s are on every topic so the aff should be prepared
Topic-Specific Education: we still talk about your aff, the CP only changes the timeframe of itvand if
not, allowing for innovation and out of the box thinking is good for education, unique, and the DA we
read with the Delay is topic specific
Time and strat skew inevitable
Perm checks: aff still has the ability to perm if the timeframe doesn’t work
Reject the argument, not the team
Conditions CP’s Good
Conditions CPs help education, they give a deeper understanding of the issue and help find best policy
Conditions CPs are not impossible to prep, the aff knows the issues of their aff and they can always do
say no
Perm is not only option, aff can challenge competitiveness
This is not a cheap shot - It is harder for us to prep this than them
Unfair for neg: it will totally kill our strategy and ruin the debate
Conditions CPs help the aff, they can always add the condition into their plan post round and debate
better because of it
No impact: Even if unfair, there is no reason that it will unbalance debate
2NC AT: PICs Bad
PICs are good---first our offense:
Strategic costs and benefits---the aff chose to have the plan affect both ocean and lake-based wind
and gained a strategic benefit from doing so---they should have to defend the costs of that choice
Advocacy skills---PICs incentivize finely crafting proposals and thinking through all decisions---most
real-world---excluding them encourages sloppiness---solves their offense
Education---encourages in-depth debate and research about fine details---anyone can learn to give the
same generic 2NR on ASPEC---uniquely key for policymakers and academics
Now our defense:
Net benefit checks abuse---they can impact turn it
Literature checks---prove they should be able to research answers
Err neg---aff speaks first and last and has infinite prep so they should be able to defend their full aff
Reject the argument, not the team
Floating PICs Good
Education Forces better case writing – makes the plan be specific from the 1AC.
Best policy option – makes the aff defend the entire plan and is key to finding the best policy option
which is best for education.
Ground
Predictable – if you say something offensive, you should be prepared to defend it.
Representations matter – key to rejecting racist slurs or arguments like genocide good.
Err neg on theory – aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep.
No voter -- Reject the argument not the team.
Agent CP’s Good
Predictable – aff should have prepared, they’re run every round and our actor is completely legit and
not obscure.
Key to negative ground – agent counterplan make up the core of the negative’s strategic options and
not getting them is grossly unfair towards the aff.
Increases aff ground – they can turn or read offense against our agent to win the round.
Lit checks abuse – there arnt many actors through which to do the plan , the aff had the same
opportunity to research and write answers as we did
Not a voter – reject the argument and not the team
Err neg on theory – aff gets first and last speech plus unlimited prep
Consult CP’s Good
Counter interpretation – we can only do consult counterplans written about in the literature base.
Lit checks abuse – Checks squirrely “consult Trinidad” counterplans not central to the topic. There are
only a few reasonably grounded counterplans which they should have prepare for which checks back
all their ground and education standards.
Key to real education –
Real world - Crucial to understanding the details of international policy issues, relations, and how the
United States frames multilateral issues which is a better internal link into education because it’s the
point of debate.
Best policy option – consulting with another agent is crucial to testing whether the aff is the truly the
best course of action.
Neg Ground
Predictable – only allowing reasonable consultation steeped in the core neg ground which the aff can
prepare for.
Neg Flex – consult counterplans are key to negative flexibility and checking back unpredictable
affirmatives.
Err neg on theory -- aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep.
Not a voter - Reject the argument not the team.
2NC CP’s Good
Education
Forces critical thinking – makes the 1AR use specific, critical and in-round thinking which only makes
debate more educational.
Breadth vs. depth – new counterplans allows a wider coverage of the various policy solutions to the
alternative.
Ground
It’s reciprocal – new in the 2 is key to checking back new 2AC add-ons
It’s still a constructive – which means we can still introduce new arguments
Err neg on theory – aff gets first and last speech and infinite prep
Reject the argument – not the team
Lopez CP Good
Multi-actor fiat is default – the aff automatically fiats 500 congressman, the president, and the courts
alone. No reason why one more actor is any worse.
Increases aff ground – they can read a courts disad.
Increases education – we can learn about how the judicial branch and the constitution interact with
federal policy.
Err neg on theory - aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep.
Not a voter - Reject the argument not the team.
Object Fiat Good
First, Our Offense
A) Plan specific education - Object fiat forces the aff to defend all of their plan – this leads to planspecific education
B) Inherency – Forces the affirmative to defend why the status quo can’t solve – focuses debate on
inherency which leads to plan specific education
C) Germaneness – tests the germaneness of federal action to the impacts – this makes sure that the
aff can’t claim ridiculous advantages – key to preventing unfair advantages and destroying fairness
D) Policy Education – Object fiat concentrates debate on American policy – policy education is
better than all education because it is real world
Next, Our Defense
A) Going neg is harder – the affirmative speaks first and last, has infinite prep, and chooses the
topic for this debate
B) Theory Debates are Bad – They promote the same debates, and detract attention from
substantive debate, the key internal link to education
C)
And, Theory is not a voter – running a bad counterplan does not justify dropping us.
Multi Plank CPs Good
Offense
Real World – in Congress they suggest bills that do multiple things. The neg shouldn’t be restricted to
one action
Key to Best Policy Option – Bills can have multiple planks and key to allow CP to solve for the aff
Critical Thinking – requires more in depth discussion of the argument leading to in depth discussion on
one argument
Generate Offense – Only way for neg to generate offense and checks aff
Key to Neg flex – the aff gets to chose the subject of the debate and gets to speak 1st and last. By
allowing the neg only one plank you restrict the limits
2. Defense
a. Lit checks abuse – real policy options have multiple planks and we have solvency advocates which
means that the counterplan should be predictable
b. No strat skew – the affirmative always get the aff and can read add-ons to counterplans
c. More eduction – this requires the aff to cover more then a simplified one plank CP which requires
more research on the topic
d. Reject the argument not the team
Other Theory
No Alt Text Good
Ground –
Kills neg flex – our entire kritik cannot be limited to single sentence, kills negative block’s strategic
options.
Breadth – the less specific we are the more ground they get for turns and they can still perm.
No moving target – our alternative is still grounded in the alt card.
Education -Cross-x check abuse – they could have gotten us to clarify a specific part of the kritik if they didn’t
understand it in our speech. We would have defended it.
Critical thinking-- Condensing the critique into a one sentence alternative allows the affirmative to not
critically think about what were critiquing
Err neg on theory -- aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep.
Not a voter - Reject the argument not the team.
No Solvency Advocate Good
Education –
Limits – they discourage analytical debate, our interp. encourages aff critical thinking which is key to
policy debates
Real world – people propose different solutions to problems every day.
Ground
Moving target good – key to negative flexibility and strategy, which outweighs AFF flex
Common sense - Aff can still make common sense methodological answers to the counterplan
Reasonability – we shouldn’t be forced to have evidence for every argument we make.
Err neg on theory -- aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep.
Not a voter - Reject the argument not the team.
Advocating Perms Bad
Unpredictable – The affirmative should only advocate the plan and nothing else. Not doing this kills
predictability which is key to clash.
Makes them untopical – not advocating just the aff makes them extra topical and is an independent
voting issue for ground an education.
Kills education shifts away from learning about the topic
Err neg on theory – aff gets first and last speeches plus unlimited prep.
Voting issue for fairness, ground and education
Vagueness Bad
Vagueness kills ground
Moving target: Vagueness can make the aff a moving target which kills predictability– they can spike
out of disads or change plan planks vital to the function of the counterplan.
Time and strat skew – all our arguments are predicated upon the plan text as per the 1AC. Later
“clarifying” actual implementation is completely abusive.
It slays education
Sketchiness -- If the plan is unclear, we can’t learn about the specific results of the plan because the
details of actual implementation are murky at best and which kills education about real world
policies.
Generics – Unclear specification means stuck with running generic arguments to just guarantee a link.
Err neg on theory – aff gets first and last speech plus unlimited prep.
Voter for fairness and education.
Perms
Intrinsic Perms Bad
Kills Education – shifts the debate away from the plan and to extra topical portions
Makes the aff extra topical which kills all disad links.
Ground
Makes the aff a moving target because the perm can always just add things to their perms.
Not predictable – they can just add anything to the plan they won’t and it removes the debate away
from the resolution
Kills all disads – they could just add an intrinisic perm to any disad to solve the impacts.
Justifies infinitely conditional advantage counterplans for the neg.
Err neg on theory – aff gets first and last speech plus unlimited prep.
Voter for fairness, ground, and education.
Intrinsic DA Perms Bad
Destroys neg ground – they can just destroy all our links with a 5 second perm which is complexly
abusive because it takes out any chance of the neg ever winning a disad.
Hurts education – if we can’t ever debate the links, we can never learn about the potential side effects
of the policy options.
Time skew/strat skew – they can just perm any disad and force us to answer it with theory and just
kick out of it later.
Err neg on theory – aff gets first and last speech plus unlimited prep.
Voting issue for fairness, ground, and education.
Multiple Perms Bad
Time skew – they can just read 11 perms in 20 seconds and force us to answer all of them which is
hugely unfair.
Strat skew – if we want the cp to stay in the round we have to spend all our time answering the perms
and we can’t adequately cover the net benefits.
Multiple conditional advocacies bad – it’s a no risk answer to every k or counterplan because they can
just kick out of all the perms we answered and extend the ones that we barely covered.
Interpretation – the aff is allowed one perm per counterplan/k that must include the entire aff and all
or part of the k/cp to check competition and anything else is an illegitimate advocacy.
Double bind: must be either severance or intrinsic
Anything other than our interp means the either the aff is no longer advocating the entity of the plan
which is bad because it kills predictability OR
It’s intrinsic because they are arguing something completely new which makes them a moving target
and untopical.
Err aff on theory- neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically
picking certain arguments.
Voter for fairness, education, and ground
Perf Con Good
Interpretation: we’ll only take one in the 2NR and won’t cross apply contradictory answers.
Negation theory – we just have to prove that the plan is a bad idea.
Multiple worlds good – key to negative ground and negative flexibility and increases strategic
thinking.
Err aff on theory -- neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically
picking certain arguments.
Not a voter – reject the arg not the team.
Severance Perms Bad
Education – We no longer learn about the specifics of the aff plan because they can just kick out of it
with the perm.
Destroys fairness- they can just spike out of any net benefit by kicking out of strategic areas of case.
Ground – Severance perms allow the aff to fiat a win by avoiding our offense.
Err neg on theory – aff gets first and last speech plus unlimited prep.
Voter for ground, fairness and education.
Timeframe Perms Bad
1. Time Frame Perms are Severance and Intrinsic- The way in which the perm is arranged either adds
part of the CP to the plan and then does only part of the plan or does part of the plan and adds part
of CP
2. Severance Perms Make the Plan Conditional- By being able to kick out of part of the plan text
mandate you make the plan conditional
3. Intrinsic Perms are Bad for Education- They encourage shallow research, because what the perm
adds to the plan is just stolen from the CP, so no one will want to put time into a CP
4. Time Frame Perms Skew the NEG- The NEG has to spend much more time answering a time frame
perm, because it is unpredictable and makes the NEG answer all the possible outcomes of the perm
5. Time Frame perms are a voter for fairness and education
Aff
CP Status
Conditionality Bad
Conditionality is a reason to reject the team
First, crushes 2AC strategy—they can cross apply our offense to other flows to use against us or kick
positions we invest vital 2AC time in—that’s irrecoveralbe
Second, kills informed decision-making—flips their logic arguments because it creates structural
incentives against depth of argument testing—no matter the number of debates we never
conclusively vet arguments
Counter interpretation – [___] condo solves their offense—fair middle ground that preserves neg flex
and avoids our offense
Their counter interpretation is arbitrary and links to their logic arguments
Dispo Bad
Kills Education
Conditionality in disguise – the neg knows it puts us at a strategic disadvantage to straight turn the
cp/k so they can just kick them later.
Not real world – policy makers have to deal with the consequences of proposing an action. They can’t
just pretend they didn’t read it if someone questions them about it.
Ground
Strategy and time skew – the neg can just read a bunch of dipso counterplans and moot 2AC answers
by kicking almost all of them in the block because the aff can’t fairly turn all the different
counterplans.
Race to the bottom – Forcing the aff win offense on the counterplan by straight turning vs. the neg’s
net benefits leads to a race to the bottom.
Perms key to aff ground – checks back non-competitive and artificially competitive counterplans
Straight turns don’t check – it’s suicide not to perm in most instances, it puts the neg into a strategic
advantage.
Reciprocity – the aff is forced to stick with one advocacy, so should the neg.
Err aff on theory – debate has changed, statistically neg wins more rounds. When was the last time
you wanted to be aff in an outround?
Voter for fairness, ground and education
Uncondo Bad
Education Breath is better than depth – The more arguments presented the easier it is to achieve education on a
variety of flows.
Strategic Thinking – Strategically choosing a 2NR strategy is part of the education gained in debate.
Diversity – Debate will stagnate if strategic block choices are limited to unconditional advocacies.
Defense
Real World Education – Policy makers don’t stick to one plan of action, they change to improve
conditions.
Limits – The neg over limits debate by forcing negatives to choose only one option.
Interpretation –
Dispositionality good –
Solves diverse strategies by allowing negative choice.
Sets the best limits because the neg can strategically pick dispositional advocacies with the ability to
kick from them.
Fiat
International Fiat Bad
Agents must be limited to the US
Unpredictable – millions of INTERNATIONAL actors, and by limiting actors down to United States
Federal Government ensures clash
No education – No policy maker has the option of doing something through either the USFG or
another country doing something, which lowers our education and clash.
Neg Fiat Bad
The negative shouldn’t get fiat:
Best for testing the affirmative – fundamentally questions whether the plan is good or not, rather
than shifting the debate to whether or not there is something better than it
Best for breadth of education – counterplans allow the negative to steal the plan’s offense, shifting
the debate to miniscule net benefits versus the plan as a whole
Critical thinking – forces the teams to weigh large and different scenarios rather than a relatively
unimportant net benefit
Steals aff offense – allows them to nullify our 1AC’s offense by using it as their own
Explodes aff research burden – neg has infinite disads, the aff shouldn’t have to prep for CPs and Ks
either
Err aff on theory – neg gets the block and infinite generics
This is a voting issue for fairness and education – set a precedent against bad practices. Even if you
don’t buy this, you should limit the debate to plan vs. plan.
Multi Actor Fiat Bad
Ground
Not reciprocal – we are stuck with just the USFG, they should be limited to one other actor too.
Education
Infinitely regressive – there are an infinite number of actors which the neg can use in combination.
Unpredictable – because there are so many different actors we can’t predict the various combinations
to research answers to which kills education and destroys clash
Err aff on theory – neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically
picking certain arguments.
Voter for fairness, education, and ground.
50 State Fiat Bad
Education -- Not real world- the 50 states have never cooperated on a single issue in uniformity since
the founding of the U.S.
No lit. - There is no literature for or against all the states cooperating.
Justifies multiactor fiat – 50 actors against one actor can never win. If we target one of the actors the
neg can say the other 49 will check which is key to reciprocity.
Err aff on theory - Err aff on theory – neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by
strategically picking certain arguments.
Voter for education and fairness.
Private Actor Fiat Bad
Strat Skew – Moots the entire 1AC and steals aff ground
Education – shifts the debate away from the resolution, destroying education
Kills in depth topic debate – debates about private actors reduces policy action and debate, which
gets rid of in depth education on the topic.
Utopian Fiat Bad
Bad for education:
Not real world -- By definition, we can never learn about practical policy solutions. While nice to think
about, an imaginary world is ultimately useless.
Education outweighs – Learning about real world is a better internal link into education because it’s
the only bona fide product of debate.
Annihilates Ground -- We can literally never win a debate when the other team can just imagine away
all of life’s problems.
No literature – aff/neg can’t research answers to utopian positions because they simply DON’T EXIST.
Err aff on theory -- neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically
picking certain arguments.
Voter for education, ground, and fairness
Specific CP
Delay CP’s Bad
Kills FairnessGround- steals all aff ground because we can’t read add-ons or make solvency defects to the CP there
is no lit comparing the squo and the future
Future Fiat Bad – It is impossible to predict whether or not it will be possible to do the plan in the
future. Destroys Uniqueness.
Inflates the Net-Benefit- reading a delay CP avoids the link to disads simply by doing it at a later time
The CP is Non-Competitive- The plan and CP create the same end result with no functional
competitiveness and have no textual competitiveness either, stealing our entire AFF, and only adding
a delay
Encourages Cheap Shot Args- The NEG will increasingly run shorter off-case CPs that they only created
to accompany a DA and inflate the net-benefit- which leads to – time skew
Strat Skew- The time it takes to read a Delay CP in the 1NC and the time it takes to answer it with all
newanalytics is hugely disproportionate
Encourages Future Abuse- Every time someone runs a cheating CP it gets a little closer to the AFF’s
plan; don’t let this round set the precedent that it is ok to run a non-competitive CP and get away with
it-kills education
Defense
Perms Don’t Check- Why should the AFF have to win the plan twice? The CP is non-competitive a
perm should always win
NEG Side Bias- They have the whole block to advance their CP, they don’t also need to run a cheating
CP-Err AFF
Delay CPs are a voter for Fairness, Education
Conditions CP’s Bad
Steals the AFF –the neg should not be allowed to take all aff ground
Fairness - It allows the neg to take all of our ground by just attaching a condition and keeps us from
perming. You can win on nothing but an unrelated NB.
Education – It ruins the debate by creating a world where you aren’t debating the best policy
Abusive - We can’t argue every change the Neg can think of.
Predictability- It changes the debate; untopical item doesn’t help with understanding.
Counter Interp: Legit if it they have a comparative solvency advocate
PICs Bad
Bad for education
Unfair: makes the aff debate themselves.
Resolutional shift: concentrates the debate on insignificant aspects of the counterplan
Encourages vague plan writing to avoid PICs.
Ground – explodes neg ground because there is an infinite amount of things that they can pic out of.
Err aff on theory – neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically
picking certain arguments.
Voter for fairness, ground, and education.
Floating PICs Bad
No solvency advocate – kills resolutional education, make them read specific solvency and a plan text.
Education – their advocacy can shift in round which means we can never debate the specifics of the
texts.
Ground
Moving Target – no text means the neg can constantly change their advocacy throughout the debate
which is bad for aff ground because it can render 2AC meaningless by the 2NR.
Unpredictable -- The PIC steals affirmative ground and allows them to solve our affirmative in a 15
second blip. This is totally unpredictable and forces the aff to perm every part of the 2nc to cover
their bases.
Err aff on theory – neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically
picking certain arguments.
Voting issue for fairness, ground, and education.
Agent CP’s Bad
Ground – Forces the aff to debate against itself – a solvency deficit to the counterplan is a solvency
deficit to the plan.
Neg bias – there are tons of actors just within side the federal government, destroys our fed gov key
and affirms the resolution.
Unpredictable – there are literally thousands of actors the neg could choose and there’s no way the
aff could prepare for all of them which kills clash and education.
Err aff on theory -- neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically
picking certain arguments.
Voter for fairness, education and ground.
Consult CP’s Bad
Consult kills education –
It’s infinitely regressive – we can’t predict all the different combinations of actors and policy changes
to the plan which shift the debate from the resolution to irrelevant net benefits and insignificant
policy differences.
Amendments bad – no one can predict what will be changed without specific lit which kills education
and clash as the aff cannot research for answers because they simply don’t exist.
Kills Ground
Time and strat skew – they can steal all the offense from the 1NC by simply proposing that we listen
to some random country’s opinion.
Not textually competitive: The counterplan merely adds the words in consultation with, to the original
plan text. Textual competition is the only non arbitrary default on counterplan debates.
Not functionally competitive: The neg can’t produce evidence that <<insert actor>> would have
specific modifications to our plan. Instead, they rely on moving-target fiat to fill in solvency, links, and
uniqueness which are all core tests of competitiveness. That’s an independent voter for fairness.
Plan Plus: The counterplan is plan plus which justifies aff intrinsic and timeframe perms. This justifies
an aff win because the negative can virtually concede case and just add an extra topical plank.
Err aff on theory – neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically
picking certain arguments.
Voting issue – for ground, education, and fairness
2NC CP’s Bad
Interpretation – the neg may only read new turn, extensions or modules in the 2NC to check back
unpredictable 2AC add-ons. The interp solves their education standards while leaving ground open for
both sides.
Education
Depth over breadth – it’s best to compare policy options in depth because we can learn about the
specific implantation and nuances of the plans and how they work in regards to the resolution.
Ground
Sandbags the 1AR – the neg can just ignore the all the 2AC responses and read new counterplans
which means the 1AR will inevitably get thinned out which gives the neg an easy win in the 2NR.
No more constructives – the aff doesn’t get a 3AC to answer completely new 2NC arguments.
Err aff on theory – neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically
picking certain arguments.
Voter for ground, education and fairness
Lopez CP Bad
Justifies multi-actor fiat— the cp uses multi actors which jacks predictability and allows the neg to
selectively pick actors to out solve the aff.
No literature – there is zero evidence on a Supreme Court ruling to devolve power to the states and
then have complete uniformity. Lit is crucial for predictability and aff offense.
No test case – they can’t fiat a test case occurring otherwise it’s object fiat which is an independent
voter because it means they can essentially fiat anything.
Artificial competition – the counterplan is only artificially competitive by banning the plan, which
destroys fairness and doesn’t test opportunity costs of the plan.
Err aff on theory – neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically
picking certain arguments.
Voter for fairness and ground.
Multi Plank CPs - Bad
Multiplank counterplans are bad and a voting issue for fairness and education:
1.
Offense
1. Explodes Neg Ground – Get the ability to read any number of planks
2.
2. Predictability – we can’t predict all the mechanisms they could use to solve the aff
3.
3. Depth over breadth – they explode the amount of subjects in the debate – depth gives us better
research skills – we have to find a lot evidence and various warrants
4.
4. Time skew- neg can just read the planks and the aff has to come up with answers to each plank in
the 2AC
5.
Defense
1. Multiple CP’s check – they can run all of their CP’s, they just have to be separate
6.
2. Err Aff on theory conditionality and win percentage prove bias
Other Theory
AT: ASPEC
Counter-interpretation: normal means solves issues stemming from agent specification
Solves offense, the negative can read evidence that says the plan will be done in certain way and then
link to it
Normal means solves the Elmore evidence, under normal means policies don’t lack direction or
implementation.
Offense
Forcing specification gives the negative the right to agent and process counterplans. This creates bad,
un-educational debate- there is never any discussion of the aff we just talk about their narrow net
benefit and whether or not the perm solves.
Infinitely regressive- There is no reason why specifying funding or personnel is less relevant than
ASPEC
Encourages over specifying- This kills limits and predictability because there are thousands of case
combinations.
Defense
No Resolution mandate- The resolution says the USFG, it doesn’t mandate that we have to specify a
single branch.
No in round abuse- If you were to run a specific DA link to one agent, we would not no link your disad.
Cross-x checks- You could’ve asked us but you just wanted to run ASPEC
Disclosure checks abuse- They had our plan text before the round to root it out for DA links and CP’s
Wrong remedy- This is an argument why the negative should get their ground- its never a reason to
reject the aff
Functional Competition Good
Education
More real world – congressman fight over implementation, not how the bill is specifically worded
Best policy option – tests a wider variety of solutions to the resolution and different ways to solve
versus small, incremental textual differences.
Ground
Textual comp encourages bad plan writing – they will just make the text vague enough to limit out
textual competition which destroys negative ground.
Any CP would be legit – you can just rephrase the plan text and it would compete the same way.
Err neg on theory -- aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep.
Not a voter - Reject the argument not the team.
Textual Competition Good
Most predictable – plan is the focus of the debate and is the most stable advocacy in the round.
Fairness – functional competition is arbitrary, it can be derived from anything.
Forces better plan writing – better for general education and ground as well as avoiding procedurals
and vagueness arguments
Err neg on theory -- aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep.
Not a voter - Reject the argument not the team.
Textual + Functional Competition Good
Our interpretation is that counterplans have to be both textually and functionally competitive:
2. Defense
a. No strat skew – by being both textual and functionally competitive it competes with the aff in the
best possible way
b. No potential abuse – it is predictable by being both and does not limit aff ground.
3. Offense
a. Textual competition hurts depth- depth vs. breath - lack of depth because the arguments can be
almost anything. Depth is key to education if one wants breadth one can read a newspaper whereas
only debate is capable of allowing for true depth of education.
b. Avoids purely functional competition- This trivializes debate and focuses on other things which are
un-educational.
c. Prevents word PICs-Word PICs Trivializes debate and moves debate away from focus which hurts
education.
d. Allows better Counterplans-Prohibits worst forms of counter plans such as delay conditional and
consultation
e. Less arbitrary-A combination of both textural and functional competition is good because it is more
predictable and easier to debate.
f. Avoids purely textual competition-Helps prevent unpredictability of arguments that could remove a
part of the plan and add in anything. Unpredictability hurts education.
No Alt Text Bad
Ground Time and strategy skew- We don’t know what the alternative actually is until the rebuttals, wasting
our only constructive to create offense against the K.
Moving Target – we’ll never know what the K does until the 2NR which is uniquely abusive because a
stable text is key to 2AC answers and they can just spike out of all our specific alt turns. This is an
independent voting issue.
Education – We can’t learn about the specific alternatives to plan action if there is no text to compare
to.
Can’t prove competitiveness- We don’t know what we can perm if there’s no text, and they’ll just
change their alt accordingly
Reciprocity – if we should have to defend a stable text, so should they.
Err aff on theory -- neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically
picking certain arguments.
Voter for education, ground, and competitive equity.
No Solvency Advocate Bad
Destroys education
Unpredictable texts – without a solvency advocate, the neg can fiat anything which kills real world
education because they can just create an artificial counterplan which is bad for debate because they
fiat competitiveness.
Not real world – the cp would never be presented before congress if no one agreed it was a good idea.
Ground –
Moving target – without a stable plan text the neg can always shift advocacies by the 2NR which kills
aff strategy from the 2AC.
Steals aff answers – we can’t indict their solvency evidence because there is none specific to their
counterplan which is key to impact calc and determining whether the counterplan solves.
Not reciprocal – aff is forced to present a plan steeped in the literature base of the resolution. Not
forcing the neg to present a counterplan with a solvency advocate is unfair to the aff.
Err aff on theory – neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically
picking certain arguments.
Voter for fairness, education, and ground.
Vagueness Good
No link -- The plan is not vague – ___________________
Increases education –
Breadth over depth -- it forces a discussion about more of the resolution which is the best way to
evaluate the topic because we have a wider grasp of poverty and applicable social services.
Increases neg ground – A vague plan allows the neg to run more disads or kritiks because we link to
more arguments and we won’t spike out of their specific links.
C-x checks – you had three minutes to clarify anything you didn’t understand after the 1AC, it’s not
our fault you think we’re vague.
Not a bill – it is just a plan text with resolved intent, we don’t have to specify ever minute detail.
Err neg on theory -- aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep.
Not a voter - Reject the argument not the team.
Perms
Advocating Perms Good
Doesn’t steal ground - The neg can still win that the aff is a bad idea by weighing the DA’s against the
perm.
Reciprocal – the neg gets to advocate the counterplan, we should be able to advocate the perm. They
can have the status quo and the counterplan, we can have the perm or the plan.
Err aff on theory -- neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically
picking certain arguments
Not a voting issue – reject the argument and not the team.
Intrinsic Perms Good
[Explain why your perm isn’t intrinsic]
Education
Key to finding best policy option – most real world. Real policy makers wouldn’t exclude a potential
solution if it wasn’t in the original bill.
Key to testing the competitiveness of the disad/kritik
Ground – each new step is more ground for the negative to read offense against us.
Err aff on theory -- neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically
picking certain arguments
Not a voter – reject the argument not the team
Intrinsic DA Perms Good
Interpretation: the neg only gets disadvantages that are intrinsic to the aff
Doesn’t kill disads – only non-competitive disads which are not opportunity costs to the plan can be
permed
Plan is still unconditional – the perm is just a test of competition as long as the aff does not sever
Not extra T – if the best course of action includes the aff then it means we the aff still wins
Checks infinite advantage counterplans
Err aff on theory – neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically
picking certain arguments.
Not a voter – reject the argument not the team
Multiple Perms Good
Just a test of competition – the perm exists to see if the counterplan or kritik is competitive. If it still
triggers the net benefit or the counterplan is mutually exclusive, then we lose argument. End of story.
Breadth over depth – multiple perms allows us to check the competitiveness of the k/cp under a
multitude of circumstances which is key to understanding various solutions and is key to aff ground.
Err neg on theory -- aff gets first and last speech and unlimited prep.
Not a voter - Reject the argument not the team.
Insert severance perms good / intrinsic perms theory.
Perf Con Bad
Kills education – forces us to debate ourselves with contradictory answers
Strategy skew – neg can just kick one argument and cross apply our answers to the other flow.
Negation theory bad – justifies affirmation theory so that we can just find a harm in the status quo
and vote aff on presumption.
Voter for education and ground.
Severance Perms Good
[Explain why your perm isn’t severance]
Severance perms are a still a test of competitiveness and not an advocacy of the affirmative.
Key to aff ground – all perms other than “do both” would be severance and that’s unfair to the aff
because they’re key to checking back unpredictable cp’s/k’s.
They’re reciprocal – neg gets to run pics, severance perms are key to checking this.
Err aff on theory -- neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically
picking certain arguments.
Not a voter – reject the argument and not the team
Timeframe Perm Good
Timeframe-is good because it is for critical thinking, allows stragetic thinking for the neg and aff good
for education
Predictable-there are only two ways to enact the timeframe perm, there is not strat screw
Real world- policymakers prioritize policies by importance
Research-good for education because it forces the neg to do better research toward defeating a
variety of perms