NDI 2013
Theory
Sophs
COPT lab
Conditionality Bad - 2AC
Conditionality is bad---voting issue
a) Not reciprocal --- the aff has to stick with their advocacy throughout the entire
debate - the neg should be held to that same standard - key to fairness
b) 2AC strategy skew - conditional advocacies create an unfair world for the 2AC - DAs
that are straight-turned can not be kicked - a 2AC should be rewarded for an offensive
2AC that the Negative can't just wish away
c) Advocacy skills---kicking CPs doesn’t force the negative to advocate their
arguments---destroys real world advocacy skills in seeing an argument from beginning
to end
d) Time skew--- Conditional advocacies skew the 2AC time allocation - the 2AC should
not have to answer all positions in the world of the status quo and the world of the
CP.
NDI 2013
Theory
Sophs
COPT lab
Conditionality Good
Conditionality is good--Counter-Interpretation ---the negative gets one conditional CP and one conditional K
alt
Offense--a) Negation Theory balances side bias--aff get inherent advantages like 1st and last
speech and infinite prep---condo is key to balance those advantages---key to
reciprocity
b) Increases Aff critical thinking---the aff learns to pick their strongest arguments in
the 2AC from each possible angle - narrowing down to one argument at the end of
the debate gives us more in-depth education on those arguments
c) Increases Neg critical thinking - allowing the Negative the opportunity to choose
between the status quo and the advocacy as the debate progresses increases decisionmaking skills and forces the weighing of strategic option as the arguments are
developed - leads to more educated debaters and better thinkers
Defense
a) All arguments are conditional - the Affirmative can kick advantages, Topicality does
not have to be in the 2NR - CPs are just one of the possible negative tests of the
Affirmative advocacy
b) Time skew inevitable---some teams are just faster than others, and condo CPs
aren’t any different than not going for topicality in the block or 2NR
c) Reject the arg, not the team
NDI 2013
Theory
Sophs
COPT lab
International Fiat Bad - 2AC
International fiat bad---voting issue
a) Not reciprocal---the aff gets one actor---the USFG---but the neg gets an almost
infinite amount if they can select a country, combination of countries, or international
organizations - debate should have a fair playing field
b) Poor topic education --- allowing the Negative to choose from a close to infinite
number of actors focuses the debate on shallow actor claims instead of the action to
Latin American - depth comes before breadth for education
c) Not real world---the judge is a USFG policy maker---only has the jurisdiction to
decide whether the USFG should or shouldn’t do the plan - a policy-maker does not
have the ability to choose another actor to do his/her action
d) Skews the 2AC - it is impossible for the 2AC to be able to generate offense against
every potential international actor. This CP allows for an unfair research burden for
the Aff.
NDI 2013
Theory
Sophs
COPT lab
International Fiat Good
International fiat is good--C/I---the negative gets one cohesive actor that currently engages the affirmative’s
country in the status quo - solves your predictability claims
Offense:
a) Increases education---gives us foreign policy education about other international
actors within the literature base - also allows us to learn more about the
governmental workings of foreign governments
b) Key test of USFG in the resolution - key to reciprocity due to inherent aff
advantages like first and last speech
c) Increases Critical thinking---forcing the Aff to have US key warrants make for better,
more in-depth debates - narrows down the field of potential topic Affs and forces the
debate to be about a clash of actor comparisons
Defense:
a) Real world is arbitrary ---the judge doesn’t have to be a USFG lawmaker---they just
need to decide what the best option is - a decision-maker can always say it is best if
someone else does the decision
b) Search for the best policy option - debate is about clash over the best policy option
for a decision-maker. That search gets gutted if we put artificial constraints on it, such
as not testing the actor.
b) Reject the arg, not the team-- at worst, the CP is a test of the Affirmative and is not
a reason to reject the team. If the CP is considered unfair, reject the argument, not
the team.
NDI 2013
Theory
Sophs
COPT lab
Consult CPs Bad - 2AC
Consultation CPs are bad---voting issue
a) Skews 2AC offense ---the CP is a moving target because they can claim a minor
change to the plan after the consultation - impossible for the Affs to predict the
changes to generate offense against the CP - minor modifications justifies Perm: Do
the plan and consult on enforcement so the advocacy is stable.
b) Research burden - consultation CPs justify consulting an infinite number of actors,
which is also unpredictable - makes it impossible for the Aff to research offense
against each possible actor or combination of actors
c) You stole all of our Aff ---consult CPs are plan encompassing CPs, which destroy
fairness because the aff should have the right to leverage parts of the plan against the
CP
c) Artificially competitive---competing off of immediacy and certainty isn’t really
competition- the Negative created a world to force a net-benefit - they redefined fiat - CP is competitively just plan plus - justifies Perm: Do the CP
NDI 2013
Theory
Sophs
COPT lab
Consultation CPs Good
Consultation CPs are good:
Counter-interpretation - the negative gets one process CP grounded in the literature
Offense:
a) Increases education on foreign affairs --debating the consultation CP increases
education related to the topic, such as what other countries think about economic
engagement with Latin America - it is one of the only true advocacy tests where we
learn about foreign government interactions
b) Real world---when policymakers consider a plan, they make sure that actors that
are involved are considered before it is implemented - enhances our learning about
real-world decision-making
c) Search for the best policy option - policy debate is about the in-depth search of the
best policy option - we will win the CP competes due to certainty and immediacy examining the process of the policy options are key to that search
Defense:
a) Lit checks abuse---the fact that the CP is grounded in the topic literature mitigates
all of their offense on predictability
b) The CP is competitive---it competes off of certainty and immediacy, as well as
procedurally, because in the process of consultation, parts of the plan are changed
c) Reject the arg, not the team