Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
Theory
Neg Theory:
Topicality Theory
Competing Interps Good ......................................................................................................................................... 2
CP Theory
Condo Good ............................................................................................................................................................ 3
Dispo Good ............................................................................................................................................................. 4
Agent CP Good ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
Condition CP Good ................................................................................................................................................. 6
International Actor CP Good .................................................................................................................................. 7
Multi Actor CP Good .............................................................................................................................................. 8
States CP Good ....................................................................................................................................................... 9
Topical CP Good................................................................................................................................................... 10
PICs Good ............................................................................................................................................................. 11
Disad Theory
Fiat T/O Politics (2n) ............................................................................................................................................ 12
Intrinsicness Good ................................................................................................................................................ 13
Perm Theory
Intrinsic Perms Bad ............................................................................................................................................... 14
Multiple Perms Bad .............................................................................................................................................. 15
Severance Perms Bad ............................................................................................................................................ 16
Aff Theory:
Topicality Theory
Reasonability Good ............................................................................................................................................... 17
CP Theory
Condo Bad ............................................................................................................................................................ 18
Dispo Bad.............................................................................................................................................................. 19
Agent CP Bad ....................................................................................................................................................... 20
Condition CP Bad ................................................................................................................................................. 21
International Actor CP Bad ................................................................................................................................... 22
Multi-Actor CP Bad .............................................................................................................................................. 23
States CP Bad ........................................................................................................................................................ 24
Topical CP Bad ..................................................................................................................................................... 25
PICs Bad ............................................................................................................................................................... 26
Disad Theory
Fiat T/O Politics (2a) ............................................................................................................................................ 27
Intrinsicness Bad ................................................................................................................................................... 28
Perm Theory
Intrinsic Perms Good ............................................................................................................................................ 29
Multiple Perms Good ............................................................................................................................................ 30
Severance Perms Good ......................................................................................................................................... 31
1
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
Competing Interps Good
Competing Interpretations good:
1. Reasonability causes infinite regress
2. Inevitable – The judge needs to decide what the resolution means. Competing interpretations are the
only objective way to make a decision of that.
A plan must be completely topical. Reasonability is bad because:
3. Bad Debate- Aff only has to prove that a small part of the aff is topical and this makes the debate
unsubstantial, uneventful, and boring
4. Research burden- If the affs are not limited, it makes the neg research impossibly never ending
5. Reasonability is a slippery slop- we would just debate what is and isn’t reasonable because there is
no bright line. T is the only absolute burden left.
6. It is impossible to decide what is and what isn’t.
7. Leads to extra-topical affirmatives- If an aff only has to be reasonably topical, everyone would
make their aff extra T to spike out of disads
8. Judge's Intervention- The judge would have to vote for reasonability through biased things such as
experience and mindset. This makes debate unpredictable, discouraging, and uninteresting
2
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
Condo Good
Conditionality is good
Offense:
1. Counter interpretation- the negative is allowed to have competitive policy options. This is better for
debate because this allows for most in-depth debate on the best policy option while increasing
affirmative strategy and education, this solves all their offense.
2. Structural bias- the aff gets the 1st and last speech, infinite preptime, and get to choose the focus on
the debate, its only fair we get one conditional cp.
3. Breadth is better than depth- with such a massive resolution to garner the most education its key to
look at a cornucopia of different arguments
4. Conditionality increases aff strategic thinking by reinforcing their allocations of time in the 2ac for
each argument
5.
Defense:
6. 2NR checks for not going for contradictory args
7. All arguments are conditional in debate
8. 2ac add-ons and permutations check. They create reciprocity, the aff is able to test CP in multiple
ways.
9. Conditionality is not a voting issue. At worst reject the argument, not the team.
3
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
Dispo Good
Offense
1.
2.
3.
Defense
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
It increases topic specific education, if we are talking about the plan and a CP we will learn
about it very quickly
It increases critical thinking- with us being able to kick the CP under certain conditions, if we
do kick it, the aff will have to respond and adapt to the situation
It is most real world- if something that you are advocating you find out is a bad idea, you
should be able to abandon the bad policy and you should never have to chose a worse option
than the status quo
They can chose if we can kick it or not, if they dont make perms or read dispo bad we are stuck
with it. It is up to them to chose what we do.
Dispo is the same as a DA- if they straight turn it we are stuck with it. it is also just like an
advantage, the aff can kick it as long as it wasnt straight turned
time skew is inevitable- it is time skew if one person is faster than the other. And it is time skew
if we kick out of a non- straight turned DA. It will happen in every round
strat skew is inevetable- strategy and time skew are linked. If one team reads faster then the
other team must change their strategy, and this is also inevitable
Theory is not a voter for fairness, reject the argument not the team
4
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
Agent CP Good
Agent theory counterplans legitimate because
1. Testing the USFG- the USFG is a major part of the aff, and they should be prepared to have each
part of their AFF tested , if they can’t defend one part of their plan, then that means that the haven’t
researched sufficiently which is bad for education and fairness
2. Key to real world education- because in the real world, the actor is a major part of policy
discussion, this is key to education
3. Neg ground- the AFF speaks first and last, and if the aff keeps limiting what we can talk about, we
eventually will only have the unconditional CP and the DA- that’s bad for debate
4. Grounded in literature- the components of the CP have a solvency advocate so that’s key to
education
5. AT: Topic rotation- cross-apply that testing the USFG is an important part of every aff and they
should be prepared to defend it
6. AT: Small details- the actor isn’t a small detail, if the actor were a small detail, then they should be
able to defend it
7. AT: Unfair research burden- the neg already has to research an infinite amount of different plans
and be prepared to debate each one, this evens things out
8. AT: Breadth over depth- even if we are learning a lot about a little, that still means that we’re
learning, and breadth makes the debater more well rounded in his knowledge.
5
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
Condition CP Good
Offense:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Defense:
5.
6.
7.
8.
Aff bias- they get the first and last speech
Key to neg ground- only generic counter plans are allowed under the aff’s interpretation of
what’s fair
Helps education- makes the topic broader by exploring benefits from other actors that the aff
plan ignores
More real world- plans in the U.S have global affects, conditioning other actors (other countries)
is part of decision making in congress
Fiat is used to test the affs plan, it forces them to justify their plan and why its better by
disproving the condition
Fiat focuses the debate on the actions of both plans
Doesn’t hurt timeframe- timeframe is only relevant to the impacts of the plan and counter plan,
each side can still win on timeframe
Educational- the counter plan allows us to learn about outside actors and the process and
interaction of the condition of the plan
6
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
International Actor CP Good
1. International actor good- breadth is better than depth allowing for multiple countries to be debated
allows for better education because we learn about the possibility of different countries advocating the
plan, and helps in the search for the best policy option. This also helps the primary purpose of the
negative because it allows us to test the aff in as many ways as possible.
2. International actors test the resolution- the aff has to defend their interpretation of the resolution
3. Reciprocal- the entire Federal Government, which is HUGE, is what the aff is using, the Neg using
international actors levels the ground because there are so many subcategories that are part of the
government.
4. It checks potential abuse- the aff gets infinite prep, the first and last speech, and decide what the topic is
going to be
5. Negation theory- we are doing what any good policy team would, challenge the plan
6. No voter-reject the argument not the team
7. Education
 Increases the education of the debate by making it more of a policy debate
 Increases the research incentive to learn more about the countries around the world
 Increases the ground so were not debating the same thing over and over again and were getting a better
well rounded debate experience
7
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
Multi Actor CP Good
1.
2.
Competitiveness checks- if the counterplan is do the plan plus another actor there is no reason not to perm it.
No Voting Issue because
o Education- Multi Actor Counterplans include a broad research base for both teams as the neg has to research
solvency cards for actors doing the plan as well. There is no side bias it makes the debate more interesting and
requires more preparation.
o Fairness- The debate is on even grounds the neg still has to defend its advocacy even with solvency cards. If the
cards aren’t specific it’s the aff the job to point that out it is a BS counterplan if it actually is.
o At worse reject the argument not the team.
8
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
States CP Good
1. States can definitely do the CP in a uniform action
2. The CP is not a utopia - states have been implementing actions without federal government
approval for years - all they must do this time is do the CP uniformly
3. Solvency advocated is an arbitrary standard and the aff doesn’t meet it either – no aff has a
solvency advocate for every single component of the aff and its implementation
4. The CP is reciprocal - the aff gets the federal government to do the CP at a national scale therefore
it’s the same as getting the neg to let all 50 states do the CP. Also, the aff requires all 3 branches of
the USFG plus multiple actors for implementation.
5. Provides predictable neg ground - the only part of the resolution the aff is guaranteed to use is the
USFG and it’s key to test the desirability of federal action
6. It's good for education - learning the balance between state and federal action is important
7. It's uniquely good - because social services have traditionally fallen under control of the states
9
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
Topical CP Good
Offense:
1. Education- We narrow the debate instead of simply arguing about the Resolution vs. Status Quo
forcing in-depth education.
2. Real World- Key to create the best policy option. Ground limitations hurt this ability.
3. Encourages research- Forces teams to explore all possibilities within the resolution instead of just
choosing one aff.
4. Neg flex- key to test every part of the Aff plan. The resolution is aff biased, literature base is against
the Status Quo, counterplan needs to extend to the resolution.
Defense:
5. No offense limit- The resolution allows a plethora of distinct affirmatives, they can still make
offensive arguments.
6. Counter Interpretation- the neg gets to defend the Status Quo or one competitive policy option.
Ground is irrelevant, they simply have to find an aff that has the best mutually exclusive policy
option.
7. Topic specific education- instead of simply affirming the resolution, we will explore the specific
implementation mechanism which creates more education about the topic.
8. No research burden- All the core D.A’s will link to the Counterplan anyways, they just have to
defend their plan’s mechanism.
10
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
PICs Good
1. Encourages research on both sides- the aff has to research topic specific things while the neg has to
research offcase
2. Key to ground because it forces the aff to defend the entirety of the plan
3. Depth is better than breadth because it allows us to focus on one topic and learn a lot about it instead
of barely learning anything about multiple topics
4. Most real world- policy makers make changes and we should be allowed
5. Checks extra topicality – affs must claim advantages intrinsic to their plan to avoid PICs which lead to
better education
6. No voter- PICs are fair
11
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
Fiat T/O Politics (2n)
Defense
1. The Should means Federal Action – the resolution’s “should” means that the plan will be
considered as part of fiat
2. Backlash – Even if there is no controversy through the regular process that a bill goes through
Congress; a backlash of the action will still be felt by the President or the actor
Offense
3. Durable Fiat Illigit – Saying that the plan cannot be affected by anything prevents the negative
from making many arguments such as rollbacks or being struck down by the Courts. It also prevents
us from making Case Turns.
4. Fiat Abuse – Allowing fiat to be used to avoid politics DAs means that the Affirmative can evade
ALL negative arguments. They could say Fiat means the Plan won’t lead to socialism since it won’t
be perceived or that it avoids other DAs since the WTO won’t perceive it
5. Education – Allowing fiat to take out the link would completely kill all Politics DAs which are a
key part of policy debate education. Through debates over politics, we learn how our country
operates and it trains us to become future policymakers.
6. Silver Bullet – Using Fiat in the Aff’s interpretation would kill Politics DAs. If key negative ground
is restricted, it will be license for the Aff to get rid of other negation tactics like Kritiks,
Counterplans, and other Disads.
Sustain the Link, Fiat doesn’t take it out.
12
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
Intrinsicness Good
The Disads not intrinsic we can do the plan and _________
1. The congressional actions are distinct and separate means we can do both
2. The Politics disad is bad for debate it discourages topic specific research because you are
researching the passage of bills outside of the topic area.
3. We’re aff we get to define the actions upon passage and then we can debate the results of those
actions
13
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
Intrinsic Perms Bad
Intrinsic Perms are Bad
1.
Predictability- If the aff can just add something new in the perm, we can never be prepared to
debate it which increases our research burden and increases aff win percentages dramatically
2.
Moving Target- Intrinsic Perms allow the Aff to avoid disads and kritiks which is unfair
3.
Destroys Education- Fiating random things a permutation forces breath over depth and prevents
both sides from having an in-depth discussion
4.
Voting Issue for Fairness and Education
14
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
Multiple Perms Bad
1. Time skew- aff can read a bunch of perms in a short time while the neg has to explain them, taking away
from our block time
2. Hurts predictability- unpredictible because the aff can have multiple worlds and then kick them all and
just go for one at the end of the round
3. Takes away from in-depth education- the aff can just make 5 perms on counterplans which gets them
out of links to disads
4. Hurts education- perms puts an impossible research burden on neg, which makes them less motivated to
research, and learn
5. Theory is a voter for education and fairness
15
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
Severance Perms Bad
Severance Perms are Bad1.
Time and Strategy Skew- the 2NC is forced to defend against a constantly changing world- the
ability to kick a portion of their aff destroys our strategic choices and time management and
prevents any clash which destroys education.
2.
Decreases critical thinking and argumentative responsibility, because it allows the affirmative
to drop their plan at any point without repercussion.
3.
Moving Target- Severance perms allow the aff to kick out of Disads and the Counterplans net
benefits which is unfair
4.
Voting Issue for Fairness and Education
16
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
Reasonability Good
Reasonability Good:
1. Good is good enough- Defense has to be enough. It is impossible for the aff to generate offense so it
should not be evaluated like a DA or CP.
2. It’s inevitable – Even under competing interpretations, the judge has to still vote under a reasonably
right decision.
Competing interpretations bad:
3. Allows for crazy arguments- This would rid of good literature and make the most limiting
interpretations viable. Allowing for any unpredictable argument is unfair because the aff is unable to
meet every random interpretation they neg makes
4. Infinitely regressive – Arguing could just continue back on forth over the limits- this has a small
impact in the debate
17
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
Condo Bad
Our interpretation is that the negative is limited to one dispositional advocacy as well as the status
quo.
1. strategy skew- neg is allowed to make numerous contradictory args that they can kick one side at any
time and garner our offense as theirs, they must defend the args since the aff is limited to one advocacy
2. predictability- its an unfair burden to the affirmative because we are forced to predict what the 2nr is
going for
3. topic specific education- condo inventivices the neg to have generic strategies in the 1nc never allowing
for in depth debate
4. disincentivices research if the neg knows they can kick out of it then they wont research in depth
5. condo is a voting issue for fairness and education in debate
18
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
Dispo Bad
1.
2.
3.
4.
Dispositionality is the same as conditionality but with a catch, the neg can determine when
and under what conditions they can kick the CP, there are no set rules
Strat skew-when they read a dispo CP it advocates the aff not reading any defense like perms, it
makes the CP impossible for the aff to put any good arguments on without the neg kicking it.
Time skew- the aff as to spend alot of time on the CP and the neg can just kick it when ever they
want to, and we have wasted all of the time
Dispo is a voter for fairness
19
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
Agent CP Bad
Agent counter plans are bad, and a voting issue because they destroy education and fairness, if you don’t
make theory a voting issue, that means you make it impossible for the Aff to call shenanigans on the neg
ruining this debate
1. Topic Rotation – if we spend each year talking about the same thing, topic rotation is not worth it,
topic rotation is key to education
2. Small details- Agent counterplans force the debate subject into small details that don’t matter in the
grand scheme of things, this hurts education because if we spend all of our time talking about
Swaziland solving something, we spend no time learning about the topic, that murders the original
intent of debate
3. AFF Ground- The negative side already has the block and the utopia of the K, agent counterplans
kill aff ground by forcing the Aff to generate offense against itself if it wants any offense at all, and
this hurts fairness because if the Aff can’t generate offense, there is no way for them to win, and no
one would ever want to be Aff
4. Unfair Research Burden- If the neg tries to throw a million different actors at us, we have to
research every imaginable actor there is if we want to win, this is key to education, because if you
spend all of your time researching irrelevant Aff answers to Agent CPs, you won’t have time to learn
anything about the neg
5. Breadth over depth- Agent CPs make so that we research a wide array of arguments instead of
going in depth, and this is key to education, because if you just wanted to learn a little bit about a
bunch of things, you could just surf Wikipedia all day and night
20
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
Condition CP Bad
1.
2.
3.
The neg has abuses fiat- they can fiat the condition of the counter plan and the fiat the plan
itself
Hurts timeframe debate- the negative doesn’t have to defend timeframe because they get to
have the condition of the counter plan, they get to win that delaying their plan is good
Hurts education- the neg concedes that the entirety of the aff plan is good, they only add the
condition of their plan. This hurts topic education on the debate
21
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
International Actor CP Bad
1. Not reciprocal- we only get the USFG because of the resolution, and the neg is allowed the entire
world. They should be restricted to the resolution like we are
2. The neg is able to choose out of 193 countries, we don’t know which one while we only have one
central actor
3. The research burden is HUGE, there is so much that we would have the time to even scratch the
surface, it disincentives us to research. Its also an unfair research burden to the aff
4. Predictability- the aff can’t predict what the neg will say, while the neg can predict what the aff can
say because of the resolution. This decreases the amount of real policy debating that can go on, we
will be too caught up in trying to answer to absurd international actor and not focused on the actual
debate.
5. Education
 Clash- this decreases the amount of clash that can go on in the round. If we have no idea what we are
talking about, then we can’t be making good educational arguments. This hurts the overall education
of the debate
 Ground- there is an unfair ground advantage given to the neg. the amount of c/p’s they could run is
limitless. Depth before breadth
 Limits- we need to work off of the resolution so that there are reasonable limits that everyone is
working under. It creates a real policy debate.
6. Voter for education
22
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
Multi-Actor CP Bad
1. Infinitely Regressive- They could find out any combination of actors possible. There is no way the
aff can cover everything this destroys fairness.
2. Lit Check- Not much evidence says a combination of two actors doesn’t solve for a plan makes the
research burden for the Aff impossible. – Also completely destroys fairness
3. Aff only gets to fiat one actor whilst the counterplan gets to advocate several actors- Destroys
Aff ground. The Aff has to say the USFG can pass the plan as the resolution dictates however, the neg
can fiat All the countries in the world pass the plan ad have one person say it would work and that
could totally undermines the aff. This hurts Education.
4. Voting Issue Education- Multi-Actor Counterplans are super abusive because fiat for multiple advocacies is
completely abusive, we can’t assume that everyone could do things at the same time because it’s not
real world. Counterplan is abusive.
 Fairness- Explodes the research burden for the aff making them research solvency deficits for the
USFG and all other possible Actors, which is impossible for the Aff to do. This explodes Neg ground
because they could make any counterplan and the aff couldn’t make any sufficient defense against it
because it warrants all the countries doing something. They also could get someone to say that all
countires working together solves World Peace. The aff couldn’t Counter this.
23
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
States CP Bad
1. States set up a useless decision-making model – there is no organization that is in a position to
choose between the plan and CP. This kills education. (Fact that states disprove doesn’t mean that
the fed government can’t do it)
2. The CP is a utopia – this has never EVER happened and NEVER will and there is zero literature to
respond to what the neg is advocating
3. The neg doesn’t have a solvency advocate (one way to show that CP distort literature base and
there is clash) – arbitrary arg
4. It is NOT reciprocal – everything has to be EQUAL (the federal government is one agent
according to literature) the neg gets 50 agents not counting territories (if neg isn’t close to aff then
aff can never be able to prove that their policy is the best policy option)
24
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
Topical CP Bad
1. Offense limit-Aff can’t make offense against the CP, kills solvency.
2. Steals ground- Neg already gets an infinite number of policy options and solvency advocates, the Aff is
limited to the resolution
3. Kills topic specific education- If both teams affirm the resolution, we don’t debate about intricacies of
the topic.
4. Research Burden- The neg gets to take a position for both for/against the resolution, kills predictability
and creates unfair burden.
This is a voting issue for fairness and education
25
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
PICs Bad
1. Creates huge aff research burden- the neg can literally PIC out of any word making the aff have to
research all of them
2. Kills aff ground because the neg access the advantages of the aff through the CP
3. Kills breadth because it only focuses on one topic
Voting issue for fairness in the round
26
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
Fiat T/O Politics (2a)
7. ‘Should’ in the Resolution – The ‘Should’ in the resolution means that as soon as the judge votes
for the Affirmative team the plan is passed.
8. Durable Fiat – Fiat means that right as the plan happens; it exists continuously and is not able to be
removed or rolled back. Thus, no political action can affect it.
9. No Perception – The plan exists without going through any organ of the federal government
directly. This prevents any perception of the plan which prevents any controversy in its passage.
This means Political Capital Links, Agenda links, Riders, etc., don’t apply.
10. This means Fiat Takes Out the Link to Politics
27
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
Intrinsicness Bad
Intrinsicness is bad, you can’t perm the disad
Offense
1.
2.
3.
Defense
4.
5.
Politics disads are good we get to learn about the political process of passing the bill and
how its perceived in the world this is key to real world policy making education and it
allows us to check the actor, without the politics disad we could not see the implications
of the USFG passing the plan
It makes them extra topical by adding a plank to the plan that is not resolutional they no
longer just gain impacts off of topical action this is unfair to the negative
It allows them to always perm a disadvantage. We can never get offense off of the
affirmative this hurts neg ground
Just because actions are distinct doesn’t justify doing them together
As the aff you need to define the actions of the plan as of the 1ac doing otherwise makes
you a moving target which is unfair
28
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
Intrinsic Perms Good
They can’t just say this permutation is intrinsic by reading a block. They must explain HOW this
perm is intrinsic for them to win this argument
Offense
1.
2.
3.
Defense
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Increases Education- Intrinsic Perms force both sides to debate issues on the spot- that
increases education
Most Real World- In Congress bills are always amended- Debate trains us to be effective policy
makers
Reciprocity- The Neg is forced to be able to adapt and think about important issues in the round,
just like the Aff has to adjust to the Neg’s arguments to the 2AC- this is key to balance the
debate.
Not a Moving Target- Adding a small thing to a permutation doesn’t dramatically change the
scope of the debate or create a huge research burden
Neg Block Checks Abuse- They have 13 minutes in the block to answer the permutation
effectively without running theory
We have to defend the plan against counterplans, kritiks, and disads—intrinsicness allows us to
find the best policy option
Time and Strategy Skews are Inevitable- teams will always be faster and smarter than othersintrinsicness allows us to have more clash and increase challenges for both sides
The Neg gets higher win percentages, 13 minutes of speech time, and has more prep time
going into the 2NR- intrinsicness is key to competitive equity
At worse, reject the argument not the team- This is just a test for competitiveness, don’t vote
us down on a bad perm
29
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
Multiple Perms Good
1. Fairness- multiple perms check the counterplan to make sure it competes with the plan and allows the aff
to answer unpredictable counterplans
2. Education- key to education because you can go more in-depth on the counterplan and defend why it’s
good and the neg can learn more from the round
3. Key to clash- perms create clash on arguments which increases education and makes for a better debate
4. Theory shouldn’t be a voter
30
Theory
ENDI 4-Week
EMORY
HLM
Severance Perms Good
They can’t just say this permutation is severance by reading a block. They must explain HOW this perm is
severance for them to win this argument
Offense
1.
2.
3.
Defense
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Increases Education- Severance Perms increase in depth education- we get rid of the
unimportant factors of the debate and focus on the critical issues.
Most Real World- Congress is allowed to remove certain sections from bills- Debate trains us to
be effective policy makers.
Reciprocity- The Neg is forced to be able to adapt and think about important issues in the round,
just like the Aff has to adjust to the Neg’s arguments to the 2AC- this is key to balance the
debate
Neg Block Checks Abuse- They have 13 minutes in the block to answer the permutation
effectively without running theory
Conditionality Justifies Severance- The neg can kick out of their entire plan or entire disad,
severance is the only way to keep debate fair and competitive
We have to defend the plan against counterplans, kritiks, and disads- severance allows us to find
the best policy option
Time and Strategy Skews are Inevitable- teams will always be faster and smarter than othersseverance allows us to have more clash and increase challenges for both sides
The Neg gets higher win percentages, 13 minutes of speech time, and has more prep time
going into the 2NR- severance is key to competitive equity
At worse, reject the argument not the team- This is just a test for competitiveness, don’t vote
us down on a bad perm
31